Inkwell: Authors and Artists

    

I forget what gassho means...
  

    
Good question, <castle>.  "Gassho" literally means "palms of hands
placed together" (Japanese).

Similar to the gesture that goes along with "namaste."

And what does palms joined MEAN?

Here's what it says in my "Shambhala Dictionary of Buddhism & Zen" (don't
ask me why they separate zen from buddhism):

     ... Zen expression for the ancient gesture of
     greeting, request, gratitude, veneration, or
     suppplication common in many cultures (par-
     ticularly in the East).
          ..... in this gesture ... a state of mind
    is spontaneously manifested [!] that suggests
    the unity of the antithetical forces of the
    phenomenal world.

Japanologist Michael S. Diener couldn't help explaining the explanation
(I can't help it either) with that interpretation of what it means.  But
who knows!!???

Others say hands together represents servility, as when a prisoner
puts hands together to be bound.  Thus serving, being bound to,
one with [what-one-bows-to].

Another version:  "The sacred within me salutes the sacred within you."

My teacher Lew Welch had a competition for someone to tell him what it
really means.  (I forget who won.  Anyone out there remember?)

Best answer:  try it yourself.  When you see a happy baby being trundled
along in arms or crib, instead of waving try <gassho>/<namaste>/<wai>
(Thai).   Look and see if the baby "gets it" (they usually do).

Before eating, bow to the food.  After eating, bow to the empty plate
Turning the computer on/off, getting the mail.  When Shasta Monastery (zen)
started bowing, pretty soon they were bowing to everything.   Where's the
list of things *not* to bow to?!
                                                         < gassho >
  

    
I gasshoed (gassho'd?) to Debbie Reynolds once.
  

    
yes?
  

    
Well, there she was, just walking along the street, and I was so awestruck 
that I inadvertently gassho'd. I mean, it was DEBBIE REYNOLDS.
  

    
Well, YEA!!

Did She see?  Was there recognition?

Was there reciprocation?
  

    
I don't know! I was too awestruck to notice.
  

    
E-mail from Jerry Verno:

I was wondering what the important Buddhist Holidays are and how should they be observed?



Thanks

Jerry Verno
  

    
Someone once asked Yogi Berra what time it was, and he replied, "You mean
like now?"

One big day is about now:  Asian lunar new year.  Year of the Horse.
     < http://www.joyharjo.com/lyrics/horses.html >
     < http://www.chinesefortunecalendar.com/2002.htm >
February 12, by Chinese standards, but it varies with Korea, Japan, Tibet,
etc.

And the key Buddhist holidays similarly vary. Beginning with the primary
one:

     *  "Vesak," Buddha's birth date.  (full moon of the 6th lunar month;
sometimes
April, sometimes May).

     * "Asalha," Buddha's first sermon (full moon of 8th lunar month)

     * "Magha," Sangha-day, (full moon of 3rd lunar month)

Then, too, it's said that the Buddha was born, attained enlightenment, and
passed out of life on earth, all on the same day of the year (full moon of
6th lunar month), yet these become separate dates in the calendar.

So it depends some on the community with whom one practices.  (I recall
you'd asked me, elsewhere, about finding a community where you happen
to live:  any inroads along those lines?)

The beginning of the last chapter of the book goes into times and places for
celebration.  And as I adapt the chapters of the book into an online portal,
I'll add any different calendars I might find online; for now, I can direct
your attention to the calendar of Dharma Realm Buddhist Association, with
primarily Chinese orientation:
     < http://www.drba.org/CTTB/cttb_calendar_e.htm >


           " L i f e   unfolds on a great sheet called   T i m e ,
             and once finished it is gone forever."
                                                           - Chinese adage
  

    
I believe Rigpa (maybe it's called Rigpa International) also publishes a 
little calendar book, with emphasis on Tibetan Buddhism/Dzogchen (they 
have days for the tsok feasts as well as Guru Rinpoche and Yeshe Tsogyel 
days every month, as I recall).
  

    
Thank you, <fom>.  I think people could find the Rigpa calendar at:
http://www.rigpa.org/pubs.htm

THere's also a book, from Quest, written by Norma Levine, a practitioner of
Tibetan lineage, "A Yearbook of Buddhist Wisdom" with festival days plus
anniversaries of sages, plus meditation days.

(for those out there who don't know, could you explain tsok feasts
as well as Guru Rinpoche and Yeshe Tsogyel days?)
  

    
Berra also said "I didn't say all those things I said." Maybe he was a
buddha.
  

    
He certainly was a Yogi!!

The one I picked for my Buddha Guide book (he has so many):

    "If you come to a fork in the road, take it!"
  

    

 Okay: I gassho'd Ram Dass, as he held the door for me at Nordstrom's
 in San Rafael years back.  Or namaste'd him, or something.  It was the
 abbreviated, one-handed style, that I do on semi-automatic sometimes.
 I did it before I realized who it was--just to thank whoever, so I
 thought--and then realized as I was making eye-contact that the eye-contact
 was very, very deep, and then saw why (who).
  

    
I'm still chugging along in the book, and hopping about now.  I did
read the science chapter and enjoyed it a lot, and you neatly tied
Buddhism and science together.   I'm now comfortable that necessary
medication is acceptable.

Then I read the chapter following, which I think of as politics, and
was disturbed.  I am fairly conservative, by Well standards anyway, and
the issues you chose to accentuate as opportunities for helping in the
community are all what I'd characterize as liberal issues.

First off, why include that whole concept  (Engaging the World,
Chapter 19) in the first place?  And why the focus on such liberal
topics to the exclusion of others?  I was left after finishing the
chapter wondering if Buddhism was for me, if I could still qualify even
though I support the death penalty.  It seems that there would be many
less controversial ways to engage the world.
  

    
>I was left after finishing the
>chapter wondering if Buddhism was for me, if I could still qualify
>even though I support the death penalty seems that there would 
>be many less controversial ways to engage the world.

What interests/attracts you to Buddhism, Eleanor?
  

    
Well, I'm glad you liked the science chapter, <wellelp>.  Speaking of
nonlocal phenomena, I was just asking a colleague whether my material on
engaged Buddhism might turn anyone off -- so your arrow was well-timed!
(Practicing Buddhism, one becomes used to synchronicity, psychic phenomena,
etc.)  Just as you seem open to changing your mind, so too am I.   please.

To answer your immediate question:  heck, no, you don't have to be anything
other to be a buddhist.     come as you are.   practice whatever feels right
for you.    Period.

Just like I wanted to inform readers who might not consider being Buddhists
themselves, (idiot's guides are often perceived as lifelong learning tools),
so too did I want to *inform* about a movement within Buddhism that's yet
another application in the world. (Was I proseyletizing?)  You don't have to
do flower arranging, practice martial arts, etc.

Big digression:  ((((( There's no point in trying to change the world (if
you can't change yourself):  you'll only make matters worse.

I.E., in a traffic snarl up, a Buddhist doesn't honk, knowing that will only
make matter worse.  Just be mindful of the chaos, aware, accepting, & open
to the most skillful option for all concerned.

Thus meditation's not just on the cushion. It's continual. Meditation-in-
the-world.  Carrying it on.

So what about larger issues of the modern, secular world???  What would the
Buddha say about ..... today's news topics.

Your own question about medication is a form of this -- questions the Buddha
never addressed, who never saw a lightbulb, never logged on to the Well.
Hence -- Buddhists addressing these issues are engaging the moden world.)
)))

((btw, in the online forum of the Buddhist Peace Fellowship,
<http://www.bpf.org>, depression and practice has arisen as a topic, with
medication as one of the issues.  About a dozen replies so far; I can e-mail
them to you if you wish.))

 end digresion


So your posting reminds me to rewrite the intro.  and offer additional
options.


Maybe I'll 1) remind the reader why Buddhism died in the land of its birth
(partly the lack of inroads into secular lay communities made it easy to
stamp out when the Muslims invaded), 2) remind that the Buddha never saw a
lightbulb, never logged on the Well, and 3) *(maybe)* [something now more in
the air than when I initially wrote] it's of keen interest how the great
world creeds adapt to the modern secular world [E.G., Islam, currently
keenly discussed.]

4) It's not necessary to take the Bodhisattva Vow.  [I.E., the traditional
interpretation of Hinayana is to attain enlightenment for one's self
{arhat}. The Hinayana-Mahayana schism, which I've minimized]

If the recognition does come that *what's happening* to me is bound up with
what's happening to everyone and everything else, then how can I "help"?

So i have two questions:  One, please help me understand if reframing in
intro would make it a horse of another color for you.

And, two, please help me understand  topics and themes that A) are and
aren't politically freighted (liberal / conservative), or are B) at least
conservative to balance what you perceive as over-liberal bias.

    A) I address service in hospices, teaching mindfulness in prisons, deep
ecology, the importance of women, erasing racism.

    B) What others might you suggest?

                    (If you prefer tback-channel me, by e-mail)

g r a t i t u d e s .

 .
  

    
This is a very interesting line of discussion and I odn't want to 
interrupt it...but...

   >I.E., in a traffic snarl up, a Buddhist doesn't honk, knowing that 
    will only make matter worse.

I'm not sure I agree. In fact, I don't agree. I understand the concept, 
but (a) it seems like it could be extrapolated into "a Buddhist doesn't 
do anything" (which I have actually heard versions of! like, don't help 
someone in need because that would be interfering with their karma!) and 
(b) sometimes a well-placed honk can help alert someone that it's their 
turn to move ahead and (c) maybe the Buddhist just says "hmmm, I am 
frustrated with this traffic jam, I am OK with my frustration, I am 
sitting with my frustration, and now I am going to express it with a honk 
and I am conscious and aware of that too."

Oh, and (d) maybe the Buddhist says "ah! a traffic jam! a chance to hear 
the mellifulous and pleasing note of my happy car horn!"
  

    
Yes.  A range of options (a), (b), (c), (d).  Absolutely.  What i'd meant
was not leaning on the car horn, not a kneejerk reaction, not stoking the
fires.

Like the kid in the basketballcourt being taunted:  not letting the
situation control you.

(Actually, I don't drive -- but that's another story.)
  

    
Your post is still resonating, Eleanor.

I'm considering redrafting and repositioning the death penalty anecdote,
which was there largely to show how a Buddhist response doesn't see good
guys vs. bad; the substantive of that part is the movement to teach
mindfulness meditation and zen and suchlike in prisons: I need help in
understanding how that could be controversial. (Or did you just mean
death penalty was controversial?)

Bad way to lead off a section on one thing (teaching meditation in prisons)
with another (the death penalty anecdote).  Definitely.

As you muse over my #117, and <chrys>'s 116, i'll just
sharpen the point on the second of my two questions; you'd written

>  And why the focus on such liberal
> topics to the exclusion of others?
>  .... [of] many less controversial ways
>  to engage the world

    -- what others, other such as, E.G., give me a for instance (or two).
                                                              (please)
{e-mail me if you prefer); thank you.
  

    
Sorry for the delay in responding, and thank you for taking my
concerns so seriously.

First, to answer <chrys>'s question:  What interests/attracts you to
Buddhism, Eleanor?

I'm at a point in my life where I'd like to be at peace with myself,
and at peace with the world.  This is the result of all kinds of things
that have been nudging me in this direction, and I was so delighted to
read about Buddhism from Gary's perspective because he presents all
the "serious" stuff, so my thinking part is appeased, as well as
appealing to my light-hearted part by showing that Buddhism fits nicely
in a happy, laughing life.  I am able to laugh at myself, and I
resonate more with people and precepts that don't take themselves too
seriously.  

Now, back to my questions for Gary.  So I was chugging along
absolutely delighted with the book, and joyful with  the prospect of
incorporating a more Buddhist perspective and outlook in my life, even
planning on searching out a sangha to practice with and learn from.  So
I was thrown for a loop when I read chapter 19.  Of course I have to
look into my heart to see why my reaction was so intense, but I felt
strongly  "Oh, no, another liberal assault on my more conservative
sensibilities, right where I least expected it."

I felt like I might be losing something (the opportunity to become a
practicing Buddhist) that held great appeal for me.  When I asked my
earlier question about pet euthanasia, I was aware that the death
penalty would clearly be an issue for a Buddhist, and I was trying to
wrestle with it on my own before even formulating a question (I'm sure
that it would be an advanced sort of issue, and I would approach it
more from "How can I reconcile my deeply considered beliefs concerning
the death penalty with a Buddhist practice?"  And there may be no
satisfactory answer.)

First, I think that service in hospice is a splendid idea, and I'm
sorry that I suggested that "all" of your suggestions were
liberal-oriented.   To my knowledge, hospices are accepted by all
political parties, although degree of funding is an issue, and I know
they have been of great help to some of my relatives.

Certainly I have no personal objections to helping prisoners learn
about Buddhism.  However, you include statistics (70% of current
prisoners are incarcerated for non-violent crime, as well as other
statistics as to the growth of the prison population) that are
routinely used to suggest that some prisoners are incarcerated
unfairly.  I know you didn't say that at all, but just reciting the
statistics struck a nerve with me.  

I think you could balance the prisoner suggestion with  a new
suggestion to offer support in the community for victims of crimes. 
Because victims of crimes are not gathered in one place like the
incarcerated are, it is more of a challenge to find the organizations
to support victims.  From what I've read, some crime victims are still
suffering PTSD long after their attackers have served their time.  It
would also be an opportunity to show that Buddhism doesn't discriminate
among those who need help.

I'm not sure what you mean by "deep" ecology, but you  also hit a
button by using a picture of Julia Hill.  I'm afraid it's a personal
button, and I won't bore you with details, but I don't recall that she
specifically espoused Buddhist beliefs during her tree-sit.  Indeed,
this whole chapter would be more meaningful if you show how  practising
Buddhists are engaging the world today, rather than the list of issues
that can be addressed.

I have no personal issues with women's rights and healing racism.  But
the list as a whole "hospice, prisoner's rights, deep ecology, women's
rights and healing racism" sounds like a liberal platform.

Possible topics that strike me personally as more balanced: 
education, reading to children, lighter ecology (like oil spill
cleanup, planting trees).  And if you want to take a right wing issue, 
voluntary prayer (or a moment of silence) in schools.  Providing food
and shelter for the homeless (although that can be seen as liberal,
too). 

 I'm not asking you to remove any of the issues you included, just to
provide some balance.

I still haven't finished, but I'm hoping to soon.  And maybe you've
included this and I haven't gotten there yet.  But perhaps I'm destined
to be a semi-Buddhist, and I would hope you offer words of
encouragement to those who want to take the time to incorporate parts,
but not all, of the Path into their lifes.  Nirvana sounds cool,  but
I'd like to start with personal peace first.
  

    
Thanks for replying Eleanor.

One of the amazing and most practical aspects of Buddhism is
the opportunity to 'sit' with conflicts, to develop awareness 
of them rather than rush to resolve them. 
  

    <scribbled by dawson54 Mon 26 Aug 02 13:25>
  

    
I'm delighted to read the honesty and clarity of your reply, and only hope I
can respond in kind.  If not tonite (as I was about to retire) then over the
duration of the Inkwell (which I'm told will continue without limit so long
as there is interest).

You've raised points that make me consider changing my mind.  It will be
interesting to see what the sangha says, too.  (For one thing, I'll suggest
that Wonderland. start an Engaged Buddhist topic, if it doesn't already have
one; it just started one on Tibetan Buddhism -- after all these years.)

Well, my immediate reply is in two parts.  One, don't let *any* issue stande
in the way of your pursuit of nirvana:  Thomas Jefferson, after all,
guaranteed us 'Murricans the right to pursue ... happiness!

Actually, in addition to the powerful juju to which <chrys> has (so wisely)
alluded, another aspect of this path, in general, is that if you select just
one or two or a few items that feel right to you, and just practice those --
deeply -- eventually, all the rest will come.

Digression.  (In not wanting to cloud the Big Picture with political
partisanship, even if I've failed, I should mention how this issue, in
general, resonates within Buddhism with the traditional sense of a Schism:
traditionally called "Hinayana vs. Mahayana."  I minimize it in my book
('cos I subscribe to recent scholarship, for one thing, that feels the
division or difference existed from the very start, rather naturally).
Often it is said that the follower of Hinayana care only for their personal
enlightenment, (I cover the equivalent of "Hinayana" in the chapter on
"Insight" [Vipassana], without touching upon that chord); whereas Mahayana
includes the Bodhisattva Vow (mentioned in the chapter on Zen).

I don't say this make your head spin; but to confess I am trying to
reconcile what's often perceived as "opposite sides of the hall," out of the
sense that they both equally participate in the life of the hall.) End
digression.

The other thing is the even larger question, raised earlier in this Inkwell:
 "But is it Buddhist?"

Someone returned a purse.  A noble act.  (Was it Buddhist?)

True, Julia Hill Butterfly only acknowledged her kinship with all life forms
(which is as much Native American as it is Buddhist); and I'll confess she's
no less controversial on the left than apparently she is on the right.  I'd
be happy to go into details, in the spirit of awakening of mind.

But is it Buddhist?  On a basic level, good deeds generate good karma.  Thus
from time to time, (in my 2-week stint, sitting by this computer 24x7), I
dedicate the merit of this noble inter view to the good of all beings; that
all beings should be so fortunate as to be able to share with such compasion
and wisdom as we are so doing here.  AND --

-- on another level, from another perspective, certain action can be more
skillful than others.   Felicity and I were just discussing different
options in a traffic jam, for example.  (I suppose, <fom>, that your
correction of my initial statement might be tantric -- using energy already
present in a situation to further the process of awakening of mind; yes?)

Thus, it is good to give a homeless person money; perhaps.   (But what if
they use it to buy drugs, is often a question.)  I'd suggest anyone who want
to do anything for a homeless person, a houseless person, is to spend a
little time in their home, their present place of being, make eye contact,
ask:  How's things for you?

I've done this, Eleanor, and others I know too who do all agree:  it's very
constructive, because people all alone on the street can easily begin to
feel like they're on mars.  No one talks to them.  People give them money
then walk away.  Etc.
]
This would fit in with something called "bearing witness"  (which I covered
under the precept of speech).  I also cover how the Greyston Mandala
provides not only food and shelter but employment and, even more, meaning,
meaningfulness (in the chapter on Work).

Similarly, cleaning an oil spill is a noble act, worthy of unlimited praise.
 No less, is "deep ecology," being aware of, say, where the water being
cleaned up comes from, where it goes to, what animals live there, how they
affect the general web of life; weaving one's dailyness a little deeper into
the fabric.

(I mentioned family values in the chapter on relationships.  In the same
chapter, I discussed the fasinating movement called "emotional
intelligence," as well as other aspects of education; the Buddha, after all
was a teacher, par excellence.  I don't know what you'd make -- politically
-- of the movement for introducing meditation into schools, as version of a
moment of silence; and am curious too.

Certainly work with victims of crimes is important, and is being done by
Buddhists and I will mention it, in future editions.   ... You're right in
your assessment of the ideal:  being compassionate for all concerned.  Maybe
Julia Hill come across as an Edward Abbey eco-terrorist??

The sense of Buddhist ethics, and engagement in issues dealing with the
world-at-large, requires compassion for all concerned ... ("Please Call Me
By My True Names" again) ... the logger as well as the tree, the families
for whom logging is a livelihood ... the victim of a violent act as well as
the perpetrator ...

... and (this is what unites beyond partisanship) recognition of the origin
of the violence, and the path of liberation from violence; understanding the
nature of suffering, and the emanciptation from suffering.

(I realize now that in inviting a reader to open their hearts to such
matters, and then inserting hot button items, require great care.)

So --  please  -- let's keep ongoing whatever dialogue we've begun to patch
out, 'cos we obviously represent more than just you 'n me, and 'cos we
obviously do represent *precisely* you 'n me here.  (It's just me, and
insignficant -- but it feels like the Inkwell held its collective breath
waiting for your reply; kinda neat, really.)

 And, more importantly,
as for nirvana, go for it!   (Just remember the traditional cautions of the
8-fold path, such as "view":  do it for the sake of doing it, rather than
with an expectation as to outcome.)  Like Nike says, "Just do it!"

                                                                      [???]
  

    
Slippage!

Thank for slipping in, David.  A net (or web) is made up of the spaces
inbetween, thru which things slip in (like wind, or music).

*Always* good to hear your veterans' tales:  the mercuralialness of labels
is of course an essential reality to most anyone who follows most any
spiritual/sacred/contemplative path.

Another gnarly aspect to this (verging on several other new threads) is the
fact that some of this might have initially been sparked by my choosing
pictures for the book:  thus I used pictures of prisoners meditating, and a
shot of that girl who tree sat in the old-growth redwood.  Are there
pictures that "read" as more conservative, and still embody/evoke Buddhist
ethics?

What is shared by all?  (Durer's "praying hands" for example; and Hicks'
peaceable kingdom of the branch).  (What else?)

One thing I didn't get:
> ... Even Schweitzer's "reverence for life" becomes
> a thorny
issue when applied against
> the three conditions above