Maya, or Mara, means delusion. Upaya means "expedient means" or "skillfulness." Both refer to the fact that our sense impressions are not as accurate in respect to the world outside of our "minds" as we'd like them to be. The former deals with the situation, and the later deals with how to deal with that situation. Mara is "illusion"/"delusion" it is the poisonous things that deceive us and mislead us. It is "Samael" -- the poisoner. It is the "Satan" -- the enemy other. It is the process of alienation itself. The misery that we experience is a result of "mara", and paradoxically it is this misery that serves as a goad to enlightenment.
The Lotus Sutra is a main source of the Buddha's teachings on "upaya." The Buddha brilliantly recognized that the power and utility of all teachings comes from the same creative source. Not from the teachings themselves, but from the creativity that they spark in people. The Buddha's expedient means are aimed at guiding people along the path to enlightenment.
And this is the beginning to the answer to Mike's question:
"Who gets to decide which are the lies and fables, and who is actually facing the truth? One person may sincerely believe that they are squarely facing the truth, but to another that person is living in a dream-world. Who is the arbiter of truth, or whose yardstick should be used?"
Because the Buddha's expedient means are judged by whether or not -- in fact -- people get to an enlightened state. And the Lotus Sutra provides us with one yardstick for understanding the yardstick involved. In the "Vanishing City Chapter," The Buddha teaches of a travellor for whom the road has become weary and of his magic city. Both the creation and the destruction of "Magic cities" is the work of skillfulness. The dreams and fables are only worth holding onto to the extent that they actually guide people along the way to the "magic mountain" of enlightenment. When they no longer do so it is time to break camp.
Upaya can be understood as being like the dream of a Cathedral. One man might envision such a thing and talk of it to a few. Another man may draw plans and talk about them with others who might offer improvements. Yet another may decide to start building. It may take years to build such a building. The "visioner" may later take credit for "creating" the Cathedral, but it is the product of something that is more real than one person. It is the creativity of the entire community at work. And if the Cathedral is actually built, it's result becomes a "testament" to the truth of that vision. If it is built and later falls on people's heads, that is a testament to the weakness of those visions.
The same analogy applies to religion. People build religious systems out of similes and parables, stories and beliefs. Many of these stories and beliefs are objectively fiction. Like the vision of the Messiah I talked about. Yet like the vision of a Cathedral, they form a goal to work towards. You want an enlightened world, then you take such a dream and work to refine it and build towards that future. In the hands of a skilled teacher, tragedy becomes lesson, myth metaphor for life, the fables sources for principles to live, and doctrinal texts source for those principles.
Every Cathedral takes generations to build, and the foundation of a particular Cathedral follows a plan that is both the product of a higher power (the sum being more than the individual parts) and yet subject to revision. And so if we are fundamentalist enough we can see that the roots of Buddhism and Judaism are in a critique (and selective adoption) of the pagan and chaotic religions notions developing before them. That Christianity and Islam represent a generalization of notions borrowed mainly from Judaism, but also from other sources -- following the same pattern. And that therefore, the founders of those religions have to be seen as creative architects. We live in the houses they designed, like it or not. We have a variety of yardsticks. All of which are inherited from them.
And of course those houses are on fire....
We live in what the ancient Rabbis called "Dog faced times." The Rabbis weren't being cryptic, but they were being metaphorical. They developed systematic methods of studying scripture. Which is how they turned a payton place set of myths and legends into a scripture which a good portion of the world reads for wisdom(Christians and Jews), and another good portion (Islam) immitates in their own scripture. It was that systematic approach to religion that is embodied in their earliest oral religion. And it is that systematic approach to religion that inspired Latins and Greeks (and later others) to learn the Jewish teachings of the Rabbi Jesu and make them their own.
So what does that have to do with Buddhism? more...
What it has to do with Buddhism is multifold.
For one thing those Rabbis, ancient and modern were using religion systematically, but that doesn't always mean wisely, perfectly, or even correctly. Some of them were saints, but even these guys were operating within a tradition with it's own stories, it's own methods, it's own skillful means. It's own "Upaya" or skillfulness. They knew this themselves even if they didn't teach it explicitly. It was in the acronym PRDS (pardes).
When they told a fable they knew what they were doing. When Paul crafted Christianity he had a purpose in mind. Everything he said in his more authenticated writings is consistant with "Kaballistic" or "received" (mystic/esoteric) jewish traditions. What wasn't was that he taught it to outsiders. Judaism was and remains tribal in orientation. It was even a sin for non jews to celebrate the sabbath without conversion. Maybe that is the real reason the Christians moved the Sabbath from Saturday (Sabado in Spanish) to Sunday, and the holidays to a Solar calendar instead of a month based on.
And of course, we have two ways to approach these traditions. We can say "these are incorrect, childish, dangerous, perverse." And try to replace them. You know the story; "Convert the whole world and there will be world peace?" But wait both Christianity and Islam tried to do that with Judaism. Or we can do what the earliest Buddhists did with Taoism, Confucianism and other tribal religions of ancient times. Find a way to harmonize them with the teachings of the Buddha. Can it be done? If you dig deep enough you can. There are secret harmonies between Judaism, Christianity and mystical sufism already with Buddhism. These religions influenced each other from the get go. What they couldn't do was to dislodge or replace each other. And that is for a reason. It is the blind man myth again. If you call this beast called "Life" God, then you can see that each person is trying to understand "Him"/It/ the Law in his/her own way. Not to worship it/him/law, but to become one with life and ease the transition from stage to stage within our traverse of it.
The Holy sparks that kaballists talk about can become great bright lights if only the "husks" that contain them are polished to perfection so the light can shine through. But how do you polish something? You rub it against something else. Maybe that is our task.
And of course there will always be ignorant people who will attack you for thinking. Call you "heretic" for making choices. Oppose you at every step. And of course there will always be the bent and twisted people who twist things for their own purposes. And the sages with blind spots and millions of deluded followers. Deluded a common mortal. Enlightened a Buddha. Deluded a hell and land of misery. Enlightened a pure land.
And the dog faced times? Ever watch someone who owns dogs and how they become reflections of one another's personalities. A Dog faced person is the leaders who lead us in this day. They appear eager and strong and taking the lead, but in fact they are on a chain. Turn the wrong way and watch what the master does with his dog. So it is with our current leaders in religion, politics, everywhere. And the owners of the chain are the guardians of greed, hunger, envy, animality, anger, stupidity and arrogance. They can only go so far before someone yanks on that chain. Apparantly "he" is us. But in reality it is the "king Devil himself:" Dai Ro Kuten no mao, the poisoner; samael. The deceiver; Mara. And the lies and fables we tell ourselves rather than confronting the truth.
Nam Myoho Renge Kyo;
Soaring
Soaring above the ground;
flying so high the world seems round.
Thinking slowly deliberately but preparing for speed,
The others may warn you but why take heed?
They should have called that Spirit Ikarus,
To fly so high so far above us.
To dare the fiery sun.
To Soar to the sky, means to never die,
For the spirit lives,
though the body may fail.
Reborn to seek that holy grail.
Daedelus reborn discovers the secret.
You fall down and down, pulling your wings in at an angle,
until you slow enough to spread your wings and fly.
Chris
Friday
Some days are freindly,
some days are bizaare,
Some days are kind to us,
some don't take us very far.
But Friday is always a relief,
a day for reflection and refurbishing belief,
Thank God and Enlightened men, for Friday.
Chris
The thing that all "official misconduct", "white collar misconduct", and criminal behavior have in common is a thing called "perversity." Perversity comes from a word that means twisted, as in the Lotus Sutra's warning that in the distant future there will be "evil monks whose hearts are fawning and perverse." There are all sorts of perversity.
But they are just as perverse.
The source of all deluded behavior is known as "mara" in the east, Maya in India, and Samael in the bible. It is "illusion." ...
There are two kinds of illusion. One is usually known as "delusion" and the other is "ignorance." All perversity are "from within" and thus are psychological to one extent or another. They have to do with the "wiring" of our internal operating systems. Like with computers this is the result of "hard wiring" somewhat-- from our genetic and developmental structure. The thing is whatever, the excuses, the internal compulsions, or the justifications, we have "volitional" control over either our behavior, or the moral responsibility to develop such control. When we are blind, or blinded, to our "perverse parts" then that can be called "ignorance." When we are intentionally blind, that is "ignore-ance" and is the worst form of delusion.
We can be blind to the facts, or we can intentionally adopt a false narrative. To some extent all narratives are either "fiction" or 'hypothesis." They are "history" or stories told about something. Sometimes the actual story is a "fable" -- and that is appropriate for conveying morals and models, though only if the fableist shares that secret at some point with his audience and is aware of it himself. The source of much perversity is in the adoption of narratives for behavior that don't apply to reality.
Fighting our own "perversity" means recognizing that the true source of how troubles impact is is within. And the main source for troubles is the "lie". recognizing that and fighting it on our three levels of interaction (within, local and universal) is a struggle for all of that. A person who struggles to be a "righteous" or "penitant" person struggles with mara to win. A person who blinds himself intentionally is an arrogant person. We have tough choices as it is, if we adopt an arrogant attitude that makes it all the harder to make good ones.
So with that in mind, it doesn't hurt to seperate fact from fiction, and to simultaneously recognize the value and place of both. Without our sustaining narratives and goals, we have no life. We have the choice of creating a world of justice and light or a dark perverse world. The light entirely flows from within. That is something that all religions attest to.
The antidote to perversity is "humility" which doesn't mean to debase yourself, but does mean to live a life where one constantly self examines and knows that "I can do better today than yesterday."
You would think that there would be no reason to have to explain why torture is something wrong. You would think that the logic would be self-evident for why Torture is the wrong way to interrogate prisoners and "material witnesses." It is self-evident to most advanced countries, and not to nearly every tyranny. Even so, almost all torturers, including the current administration pay lip service to the moral quandaries and the unethical quality of torture, all the while trying to make lame justifications for doing what they want to do anyway.
The last people to be shameless on the subject and make ethical justifications for that shamelessness were the leaders of that Catholic institution the "Inquisition." Those people had all sorts of euphemisms for their activities. The actual murder was called a "relaxation" and was part of a ceremonial holocaust known as an "act of faith" -- auto da fe. The torturers of the inquisition maintained that you had to torment the body to save the soul. A person I know claims that when she toured Torquemada's chambers, her guide was still quite proud of this record of saving souls for which the Spanish became quite known. That record involved torturing thousands or innocent people, whose only real crime was that they wanted to think for themselves and practice their religious beliefs.
Modern day torturers have new excuses for their behaviors. These excuses, incompatible with all sane notions of human rights, justice, or process, nevertheless have a diabolical logic of their own. Let's look at them.
David Ignatious in his article drawing from that infamous memo quotes:
"Physical pain amounting to torture must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death."
And yet, the section doesn't give someone an out that somehow it's "not torture" simply because the pain is less than that of severe injury. It just says:
Section 2340 of the U.S. Criminal Code banning torture abroad -- defined as any act "specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering . . . upon another person within his custody or physical control."
We see a similar logic employed in other countries. Many of them don't admit that they torture people either. They have laws on the books spelling out that torture is illegal. The US isn't the only place where perverted officials create intentionally confused laws so that they can commit it. Amnesty international has a wonderful(?) article on the subject. I saw the text of an egyptian law on the subject a while back. Here is an article that lays it out:
http://www.hrcap.org/Reports2/torture%20in%20egypt/ch1.htm
They will tell you they have laws against torture in Egypt -- quite strict ones -- which they ignore regularly:
http://www.amnestyusa.org/amnestynow/tortured.html.
It describes how the lovely democrats in Egypt dealt with people "rendered" to them by the US:
'Other captives have been sent to Egypt, where, according to the State Department, suspects are routinely'“stripped and blindfolded; suspended from a ceiling or doorframe with feet just touching the floor; beaten with fists, whips, metal rods, or other objects; subjected to electric shocks.”'A former CIA official told Newsday about one detainee transferred from Guantánamo Bay to Egypt:'
“They promptly tore his fingernails out, and he started telling things.”
also read:http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2002/11/12/international1909EST0793.DTL
Alan Dershowitz(http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/03/cnna.Dershowitz/), a man I used to have a lot of respect for, makes the next case that torturers like to use. "The Ticking bomb theory." You might know this theory, it also tries to provide a constitutional rationale for torturing people under "extreme" cases. According to this theory, if someone knows something about an imminent threat, such as a nuke about to explode or something like that, then under that extreme circumstance torture might be justified.
"My basic point, though, is we should never under any circumstances allow low-level people to administer torture. If torture is going to be administered as a last resort in the ticking-bomb case, to save enormous numbers of lives, it ought to be done openly, with accountability, with approval by the president of the United States or by a Supreme Court justice. I don't think we're in that situation in this case."
This was exactly the logic written into the guidelines followed by the tortureres in Iraq, except that some of them got enthusiastic and photographs were taken of them doing so.
That is the trouble with perverse behavior, once it 's starts it's difficult to reign in. They had CIA and officials everywhere, and yet these things went on anyway. They got the Seargent present at the time to take the fall, but who took the pictures?
Alan Dershowitz may disagree on this, but even he sees the moral extremity of this behavior. A democracy can only preserve it's integrity at the cost of "sometimes fighting with one hand tied behind one's back." Israel had tried to develop "less coercive interrogation methods" and all they had done was to lead to trouble.http://www.amnestyusa.org/amnestynow/tortured.html. As a result, even Israel, with the extremity of determined cold-blooded killers on it's back, has eschewed Torture on moral and religious grounds. You can find where Deborah Sontag broke this story several years ago. It was also in the New York Times:http://www.la.utexas.edu/chenry/aip/press99/090799israel-rights.html
To be continued...
I've been following the News since 9/11 with a lot of concern. In any human struggle there are always three simultaneously intertwined levels in which one struggles; within one's own mind and body, within ones own "realm" of ever wider associations, and then between those realms. I know from experience, that we are, in the long run, always more in danger from ourselves than from any outward enemy. And so I followed the news reports as they ticked off one by one with certainty that the direction they were headed was bad. First were the detentions of "enemy aliens" and of routine violations of law by people suspected of involvement with terrorism. Then there was the patriot act. Then there was Guantanamo bay. then Abu Gharaib, and now sure enough an effort is being made to declassify the memos under which these crimes were justified with justifications that even the authors would have been ashamed to present in public. For example Ashcroft wouldn't answer questions [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25211-2004Jun8.html]related to his memo on the subject. All he will say is that the US stayed within the law. Yet it is pretty obvious that they didn't and that this was on advice from his office [see http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/torture/30603wgrpt4.html].
And it all represents a sad and disgusting progression of what can only be characterized as crimes and perverse/evil behavior, "covered" with lies and secrecy. The administration cannot redefine the law to mean what they want it to mean. I hope that the courts will rule on this soon, and do the right thing. In the name of justice can you ever do injustice?
A report in the Washington Post details how these things were systematically developed and then put into practice at Abu Gharaib. Anne Applebaum details how the government developed a systematic legal "cover" for these crimes. David Cole explains a little of the historical situation.
We have to do something about this administration. We have to put Bush out of office and restore some meaning to our (is it a pretense?) belief in human rights. We have to do it by November.
The Cicadas in my area are starting, finally to decrease in numbers. It's been interesting dealing with them. They are ugly, they stink, they come out by the billions. They leave holes in the ground and their dead husks everywhere. They sound like they are from Mars. Some idiot actually ate some Cicadas and nearly died from hives. I had to clean them up by the hundreds from my yard, and they made me want to retch each time. Had to wear a face mask.
Still I'm glad they come. If they disapeared the world would have lost something awsome and wonderful. And I'd be very worried. Like when the little canary dies in a mine shaft. Sometimes the plagues are preferrable to death. If the Cicadas ever disapear be very worried.
Goodbye Ray Charles, I hear your sound,
it is a a sad day, that you re not around.
Your music moved me, your vision spoke to me,
I'll play your tunes, and sing a prayer for you,
No dirge will it be, though into the night.
I hear your vision, I see your sound,
It will be sad, when you are not around,
But your spirit endures, and may it continue,
rolling down the keyboard, belting out tunes,
for many more years, deathless and bright.
Goodbye Ray Charles, I sing you farewell,
No blind man died, no vision was lost,
I shed no tears, I heard your vision.
You touched the keys to my heart,
I'm privelaged to have known you,
Your piano rocking on in the endless night.
Chris
Note: I had to add a little
This week has been really fascinating in the news, what with the hagiographies on our late President, new revelations about official torture and tortured justifications for it, and I'm finding that "blogging" is fun, not just for what the "blogger" says but also for all the bright things that people say in response. I've been planning to work on this blog all week, and right now I wish I had done so sooner. I have articles for each day of this week.
Truth is this is a week when the country is in mourning. But I'm not. Oh I cried a little reading some of the articles on our late President. But...
I can't get caught up in all the hooplah. The man was okay. On some issues he "done right" on others he "done wrong." On identifying the wrongs of Communism he was right up there with Ayn Rand, Arthur Koestler, HG Wells and other Ikons of the intellectual side of the anti-communism movement. On other matters though his legacy is worse than mixed. He introduced a fantasy quality to political life that was charming to listen to but mythical in nature. So I can't get caught up in the hooplah. Instead what I can do is to read about the guy and reflect about that legacy. And share some of the quotes and thoughts here. I hope we all will do this this week. A lot of people are thinking of the death of Julius Ceasar. This is appropriate as both friends and foes want to use this death as an excuse to advance their cause. Some feel really hurt.
Those involved with certain Issues hurt more than others: AIDS, poverty, Unions, worker rights, freedom from right wing torturers.
Some praise him; people living under Communist tyranny, his backers, those who loved the "myth of him as the man on Horseback." Fundamentalists of all stripes except Marxism. They love him.
But me, I thought he was a great actor.
In the Lotus Sutra we are told not to mix our practice of the Lotus Sutra with other practices. This is an important admonition. But what does it mean in the context of our participation in society? What is the distinction between practicing, say "Zuiho Bini" (or adjusting to host cultures) and "mixing?" And what does it mean to practice the Lotus Sutra exclusively? These are ancient questions, and before Nichiren was ever born they had already perplexed generations of Central and East Asian Buddhists who tackled the Lotus Sutra . At the time of his existence the Tendai Sect had, for example, contenanced the mixing of the teachings of Shingon; ("Mantras and Mudras"; chants, objects of meditation, and hand positions) with Lotus Sutra teachings. Nichiren felt that by so doing they had suborned or even turned on their head those teachings. He advised "exclusive devotion" to chanting the title of the Sutra. Nam Myoho Renge Kyo. He warned his disciples about mixing.
So how do we, who live in lands dominated by other religions. Most of us living in lands dominated by teachings mandating exclusive devotion to them, deal with our surroundings? How do we hold true to Buddhism while navigating Christian and Jewish, Moslem and Orthodox Buddhism, and the panoply of religious beliefs out there?
Well to do this starts with remembering 3 things.
One is that the Lotus Sutra is a "recursive" and comprehensive teaching. That is it is literally, figuratively, and actually superior to many of the religious teachings out there. Not because any single teaching is wiser than the other, but because the Lotus Sutra incorporates all wisdom into it's very essence. Nichiren compared it to the ocean, which has the property of accepting all waters while remaining the same.
Second, the first premise here implies that the key to "not mixing" is to be continuously studying Nichiren, the Lotus Sutra, and making distinctions between what Buddhism is really about -- what life is really about -- and the various fantasies, teachings and "upayas" or "skillful words" used to describe life. That is it is we who must develop the wisdom to "accept the things that we can accept, and reject those that we cannot, and to know the difference." Nichiren talked about this in a letter to one of his women disciples and converts. He explained this principle of Zuiho Bini as one that allows us to accept, even practice, teachings that are both wise, don't hurt the essentials, and that don't contradict those teachings.
On the other hand he extensively deconstructed esoteric Buddhism, while adopting some elements of it. This tells us that we should be extremely careful to focus on what the important messages are in Buddhism. This brings us to the third point. "Not mixing" really means not letting our focus dissolve or be waylaid from what is important. It really means that we should not lose your aspiration for enlightenment, or our hope that such enlightenment will encompass the entire world. We should keep our hearts focused on the sixteenth chapter, whatever else we may be doing in our dailly life.
Naturally there is a lot more to be explored here. I'm just introducing a theme I hope we'll come back to again and again over the next years and that we can study together.
I know, my first entry ought to be something high minded. Like a Gosho quote or something. But current events got me a little stirred this morning.
The US is angry at this guy Chalabi. But I don't buy their anger. For one thing what were they doing giving this guy access to top secrets? He's not a US citizen. Supposedly he wasn't even a US employee. And encryption secrets? It's a rule of intelligence that you don't even talk about national secrets to your own wife. Churchill so guarded the secrets of his encryption codes that he wouldn't even let his own people know what he knew. Hell he walked through Coventry knowing that he could have saved thousands of lives in advance, but felt that his encryption secrets were so important that a few hundred thousand brittish working class deaths would be worth the potential for gain. Any idiot who would let him know that the US had broken (as alleged) Iranian codes should be arrested for treachery to the US and tried as a spy. Not Challaby. With a guy like Challaby you got to expect him to be Quadruple dealing everybody. If you expect him to be a saint -- you are the idiot. Heck even if he were a saint, he still is someone you shouldn't be whispering secrets to.
Don't they know, "loose lips sink ships."
There I got it off my chest.
Anyway thanks for giving me a place and opportunity to sound off on stuff.