Some thoughts for contemplation:
- I dislike people in general (my favorite quote currently being, "People are just garbage"), even though I often wish otherwise. I agree with Epicurus, Seneca and the Buddha about the benefits of associating with small, like-minded communities rather than with the general population. At the very least, I find this idea to be practical considering that people are so variegated when it comes to beliefs, personalitites, likes and dislikes, etc. I also agree with Seneca that we should associate with people who are likely to improve us in some way and welcome those whom we are capable of improving (Letter 7). As with Seneca, albeit under different circumstances, I have found myself to become crueller and less humane after prolonged contact with human beings (Letter 7). We can be terribly cruel, selfish and stupid.
- Honesty is the most important virtue because it is through being honest that we are able to truly grow emotionally, spiritually, etc. When we are open to being wrong, to making mistakes, to new ideas, etc., we gain knowledge, real knowledge. We learn more from our mistakes than we do from anything else. I hear that is why hospitals ask potential brain surgeons questions like "Have you ever made a mistake" and "If so, what would you do differently next time" to determine who would make a good surgeon and who would not. It is also through honesty that we can show the world our commitment to the truth, whether relative or ultimate. It is interesting to note that in all of the past-life stories of the Buddha, which are essentially morality tales that detail the Buddha's quest for enlightenment during preceding lives, the precept against lying is the only precept he never broke. In addition, he once said to his son, Rahula, "… when anyone feels no shame in telling a deliberate lie, there is no evil, I tell you, he will not do" (MN 61).
- Even though I have no objective basis for it, ethics are very important to me. Perhaps this is because this is one of the areas where I have some semblance of control. It is one of the places where I can make a distinction between myself and the rest of society (which, from personal observation, I have little regard for), a place where I can define my individual identity in a relatively positive way.
- Happiness and freedom from pain are major motivating factors in life. I agree with the Stoics, as well as the Buddha, that people act in ways that are harmful to themselves, to others or to both out of ignorance, i.e., if they understood the nature of happiness, of the mind itself, they would never willingly act against their own happiness nor the happiness of others. Why? I would say that one reason is that we are "open-systems," and that cause and effect works both ways. Perhaps that is the idea behind kamma, the Golden Rule, the Three-fold Law, etc.
- I wonder: Are we solitary creatures who want to be social or social creatures who want to be solitary? Both? Neither? Perhaps refer to Epicurus again: Social within the proper context. This reminds me of two things I thought about just recently: (i) It seems that as travellers in life we are by nature of being "individuals" isolated from one another; yet in as much as we are able to accompany one another through our solitary journeys we can share little pieces of ourselves with each other via bonds that cannot easily be put into words. (ii) Is there something underlying phenomena, something that threads together events in an unseen way, e.g., the Stoic idea of universal reason or logos, the Buddhist idea of kamma, etc.? Perhaps life is nothing but a random series of happenstances; and yet again, perhaps not.
- Fact of nature: All living beings, all living organisms without exception, must consume/feed in order to survive. Feeding is natural; however, my ethical standards apply to all living creatures. Why? Perhaps because I see my desires for happiness and freedom from pain in all living creatures. If I do not respect that in them, how can I ever expect the same? This is especially true regarding human beings. Here I agree with the Buddha that, besides some rare and special cases, there is no one that is as dear to us as ourselves, that all beings essentially want to be happy in their own way (according to their specific capacities), and that it is a fairly decent and logical reason to desire their happiness as well as my own (SN 3.8). Why? If my happiness comes at the expense of their happiness, then they will do everything in their power to upset that happiness. Conversely, if they were to infringe upon mine, would it not follow that I would likewise do everything in my power to upset theirs? It seems like a vicious circle to me. Is this the rationale behind the Stoic logos? Maybe not, but something to keep in mind.
- Religion is, among other things, a creative expression of our search for happiness, meaning and truth. I have heard people express their desire to "kill religion" (e.g., Dawkins et al.), and I understand some of their reasoning for making such statements, but I cannot help but think that doing so would come at a great cost to humanity.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
sunday
Sunday morning I found myself driving through Aberdeen, Washington, listening to Nevermind. As we passed by the sign reading "Welcome to Aberdeen, Come as you are," I started track number three. Being reminded of my own childhood, especially the time during the album itself was released and I was starting high school, I felt a sense of nostalgia.
The atmosphere was strange and it had me thinking about a lot of things, things like the relationship between our choices and our identity, friendships, the forks in the road of life where we often go astray, the meaning of life, et cetera. One thought in particular had to do with the idea that, as travellers in life, we are by nature of being "individuals" isolated from one another; yet in as much as we are able to accompany one another through our solitary journeys, we can share little pieces of ourselves with each other via bonds that cannot easily be put into words.
Another thought had to do with whether there was something underlying phenomena, something that threads events together in an unseen way. Perhaps life is nothing but a random series of happenstances; and yet, perhaps not. It's times like these that make drinking some decent red wine and listening to some Counting Crows (and maybe even Concrete Blonde) seem like a good idea.
The atmosphere was strange and it had me thinking about a lot of things, things like the relationship between our choices and our identity, friendships, the forks in the road of life where we often go astray, the meaning of life, et cetera. One thought in particular had to do with the idea that, as travellers in life, we are by nature of being "individuals" isolated from one another; yet in as much as we are able to accompany one another through our solitary journeys, we can share little pieces of ourselves with each other via bonds that cannot easily be put into words.
Another thought had to do with whether there was something underlying phenomena, something that threads events together in an unseen way. Perhaps life is nothing but a random series of happenstances; and yet, perhaps not. It's times like these that make drinking some decent red wine and listening to some Counting Crows (and maybe even Concrete Blonde) seem like a good idea.
Monday, November 17, 2008
the current economic crisis
Partially due to being bombarded by the corporate media's coverage of the current economic crisis, the one that people in the know have been warning us about for years, I have been thinking a lot about economics and politics. In particular, I have been thinking about that fact that there is no perfect system. On the one hand, you have the capitalists and free marketeers who advocate a market with little regulation or oversight, and as long as the market is strong and the economy stable, everyone is happy with the status quo. This is the system that is championed by the current administration, and alternative philosophies are denigrated and slandered; that is, until the massive amount of corruption and mismanagement eroded the free market into a cesspit of credit-based consumerism that no longer has the ability to live beyond its means. Now, the free marketeers are demanding swift and decisive action from the government in the form of using tax-payer money to shore up the weakened economy by buying bad assets from failing companies, guarantying bad debts acquired by failing companies, helping failing companies merge, etc. etc. I am no expert, but that sounds less like free market capitalism and more like corporate socialism, and this coming from those that treat "socialism" like a four-letter word!
Socialism, on the other hand, is not a perfect system either. While much of what we as Americans today take for granted as being predominately Democratic and Republican ideals, things such as women's voting rights, economic equality for African-Americans, the right to unionize, worker's compensation for on-the-job injuries, etc., these things were actually part of the Socialist Party of America platform all the way back in 1903. Eugene Debs, tired of seeing his fellow workers suffer, began to call for economic reform. This crusade eventually led Debs to adopt socialism as the political and economic model he thought best for America's future. But, even though Deb's party became a means for economic and social reform, the party itself was often divided, especially on how to implement these changes. In addition, while many of the socialist ideals were good in theory, they proved to be less so in practice. Human greed often triumphed over altruism, and the plight of the poor, unemployed and others who were discriminated against remained relatively unchanged for many years (e.g., women did not get the right to vote until 1920). Suffice it to say that even though the Socialist movement in the early 1900's did a lot to advance change, it failed in its overall objectives and slowly faded away into obscurity.
In between this economic and political spectrum, as well as without in the case of more radical groups, we have had all manner of economic and political philosophies battle it out, and none have proven to be perfect in and of itself. Where one fails or proves insufficient, another steps in to takes its place, or at the very least, to provide a "helping hand" when the bottom falls out. In this case, the free market advocates in the current administration are pushing through unprecedented reverse socialist policies that takes the wealth from the majority of the population in the form of tax-payer money and gives it to a small number of giant corporations such as AIG, Goldman Sachs (whose former CEO was, surprise surprise, Treasury Secretary Paulson), etc. deemed "too big to fail." It seems to me that most people are missing the big picture here because they are falling for all the propaganda that is acting as a type of misdirection from what is really going on. Both the economy and the political system in this country are in need of repair. They are both "too big for their britches" and, like the Big Three, could benefit from some streamlining. Outdated models that have repeatedly failed in doing what they are supposed to do should be replaced with more current, pragmatic models that reflect the complexity of world markets.
In the short term, the government has to be honest, stop playing politics by attacking red-herrings like the "socialist" leaning of President-elect Obama, and face reality. It has been said that there is no such thing as a "free market," that the middle-class is "the creation of government intervention in the marketplace, and won't exist without it" (Democracy - Not "The Free Market" - Will Save America's Middle Class), and I have to agree. Besides, no model is perfect, and all economic and political ideologies are going to be flawed in some way. One of the main reasons for this is that there is an unstable variable in the whim of the individual—in their ambitions, desires, needs, etc. It is one thing to construct abstract models and theories based upon personal ideals and observations, but it is quite another to put those abstract models and theories into practice on a larger scale. In any model, there is always going to be the possibility that each individual will end up working at cross purposes, and this can lead to things like the negation of social consensus in the case of socialism, or opening the door for exploitation in the case of capitalism, etc. In addition, we are in a difficult position in that there is no guarantee the things we have built up over years will remain solid because the whims of the individual, and consequently, the market, can change very quickly. As such, the whims of the market, in whatever form, are bound to be extremely variegated, even if somewhat predictable, and there is little chance that we are all going to agree on one model. Things like the potential for failure and the inclusion of new ideas needs to be a part of any equation.
Nevertheless, we also have the tendency to cling to things that we use to define ourselves and where we stand on certain issues, and it is difficult to relinquish those views even when faced with their failings and limitations. For example, how much solicited government interference in the market does it take for certain free marketeers to realize that they no longer hold, by definition, a free market philosophy? Their minds have changed, their actions have changed, and yet they hold the same views on the market and stubbornly refuse to acknowledge this. The same holds true for the socialist who fails to see that capitalism is not going away anytime soon, which is partially due to the fact that when socialism becomes institutionalized in the hands of the state (e.g., the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Socialist Unity Party of Germany, etc.), it often becomes a weapon for social control and the means for economic and political oppression. Today, the economic model that is taking shape is a mishmash of capitalist and socialist ideologies that have arisen out of a pragmatic need to do something about the growing economic crisis. Neither side wants to acknowledge the other side's contributions to the problem or the solution. That is why I think certain European countries have fared better in dealing with this crisis in that they are more open to such mixed economies, having a mixture of nationalized industries that are economically vital while at the same time permitting a free market to continue in the rest. This is not a perfect system either, but it seem to be more flexible and pragmatic when faced with such economic difficulties.
In the end, it look like we are headed for a similar system here, although the establishment is loathed to admit it. The bailout plan, as well as the unprecedented authority given the the Treasury and the Federal Reserve, is one step closer to nationalizing certain sectors without actually nationalizing them. In my opinion, this is a slight of hand that simply adds an extra layer of bureaucracy to the process of stabilizing the economy leaving the tax-payer even more unprotected. The reason is that without directly nationalizing these industries and leaving them in the hands of corrupt, greedy or just incompetent CEOs, which have time and again proven to be unreliable, our money is liable to be squandered (e.g., After Bailout, AIG Execs Head to California Resort). I am not a big fan of nationalizing certain sectors and leaving the rest to sink or swim in the shark infested ocean that is the free market, but if that is the direction we are heading in, why not do it right? With everything from companies in China putting poison in baby formula to irresponsible lending by financial institutions in the U.S., we need more transparency and oversight, period. Even though the idea of big government scares me, the role of the government is to protect its citizens, and I think that it is about time our government starts doing its job.
Socialism, on the other hand, is not a perfect system either. While much of what we as Americans today take for granted as being predominately Democratic and Republican ideals, things such as women's voting rights, economic equality for African-Americans, the right to unionize, worker's compensation for on-the-job injuries, etc., these things were actually part of the Socialist Party of America platform all the way back in 1903. Eugene Debs, tired of seeing his fellow workers suffer, began to call for economic reform. This crusade eventually led Debs to adopt socialism as the political and economic model he thought best for America's future. But, even though Deb's party became a means for economic and social reform, the party itself was often divided, especially on how to implement these changes. In addition, while many of the socialist ideals were good in theory, they proved to be less so in practice. Human greed often triumphed over altruism, and the plight of the poor, unemployed and others who were discriminated against remained relatively unchanged for many years (e.g., women did not get the right to vote until 1920). Suffice it to say that even though the Socialist movement in the early 1900's did a lot to advance change, it failed in its overall objectives and slowly faded away into obscurity.
In between this economic and political spectrum, as well as without in the case of more radical groups, we have had all manner of economic and political philosophies battle it out, and none have proven to be perfect in and of itself. Where one fails or proves insufficient, another steps in to takes its place, or at the very least, to provide a "helping hand" when the bottom falls out. In this case, the free market advocates in the current administration are pushing through unprecedented reverse socialist policies that takes the wealth from the majority of the population in the form of tax-payer money and gives it to a small number of giant corporations such as AIG, Goldman Sachs (whose former CEO was, surprise surprise, Treasury Secretary Paulson), etc. deemed "too big to fail." It seems to me that most people are missing the big picture here because they are falling for all the propaganda that is acting as a type of misdirection from what is really going on. Both the economy and the political system in this country are in need of repair. They are both "too big for their britches" and, like the Big Three, could benefit from some streamlining. Outdated models that have repeatedly failed in doing what they are supposed to do should be replaced with more current, pragmatic models that reflect the complexity of world markets.
In the short term, the government has to be honest, stop playing politics by attacking red-herrings like the "socialist" leaning of President-elect Obama, and face reality. It has been said that there is no such thing as a "free market," that the middle-class is "the creation of government intervention in the marketplace, and won't exist without it" (Democracy - Not "The Free Market" - Will Save America's Middle Class), and I have to agree. Besides, no model is perfect, and all economic and political ideologies are going to be flawed in some way. One of the main reasons for this is that there is an unstable variable in the whim of the individual—in their ambitions, desires, needs, etc. It is one thing to construct abstract models and theories based upon personal ideals and observations, but it is quite another to put those abstract models and theories into practice on a larger scale. In any model, there is always going to be the possibility that each individual will end up working at cross purposes, and this can lead to things like the negation of social consensus in the case of socialism, or opening the door for exploitation in the case of capitalism, etc. In addition, we are in a difficult position in that there is no guarantee the things we have built up over years will remain solid because the whims of the individual, and consequently, the market, can change very quickly. As such, the whims of the market, in whatever form, are bound to be extremely variegated, even if somewhat predictable, and there is little chance that we are all going to agree on one model. Things like the potential for failure and the inclusion of new ideas needs to be a part of any equation.
Nevertheless, we also have the tendency to cling to things that we use to define ourselves and where we stand on certain issues, and it is difficult to relinquish those views even when faced with their failings and limitations. For example, how much solicited government interference in the market does it take for certain free marketeers to realize that they no longer hold, by definition, a free market philosophy? Their minds have changed, their actions have changed, and yet they hold the same views on the market and stubbornly refuse to acknowledge this. The same holds true for the socialist who fails to see that capitalism is not going away anytime soon, which is partially due to the fact that when socialism becomes institutionalized in the hands of the state (e.g., the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Socialist Unity Party of Germany, etc.), it often becomes a weapon for social control and the means for economic and political oppression. Today, the economic model that is taking shape is a mishmash of capitalist and socialist ideologies that have arisen out of a pragmatic need to do something about the growing economic crisis. Neither side wants to acknowledge the other side's contributions to the problem or the solution. That is why I think certain European countries have fared better in dealing with this crisis in that they are more open to such mixed economies, having a mixture of nationalized industries that are economically vital while at the same time permitting a free market to continue in the rest. This is not a perfect system either, but it seem to be more flexible and pragmatic when faced with such economic difficulties.
In the end, it look like we are headed for a similar system here, although the establishment is loathed to admit it. The bailout plan, as well as the unprecedented authority given the the Treasury and the Federal Reserve, is one step closer to nationalizing certain sectors without actually nationalizing them. In my opinion, this is a slight of hand that simply adds an extra layer of bureaucracy to the process of stabilizing the economy leaving the tax-payer even more unprotected. The reason is that without directly nationalizing these industries and leaving them in the hands of corrupt, greedy or just incompetent CEOs, which have time and again proven to be unreliable, our money is liable to be squandered (e.g., After Bailout, AIG Execs Head to California Resort). I am not a big fan of nationalizing certain sectors and leaving the rest to sink or swim in the shark infested ocean that is the free market, but if that is the direction we are heading in, why not do it right? With everything from companies in China putting poison in baby formula to irresponsible lending by financial institutions in the U.S., we need more transparency and oversight, period. Even though the idea of big government scares me, the role of the government is to protect its citizens, and I think that it is about time our government starts doing its job.
Monday, October 6, 2008
inertia
I am no closer to enlightenment than we as a society are to a social utopia; and I am beginning to feel about the former what Dostoyevsky eventually felt about the latter. It is a frightening perspective, especially when it leads to being a miserable person who fails to act out of a perplexing array of philosophical conundrums such as myself.
I have found, to both my happiness and dismay, that there are a great deal of similarities between the man in the mousehole and I. (I must confess that I have recently been reading Dostoyevsky's Notes From Underground, and I find it to be the most beautiful and terrifying thing I have ever read precisely because it speaks to me in a way that no other piece of literature has ever spoken to me before.) As perverted as the "Underground Man's" view of happiness is, I too have always thought that knowledge and intelligence are the keys to happiness—the more intelligent we are, the more answers we will have; the more answers we have, the happier we will be.
But, much to my dismay, I have found that this assumption has not proven to be true. I have since found that my intelligence, if you wish to even call it that, paralyzes me and makes me content and miserable all at the same time; I am content, for example, in my knowledge, my self-awareness if you will, that sets me apart from the fool who acts without thinking, and yet that thinking more often than not prevents me from acting at all! This unforeseen type of self-analysis that is eating away at my sanity, I can see it so clearly: I am as cowardly as I am courageous; I am as ignorant as I am intelligent, et cetera.
In reality, this thing that I loathe to call my intelligence simply alienates me even further from the rest of society; and even though I am quite an unsociable person by nature, I still get lonely and crave the kind of companionship that the Buddha called "admirable friendship." As I try to understand why my life is turning out the way that it is, I realize that I am doing so through the eyes of a man in a mousehole. In fact, that is how I see the whole world. For good or for ill, it is the only perspective that I have ever known without ever knowing it until now.
Perhaps this "man in a mousehole" phase will pass in time and I will see things from a different perspective, but for now this is something that I must accept. While I am no stranger to having others reject me or write me off, to having others not understand me, to being seen by others as nothing more than an eccentric anomaly that is tragically out of place, I am finding that it is becoming too much for me to bear. It is painful and humiliating and absolutely maddening. To be quite frank, I am at the point where I want to just drop everything because for whatever reason, it is seemingly becoming more and more apparent to me that any kind of traditional beliefs or values are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless.
In my own mind, I am superior — I have become like Nietzsche's "Übermensch," an extraordinary individual transcending the limits of mankind — and yet, in reality, I am only superior in my apathy—I have become like Nietzsche's "letzte Mensch," a weak-willed individual who is tired of life, takes no risks and seeks only comfort and security.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
nader 08
The more I hear and read about our current financial crisis, the more I think Nader is the right choice for this country. For my own part, I know that most people do not take him seriously, but I believe that I understand why he is doing what he is doing, and I admire the man for all that he has done for this country. The list of his accomplishments are staggering, e.g., the Clean Air Act, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the EPA, the Freedom of Information Act, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, OSHA, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Wholesome Meat Act, et cetera.
While I have been leaning towards Obama, I am seriously considering voting for Nader for a variety of reasons. One reason is that I am extremely unhappy with the current electorial system, especially how easily constituencies can be marginalized, and I applaud anyone who attempts to change the system, or at the very least, point out the need for reform. It is very difficult to try and get people that are so used to a two-party dominated format to understand why it is important for people like Nader to voice their opinions, and more than that, to take action. People often talk a lot about change, but then do very little about it. Nader, for all of his faults, is at least being actively involved in our political system in order to get others involved instead of just complaining about it.
Of course, this is just my view, and I realize that the majority of people, especially Democrats, will not agree with me and say that a vote for Nader would be a wasted vote; but, to me, a vote for Nader would not be a wasted vote because I take voting seriously in my own way. In my case, I am not a "Democrat" or a "Republican." I am an independent that happens to really like Obama, as well as Nader, i.e., I like Obama's composure and message of change, but I like the issues that Nader brings to the table, his stance on those issues and his consumer advocacy experience.
The bottom line is that for me, it is not about voting strategically, it is about voting for the candidate who I feel is the closest in regard to representing my own views and vision for the future (plus, I am unhappy with the two-party dominated system that we currently have, and I support election reforms that would make it easier for third-party and independent candidates to simply get their names on the ballot). Additionally, voting for any candidate whose views and policies you agree with and support is not throwing your vote away. In fact, I think quite the opposite is true. Voting for any candidate whose views and policies you agree with and support is exercising the right to vote responsibly. If anything, I would say that not voting is throwing your vote away, but that is just my opinion.
While I have been leaning towards Obama, I am seriously considering voting for Nader for a variety of reasons. One reason is that I am extremely unhappy with the current electorial system, especially how easily constituencies can be marginalized, and I applaud anyone who attempts to change the system, or at the very least, point out the need for reform. It is very difficult to try and get people that are so used to a two-party dominated format to understand why it is important for people like Nader to voice their opinions, and more than that, to take action. People often talk a lot about change, but then do very little about it. Nader, for all of his faults, is at least being actively involved in our political system in order to get others involved instead of just complaining about it.
Of course, this is just my view, and I realize that the majority of people, especially Democrats, will not agree with me and say that a vote for Nader would be a wasted vote; but, to me, a vote for Nader would not be a wasted vote because I take voting seriously in my own way. In my case, I am not a "Democrat" or a "Republican." I am an independent that happens to really like Obama, as well as Nader, i.e., I like Obama's composure and message of change, but I like the issues that Nader brings to the table, his stance on those issues and his consumer advocacy experience.
The bottom line is that for me, it is not about voting strategically, it is about voting for the candidate who I feel is the closest in regard to representing my own views and vision for the future (plus, I am unhappy with the two-party dominated system that we currently have, and I support election reforms that would make it easier for third-party and independent candidates to simply get their names on the ballot). Additionally, voting for any candidate whose views and policies you agree with and support is not throwing your vote away. In fact, I think quite the opposite is true. Voting for any candidate whose views and policies you agree with and support is exercising the right to vote responsibly. If anything, I would say that not voting is throwing your vote away, but that is just my opinion.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
paljon onnea paskiainen!!!
My thirtieth birthday began the night before with the discovery that our hot water heater was leaking; our living room carpet was soaked, and instead of heading out to the beach for a day of eating, relaxing and enjoying the great weather, I spent it replacing a ruptured pipe and cleaning up all the water. In between these activities, I struggled with many of the complex philosophical dilemmas that have plagued humankind for centuries. Turning thirty has given me a sense of urgency to find a deeper sense of meaning and purpose in the grand cosmic scheme of things, an urgency that I have always felt but which seems to have become more and more eminent with each passing year and the uneasy acceptance of my own mortality.
My ruminations began, as usual, with a few basic observations, e.g., I want to be happy; I want my life to have meaning, or at the very least, to benefit society in some way; I don't like the thought of dying, etc. Suffice it to say that I didn't come to any great epiphanies or revelations, but I did think myself into a pretty rotten mood. I guess sponging off a wet carpet isn't as conducive to finding a deeper sense of meaning and purpose in the grand cosmic scheme of things as it might seem. The next day was spent wondering if I was just wasting my time. Was working eight to nine hours a day for relatively little pay really the best use of the relatively short amount of time I'm allotted on this earth? If not, what else should I be doing?
Tuesday, however, had something better in store for me. While the first half of the day was spent working like the menial laborer I've become, finishing up cleaning the house after fate's wonderful birthday surprise and checking to see if anybody bothered to send me any birthday greetings, the second half was spent in the throes of mindless self-indulgence at the Hawthorne Theater. Annie's birthday gift to me was, among other things, a ticket to see Finntroll. For one night I said to hell with everything, I drank cheap beer and threw myself into the front of the crowd reveling in Finntroll's punishing assult of Finnish folk metal. Today, I'm back to the usual brooding, but at least for one night I was raging like a troll hungry for retribution.
My ruminations began, as usual, with a few basic observations, e.g., I want to be happy; I want my life to have meaning, or at the very least, to benefit society in some way; I don't like the thought of dying, etc. Suffice it to say that I didn't come to any great epiphanies or revelations, but I did think myself into a pretty rotten mood. I guess sponging off a wet carpet isn't as conducive to finding a deeper sense of meaning and purpose in the grand cosmic scheme of things as it might seem. The next day was spent wondering if I was just wasting my time. Was working eight to nine hours a day for relatively little pay really the best use of the relatively short amount of time I'm allotted on this earth? If not, what else should I be doing?
Tuesday, however, had something better in store for me. While the first half of the day was spent working like the menial laborer I've become, finishing up cleaning the house after fate's wonderful birthday surprise and checking to see if anybody bothered to send me any birthday greetings, the second half was spent in the throes of mindless self-indulgence at the Hawthorne Theater. Annie's birthday gift to me was, among other things, a ticket to see Finntroll. For one night I said to hell with everything, I drank cheap beer and threw myself into the front of the crowd reveling in Finntroll's punishing assult of Finnish folk metal. Today, I'm back to the usual brooding, but at least for one night I was raging like a troll hungry for retribution.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
my new sangha
I have been searching for a good place to practice in the Portland, OR area, and I have started attending meditation sessions at a Taiwanese Mahayana temple called Miao Fa Chan Temple.
The person in charge is Ven. Fa Thai, who, apparently, studied meditation for eighteen years in Thailand (at Tiger Caves Monastery) before coming to this temple. While this is predominately a temple in the Taiwanese Mahayana tradition, the head monk teaches vipassana techniques based upon the four foundations of mindfulness (which, luckily, I am already acquainted with), and he seems to be a very good-natured and friendly individual. In fact, he reminds me a great deal of two of my past teachers, Ajahn Chuen and Ajahn Prasert.
I really enjoyed my last two visits, and I plan on attending their evening meditation sessions as often as I can; the temple itself is convieniently located on my way home from work. I am not only excited about having a place to practice meditation with a skilled teacher seeing as how my motivation to practice has seriously declined since moving away from my spiritual community in California, Wat Buddhanusorn and Dhammadharini Vihara, but about having the chance to be exposed to other Buddhist traditions as well.
The person in charge is Ven. Fa Thai, who, apparently, studied meditation for eighteen years in Thailand (at Tiger Caves Monastery) before coming to this temple. While this is predominately a temple in the Taiwanese Mahayana tradition, the head monk teaches vipassana techniques based upon the four foundations of mindfulness (which, luckily, I am already acquainted with), and he seems to be a very good-natured and friendly individual. In fact, he reminds me a great deal of two of my past teachers, Ajahn Chuen and Ajahn Prasert.
I really enjoyed my last two visits, and I plan on attending their evening meditation sessions as often as I can; the temple itself is convieniently located on my way home from work. I am not only excited about having a place to practice meditation with a skilled teacher seeing as how my motivation to practice has seriously declined since moving away from my spiritual community in California, Wat Buddhanusorn and Dhammadharini Vihara, but about having the chance to be exposed to other Buddhist traditions as well.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
politics, precepts and the next president
Being a socially active Buddhist can be difficult when it comes to making decisions that reflect Buddhist beliefs and practices in the real world. In politics, for example, there is no perfect candidate or representative that embodies the Dhamma one hundred percent. In turn, there is no strict framework of dos and don’ts when it comes to choosing elected officials. It is up to each individual to utilize their own discernment and make their own choices.
In this election year, the candidate who I felt was the closest in regard to representing my own views and vision for the future was Dennis Kucinich, e.g., he is against the death penalty; he has been an outspoken proponent of impeachment; he is open to diplomacy with countries that are considered to be hostile to the Untied States; he introduced a bill to create a Cabinet-level Department of Peace, et cetera. Nevertheless, he was marginalized by the media and his own party, and due to difficulties in getting contributions (partially because he refused to accept corporate donations), he was forced to withdraw his nomination.
This leaves me with a difficult choice in November. Essentially, an elected official is someone who you are giving the authority to speak for you and make decisions on your behalf. As such, that person should reflect your views as closely as possible. But what happens when nobody comes all that close? What is the most important criteria when it comes to making this decision, and in effect, giving the commander-in-chief of the worlds most powerful military the authority to speak for you and make decisions that will reverberate throughout the rest of the world? It is up to each individual to answer that question for themselves, but for me, the answer boils down to truthfulness.
The Buddha once said, “For the person who transgresses in one thing, I tell you, there is no evil deed that is not to be done. Which one thing? This: telling a deliberate lie” (Iti 25). Additionally, in the Jakata stories, which are basically morality tales that detail the past lives of the Buddha-to-be, in one life or another the Bodhisatta breaks every one of the five precepts except the one against false speech. One of the reasons for this, I believe, is that in order to learn and grow from his mistakes, the Buddha had to remain open and honest about three things: (1) his intentions, (2) his actions and (3) the results of his actions. This, in essence, relates to the doctrine of kamma.
Therefore, to me, truthfulness does not simply mean saying things that are true, but as Thanissaro Bhikkhu likes to say, "being a true person" as well. Furthermore, as Andrew Huxley notes in The Kurudhamma: From Ethics to Statecraft, "The negative precept against lying is also apositive precept that agreements should be honoured" (197). Therefore, when looking at all of the potential candidates, I believe that it is important to not only look at what they are saying they have done in the past or will do in the future, but to take a close look at what they have actually done. Our votes are given in trust, trust that should be earned.
In conclusion, when it comes to voting for the next President of the United States, we should ask questions such as, Does this person speak truthfully?, Does this person do what they say they are going to do?, Is this person consistent in their voting records, speeches, et cetera? When people say to vote your conscience, it might sound trite, but it is sound advice considering that our votes are an elected official's permission slip to act on our behalf.
In this election year, the candidate who I felt was the closest in regard to representing my own views and vision for the future was Dennis Kucinich, e.g., he is against the death penalty; he has been an outspoken proponent of impeachment; he is open to diplomacy with countries that are considered to be hostile to the Untied States; he introduced a bill to create a Cabinet-level Department of Peace, et cetera. Nevertheless, he was marginalized by the media and his own party, and due to difficulties in getting contributions (partially because he refused to accept corporate donations), he was forced to withdraw his nomination.
This leaves me with a difficult choice in November. Essentially, an elected official is someone who you are giving the authority to speak for you and make decisions on your behalf. As such, that person should reflect your views as closely as possible. But what happens when nobody comes all that close? What is the most important criteria when it comes to making this decision, and in effect, giving the commander-in-chief of the worlds most powerful military the authority to speak for you and make decisions that will reverberate throughout the rest of the world? It is up to each individual to answer that question for themselves, but for me, the answer boils down to truthfulness.
The Buddha once said, “For the person who transgresses in one thing, I tell you, there is no evil deed that is not to be done. Which one thing? This: telling a deliberate lie” (Iti 25). Additionally, in the Jakata stories, which are basically morality tales that detail the past lives of the Buddha-to-be, in one life or another the Bodhisatta breaks every one of the five precepts except the one against false speech. One of the reasons for this, I believe, is that in order to learn and grow from his mistakes, the Buddha had to remain open and honest about three things: (1) his intentions, (2) his actions and (3) the results of his actions. This, in essence, relates to the doctrine of kamma.
Therefore, to me, truthfulness does not simply mean saying things that are true, but as Thanissaro Bhikkhu likes to say, "being a true person" as well. Furthermore, as Andrew Huxley notes in The Kurudhamma: From Ethics to Statecraft, "The negative precept against lying is also apositive precept that agreements should be honoured" (197). Therefore, when looking at all of the potential candidates, I believe that it is important to not only look at what they are saying they have done in the past or will do in the future, but to take a close look at what they have actually done. Our votes are given in trust, trust that should be earned.
In conclusion, when it comes to voting for the next President of the United States, we should ask questions such as, Does this person speak truthfully?, Does this person do what they say they are going to do?, Is this person consistent in their voting records, speeches, et cetera? When people say to vote your conscience, it might sound trite, but it is sound advice considering that our votes are an elected official's permission slip to act on our behalf.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)