I am thinking about and chanting for the people of Burma. They are being gunned down now by the police/military. According to one report in response some of them are reciting verses from the Metta Sutta (the Discourse on Loving-Kindness):
Let everyone be free from danger
Let everyone be free from anger
Let everyone be free from hardship
I have to be honest and say that in the real world a velvet glove is not effective unless there is a steel fist inside it. In other words, for non-violence to work don't you need first to be appealing to people who actually have a conscience and/or are answerable to someone who can reign them in? In this case, the will of the international community must make itself felt. But the main power in a position to do so is China - the last country on earth that would wish to make it a general policy not to beat up on Buddhists monks and nuns and practitioners (they need to keep a free hand for their dealings in Tibet and with the nominally Buddhist Fa Lun Gong). Absent real pressure from the international community - can a non-violent movement succeed if there is not a threat by violent revolutionaries on the horizon who will be less reasonable? But this is not possible now either because there is no more Cold War and so no one who will wage a proxy war on behalf of the people of Burma. Since they are not Muslims (actually I just learned that there is a significant Muslim minority who are in fact being oppressed as well), the people of Burma have no recourse to arms, aid, or suicide bombers from that bloc either. So it seems that they have nothing with which to resist the oppression and violence of the military regime other than non-coorporation, general strikes, and the Metta Sutta. Will that be enough?
As anyone who has been following the notes from my D&D game with Julie, they will know that I keep fretting over violent solutions to evil, and I extol non-violence, compassion, and mercy. But even in the fantasy world of elves and wizards in D&D, non-violence only works when there are powerful warriors to back you up and a fireball waiting if just catching people in a web doesn't work. Even in my imagination non-violence is ineffectual by itself without other means of coercion. Then when it comes to the real world - I do not need to be told that all bets are always off when it comes to the rutheless who have guns and bombs and no concept of the sanctity of life.
What I am confessing here is that I am afraid as I read the news reports - afraid that in front of the world it will be shown that the Metta Sutta - the power of Loving-Kindness - is by itself no power at all and that in fact the real Law of reality is the Golden Rule of Real Politiks: that those with the Gold have the Guns, and those with the Guns make the Rules.
The counter to fear is faith - and the two can certainly coexist, just as fear and courage coexist. In fact, if there were no fearful situations there would be no reason for courage. I guess that means that this is a situation that demands our faith - and certainly the even greater faith of those in Burma. If they do resort to violence - WE WILL ALL LOSE AS A SPECIES. And if in the end it seems to the world that the military rulers succeed in squashing this revolution then WE WILL ALSO LOSE AS A SPECIES. The reason is that it will have shown that MIGHT MAKES RIGHT and that METTA (loving-kindness, agape) is as much a delusion and a fantasy as a 10 year old girls' elf wizard in a Dungeons and Dragons game.
I am chanting for the people of Burma. I am chanting that the aspect of Namu Myoho Renge Kyo that is loving-kindness will prove itself to the world. I am chanting that despair and violence do not overcome faith and non-violence. I am hoping that - without anyone having to resort to violence - the rulers of Burma somehow awaken to the error and self-destructiveness of their ways.
Otherwise - everyone will know - all bets are always off when the facade of civilization crumbles before the Golden Rule of Realpolitik.
Also, for those who want to read about an authentic Buddhist mentor and winner of a richly deserved Nobel Peace Prize:
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
I just realized that while my daughter Julie and I have been playing D&D for the last year, I haven't written up anything that's been happening to her for almost a year now. This is not good as I have to keep track of the story in order to ensure continuity for Julie. And just for the fun of it, I have been posting the write ups here on my blog with my comments on the story so far. The previous entries are here:
Dungeons and Dragons: Ethnic Cleansing 101 or Thought Experiments in Living?
The Ruby and the Ghost entry was the last one chronicling her story, so what happened after that? What follows I have pieced together from my scattered notes:
The next day, Ruby rides her horse Cloud to the village of Cottle where Mile’s home is. On the way, Mile’s son Jerrick and his friends race past her on horseback and Ruby has to calm her horse from panicking. She then arrives at the home and is greeted by the servants who bring her in to see Mile’s wife and mother. Helain, Mile’s wife, reads the letter and finally she and Mile’s mother learn of his fate. Jerrick returns and is at first angry at Ruby for upsetting his mother and grandmother, but then he learns that the letter is from his late father. who had written it as a goodby letter to his family as he lay dying of pneumonia while being held for ransom by pirates.
Then they call for a priest of Rao, the god of peace, reason, and serenity who was Mile’s patron deity (as is true of many in the country of Veluna). The priest performs a memorial service, and then at the end the ghost of Mile’s appears (he had been following Ruby back from the pirate's den as his spirit was linked to the last letter he had written) to them all to tell them that he loves them and to say goodbye. But he also warns Jerrick not to seek vengeance as the pirates did not intend that he should get sick and die. Mile’s then fades into a heavenly light.
Jerrick, however, is too angry and swears vengeance on the pirate’s anyway. In the early morning he puts on his armor and weapons and rides to Quiet Cove. When Helaine awakens the next morning she finds him gone and guesses that he has gone to fight the pirate’s against his father’s wishes. She begs Ruby to bring him back, so Ruby swiftly rides to Quiet Cove. She catches up with Jerrick just outside the pirate village and tries to talk him into obeying his father and returning home. But Jerrick refuses and asks Ruby to help. Ruby tells him that she will go and scout around in the village. It is now late morning.
Ruby sneaks around the village but unfortunately is spotted, and she tries to run away out of the village but about a half dozen pirates are right behind her. Jerrick rides them down and manages to hit one as he passes them. This gives Ruby enough time to turn around and use the Burning Hands spell, which sends a sheet of flame out from her hands which turns all but two of them into crispy critters. One jumps away in time but gets too close to Jerrick’s horse and is struck down. Another jumped away from the flames and tried to run back and sound the alarm but Jerrick rode him down as well. Then Captain Cadwyn and dozens of pirates come charging up the street firing crossbows. Jerrick is hit and forced to recognize that this battle is too much for him. To stop the pirates Ruby uses her web spell to trap them all between the cottages. Captain Cadwyn recognizes her as the elven wizard who burned his ships and was probably the one who stole his treasure. Now, stuck in the web as Ruby and Jerrick ride back to Cottle he swears to someday have his revenge.
The way I remember it, Jerrick swore that he would not go after the pirates anymore. Ruby returned to the White Goose and the rest of the voyage to the elven city of Highfolk was fairly uneventful.
And that's was the end of Ruby's adventure with the pirates and the ghost. I should note here that while Ruby did kill three of the pirates in a rather harsh way, the majority of them were nonviolently captured (temporarily) in a web. I almost always congratulate Julie whenever she is able to accomplish something in the game as Ruby without having to kill or hurt anyone.
The way D&D was originally set up, it could basically be played like a video game - just wander around vanquishing everything in site. This makes sense as it was originally a spin-off of a tabletop tactical war game. However, D&D, esp. the new 3.5 version, also provides many alternative and nonviolent solutions to problems. Wizards, esp. it seems have the means to overcome their foes without always having to kill them.
As I've written about here before, I've been playing Dungeons and Dragons with my daughter for the last couple of years, sometimes just she and I, sometimes with a friend of hers (another 10 year old girl). It's amazing the difference between playing the game with little girls and my recollections of playing the game with my brother back when I was 16 and he was 13. My daughter (and her friends) like to play elf princesses with magical power with names like Ruby Rainbow. My brother used to play warlord barbarians with names like Urvoch of the Blooded Axe. The game with my daughter revolves around making journeys to visit friends and family and befriending animals and fantastic creatures (like unicorns or intelligent giant eagles or even friendly ghosts). The game with my brother revolved around killing things and taking their stuff (actually to my brothers credit his characters usually went around looking for the truly evil to put the smack down on - and then he took their stuff). My daughter has even mentioned the difference. She told me that the boys in her school also play D&D and bring the books to school but, she says, their game is different than ours. She says their games are all about monsters and fighting, whereas her game is about beautiful elf kingdoms, enchanted forests, and her search for a pegasus to ride.
Now actually there has been plenty of action and adventure in the stories I've been creating for my daughter. There have been pirates, and monsters, and a challenge to win magical treasures by getting past elemental spirits. But without even instructing her, my daughter has tended to use spells to incapacitate (dizzying sprays of color or magic webs to catch or hinder her opponents) or to get around things without hurting them (spider climbing spells or flying away on giant eagle back). It makes her sad when anything has to be killed - even if its just her friendly eagle hunting rabbits in the forest and swallowing them whole as apparently eagles do according to the Scholastic series of books on animals we have at home. And that's as it should be for her at this age. So is my daughter's style of play an inferior version of D&D? Is the 13 year old boy "kill things and take their stuff" approach the correct way?
I think where things go off the tracks is when little girls grow up into women who do not let go of the sentimentality of a worldview of pollyanna niceness, care bears and unicorns. Sometimes firm action is called for, and sometimes life can be ugly and scary and it is best not to be cowardly or cry foul but to just roll up one's sleeves and see how to make things better and then just do it no matter what the risk or who gets ticked off. Likewise, things are off track when little boys grow up but do not let go of the mentality of beating others and getting all the good stuff for themselves. Even little boys need to grow up to become mature men who can recognize that oftentimes fighting and having a belligerent or grasping spirit just makes things worse.
What is the adult alternative to the "fighting spirit" of the 13 year old boy or the naive sentimentality of the 10 year old girl?
For his part, the Buddha recommended that people cultivate the following five faculties with which all circumstances could be met:
a spirit of faith, as in trust and confidence in oneself and the practice
a spirit of endeavor, so as to do what must be done and refrain from what makes things worse
a spirit of mindfulness so as to be aware of one's actions and attitudes and their suitability to the situation at hand, and thereby be able to make adjustments accordingly
a spirit of concentration so as to remain focused and grounded
a spirit of wisdom so as to see how things actually are free of the turbulence of attachment, aversion, and ignorance and instead to view things with the eyes of loving-kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity
I think these are the faculties that mature adults eventually cultivate. It is these five that bring little boys out of the "kill things and take their stuff" frame of mind and the little girls out the enchanted forest where nothing means any real harm and one can avoid life and death struggles.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
While looking for another file, I ran into these definitions I wrote for myself several years ago. At least I think I wrote them. There was no indication that they were taken from any other source. Basically these definitions describe how I understand and use these terms. They may not be how other people understand or use these terms or methods. So be it. I am certainly interested in knowing more about the sources and uses of these things, but they are not really immediately relevant to me. I am simply trying to find ways to articulate how it is that I understand and work with things. By whatever name, these three things describe my approach to Buddhism:
Deconstruction: The methods of a recent movement of literary criticism. It means that one can not take the apparent meaning of a text at face value because the assumptions and use of language by the author(s) of any given text may be very different from our own assumptions and ways of using language. Therefore, in order to properly understand a text, one must deconstruct it. In other words, analyze it in order to discover how the text may have been constructed in ways that may be very different from the ways in which we would construct a text in order to generate meaning. By doing this, we can get closer to the intended meaning of the text.
Note as of 9/7/07: I would add that deconstruction, as I understand it, is also a way of realizing and taking into account the contexts, assumptions, biases, insights, and oversights that we ourselves bring to a text when we read it. Even though what we may get out of a text may not be what the original author(s) intended, that does not make it any less valuable. In fact, a text that is multivalent and provocative enough to inspire many different understandings over time and in different cultures and contexts is all the more impressive - though also all the more ambiguous and less able to provide a basis for any single authoritative reading.
Demythologize: A method of modern Christian (primarily Protestant) theology. This method is used when confronting supernatural elements in a religious narrative or teaching (such as the existence of angels or devils or the workings of miracles) which seem unbelievable or logically incoherent. Instead of simply dismissing these supernatural elements, demythologization is a process of trying to uncover the metaphorical meanings behind the myths and perhaps even the actual experiences which might have generated the myths.
Note as of 9/7/07: I would add that the existential impact on our lives of the images, symbols, states of being characterized by mythic archetypes and stories and so on is much greater at times than the impact of mere prosaic facts. Reality is what shapes our lives and our understanding and relationship to life, and the power of symbol, dream, archetype, myth, fancy, fears, dreams, and nightmares cannot compare to concrete facts that we never notice or pay attention to. This does not mean that we should not try to ground ourselves in fact and rational thinking. In fact, I think it is our responsibility to do so. It simply means that more often than not we are at the mercy of the chaotic and nebulous world of that which goes far beyond fact - this is sometimes horrific and sometimes exalting.
Post Modern: A contemporary movement within philosophy and the arts. Post Modernism is a confrontation with the limitations of the assumptions of modernism, especially the modernistic ideas of progress and the triumph of reason. Post Modernism attempts to recover the values and teachings of premodern and even primitive cultures in terms of present needs and circumstances. Post Modernism is also a recognition that in the present global community many different cultures and even different periods of these cultures can meet and either confront or complement one another in various unprecedented ways.
Note as of 9/7/07: In my mind at least, post-modernism is often accompanied by huge giant whopping servings of irony - sometimes on many levels at once. Just watch the Venture Brothers or anything by Joss Whedon.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei