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.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
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.
Friday, September 7, 2007
"......."
Alone?
Are we ever truly not alone?
If a self is assumed, then how can we ever be as one?
A self is separate from other.
As one?
Are we ever truly not as one?
If a self is not assumed, then who is there to be alone?
But self, by its very nature, is.
Is what?
Ephemeral? A useful fiction?
Perhaps self itself is a sleight of hand too quick to catch.
A phantom bent upon a goal.
Perhaps.
I ask myself, Why am I here?
I answer back, Who is this “I” I am seeking to define?
What is there worth clinging to?
Nothing.
Life is only a series of events.
Happiness and sadness forever arising and passing away.
If “I” and “mine” do not apply:
"......."
Are we ever truly not alone?
If a self is assumed, then how can we ever be as one?
A self is separate from other.
As one?
Are we ever truly not as one?
If a self is not assumed, then who is there to be alone?
But self, by its very nature, is.
Is what?
Ephemeral? A useful fiction?
Perhaps self itself is a sleight of hand too quick to catch.
A phantom bent upon a goal.
Perhaps.
I ask myself, Why am I here?
I answer back, Who is this “I” I am seeking to define?
What is there worth clinging to?
Nothing.
Life is only a series of events.
Happiness and sadness forever arising and passing away.
If “I” and “mine” do not apply:
"......."
Friday, August 31, 2007
vorbei!
"Vorbei! ein dummes Wort.
Warum vorbei?
Vorbei und reines Nicht, vollkommnes Einerlei!
Was soll uns denn das ew'ge Schaffen!
Geschaffenes zu nichts hinwegzuraffen!
"Da ist's vorbei!" Was ist daran zu lesen?
Es ist so gut, als wär' es nicht gewesen,
Und treibt sich doch im Kreis, als wenn es wäre.
Ich liebte mir dafür das Ewig-Leere."
- Mephistopheles from Faust
Warum vorbei?
Vorbei und reines Nicht, vollkommnes Einerlei!
Was soll uns denn das ew'ge Schaffen!
Geschaffenes zu nichts hinwegzuraffen!
"Da ist's vorbei!" Was ist daran zu lesen?
Es ist so gut, als wär' es nicht gewesen,
Und treibt sich doch im Kreis, als wenn es wäre.
Ich liebte mir dafür das Ewig-Leere."
- Mephistopheles from Faust
Thursday, August 30, 2007
an interesting observation
"Like the drop of ink in the glass of water and the drop of water in the glass of ink. An evil doer does not purify his reputation with one good act, but the virtuous man ruins his reputation by one bad action. So evil would seem more effective than good. Odd that the world is not worse than it is." (Apr. 51)
- Bhikkhu Nanamoli from A Thinker's Note Book
- Bhikkhu Nanamoli from A Thinker's Note Book
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)