For May Day: A Pacifist Anarchist Catholic Saint

May 2, 2014 By Justin Whitaker

Happy May Day, fellow workers.

Since I already have had a very long day myself, mostly spent on buses to/from/in London, I’ll simply re-post, with minor modifications, a favorite blog from last year, one which I later found out was even re-posted at Disinfo.org. And just so you don’t think I’ve forgotten Buddhism completely in this post, please may I introduce (if you don’t know him already) Tenzin Tsundue (here is a 2013 HuffPo interview with Tsundue), and of course we cannot ever overlook the amazing work done by the folks at the Buddhist Peace Fellowship, Buddhist Global Relief, and Tzu Chi.

[the old video link is not working: try The Life of Dorothy Day on PBS or search Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly.]

If you don’t already subscribe to PBS’s Religion and Ethics News Weekly, I highly recommend that you do. This story alone is worth it.

It focuses on the life of Dorothy Day, a devout Catholic, a socialist, an anarchist, and, perhaps one day a Saint.

Dorothy Day has always loomed large in the back of my mind. Growing up Catholic, to two very liberal parents (my mother marched with and had dinner with a member of the Chicago Seven), I was drawn to the idea that Catholics could also be radicals. My parents faded away from the Church, sometimes recalling that the most vicious people they had ever encountered were Catholic nuns in primary schools. And as they faded they focused direct action through social work for my mother and volunteering and simply helping those who needed it for my father – sometimes including giving cars away to people who needed one. Meanwhile, I faded as well drawn to science, atheism and existentialism, then humanism, and eventually Buddhism, all the while doing volunteer work of one sort or another on the side.

The very name of Day’s movement, the Catholic Worker Movement, clearly echoes her Communist sympathies (or at least shared interests) – noting that we humans are workers as much as anything and that work deserves respect and the recognition of the dignity of each and every one of us. Of course this is distinguished from the way we all are typically described, as consumers. Here our value is determined by how much we take, not by what we give.

I’m no orthodox Marxist, but I believe Day was on to something. We need balance, and these days things seem far from balanced.

At Day’s Catholic Worker soup kitchen I am heartened to see (in the video) that one of the volunteers interviewed openly admits to not being a Christian. Yet his ability to work, to give, is still valued. He is accepted based on that, on his practices rather than his beliefs.

Others, Christian and not, Socialist and not, were drawn to her “pacifist anarchist movement” through their own conscience as much as to holding any particular beliefs, and it has been this common conscience, a shared sense of the rightness of helping those in need, which has kept the movement alive for 81 years now.

When I mentioned this on facebook, a friend reminded me of Thomas Merton and Simone Weil, two fellow radicals and inspirations to all of us from the 20th century.

Miracles?

Another friend reminded me this morning that in order to be canonized, Day would need two miracles attributed to her. There are no miracles attributed to her intercession mentioned in recent articles, although the Washington Post reported in 2000 that a Sociologist named Robert Coles, a Day admirer, said his wife prayed to Day and experienced a healing (actually… see comment here). And in 2011 the Houston branch of Catholic Worker published a letter from a Professor Richard Fossey of the University of North Texas, who wrote:

In December 2009, I invoked the assistance of Dorothy Day, asking her to cure my friend Sarah Maple of a brain tumor that doctors told Sarah would kill her in two years…

He continues:

I am writing to tell you that Sarah Maple has had a miraculous healing of her brain tumor. She had received good MRIs through the autumn of 2010, but in December she went for her regular visit to the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, and the doctors told her that her brain tumor had disappeared. One member of Sarah’s medical team, who is Catholic, told Sarah that she had never seen anything like this and that she believed Sarah’s remarkable recovery is a miracle.

I too believe that the disappearance of Sarah’s brain tumor is a miracle that occurred through the intercession of Dorothy Day, whose assistance I sought just before I wrote the Zwicks in December 2009.

And finally:

If there is anything I can do to help move the canonization of Dorothy Day forward, please let me know. I recall vividly that when I sought Dorothy Day’s intercession, I felt a deep sense that my call for assistance was heard.

Verification of these potential miracles is a lengthy process at the Vatican (here is a report discussing the beatification and canonization process for Pope John Paul II).

If you would like to pray for Day’s intercession, a website has been set up to guide you. But keep in mind this is the woman who reportedly said, “Don’t trivialize me by trying to make me a saint,” and in her own words about miracles in 1934 wrote:

Our lives are made up of little miracles day by day. That splendid globe of sun, one street wide, framed at the foot of East Fourteenth street in early morning mists that greeted me this morning in my way out to mass was a miracle that lifted up my heart. I was reminded of a little song of Teresa’s, composed and sung at the age of two.

“I’ll sing a song,” (she warbled)
Of sunshine on a little house.
And the sunshine is a present for the little house.”

Sunshine in the middle of January is indeed a present.

Indeed. Sunshine any time is a present.

This is Water: David Foster Wallace and Buddhism

May 9, 2013 By Justin Whitaker

The commencement address that David Foster Wallace gave in 2005 at Kenyon College has just been re-posted on youtube with a little visual help from filmmakers known as The Glossary. As the filmmakers state, “the resulting speech didn’t become widely known until 3 years later, after his tragic death. It is, without a doubt, some of the best life advice we’ve ever come across, and perhaps the most simple and elegant explanation of the real value of education.” ~~After 3 days it has over 1.5 million hits.~~ After 4 days it has over 2.5 million hits.

See why:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmpYnxlEh0c&

The text (in part):

There are these two young fish swimming along and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says “Morning, boys. How’s the water?” And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes “What the hell is water?”

…

The point of the fish story is merely that the most obvious, important realities are often the ones that are hardest to see and talk about. Stated as an English sentence, of course, this is just a banal platitude, but the fact is that in the day to day trenches of adult existence, banal platitudes can have a life or death importance, or so I wish to suggest to you on this dry and lovely morning.

…

[skipping to the end]

…

That is real freedom. That is being educated, and understanding how to think. The alternative is unconsciousness, the default setting, the rat race, the constant gnawing sense of having had, and lost, some infinite thing.

I know that this stuff probably doesn’t sound fun and breezy or grandly inspirational the way a commencement speech is supposed to sound. What it is, as far as I can see, is the capital-T Truth, with a whole lot of rhetorical niceties stripped away. You are, of course, free to think of it whatever you wish. But please don’t just dismiss it as just some finger-wagging Dr. Laura sermon. None of this stuff is really about morality or religion or dogma or big fancy questions of life after death.

The capital-T Truth is about life BEFORE death.

It is about the real value of a real education, which has almost nothing to do with knowledge, and everything to do with simple awareness; awareness of what is so real and essential, so hidden in plain sight all around us, all the time, that we have to keep reminding ourselves over and over:

“This is water.”

“This is water.”

The original speech (the above is an abridged version) made its way in to a book of the same title: This is Water:Some Thoughts, Delivered on a Significant Occasion, about Living a Compassionate Life.

davidfosterwallace — Cover for “Every Story is a Ghost Story: A Life of David Foster Wallace” by D.T. Max

After his death in 2008, many wondered about his religious beliefs. As Eric Been writes for the Atlantic (in an interview with D.T. Max, author of a biography of Wallace published last year):

One part of the book I found striking is when you discuss how he developed an interest in Buddhism, but as you write, it was always hard for him to “understand that Buddhism wasn’t a course you tried to ace.” He seemed to have the same issues when it came to Christianity.

I think some people have tried to turn David into some kind of Thomas Merton figure, but whereas Merton found God, David found God in the form of a 12-step program. Part of the 12-step program that he found hardest to accept—and therefore in my mind most exciting to think about—was faith. I don’t think the Judeo-Christian God ever satisfied him. I think he found it hard to put his skepticism away and feel faith.

Wallace’s descriptions of the world, both the samsaric suffering, and the way to its end, seem to resonate clearly with many Buddhists today. As Sam Mowe wrote for Tricycle, “Awareness. Compassion. Freedom. While this speech is probably considered the most “Buddhist” of Wallace’s work (his “This is water” bit at its conclusion might as well have come straight from Dogen’s mouth)…” And, “Wallace must have meditated. Those physical descriptions—insects crawling over the body and shooting out of the head—are just too real for him to not have. Indeed, many of Wallace’s characters seem aware—hyper-aware—of the samsaric nature of their minds.”

Josh Korda of DarmaPunx NYC likewise took an opportunity to meditate on the words of David Foster Wallace [DFW],

While what the buddha calls “our run of the mill mind” or DFW “default self-centered settings” is a profoundly distorted and stress inducing creation, it nevertheless stays intact because, after all, it is the way things “appear to be”

—DFW starts off his talk with the story about fish that don’t know what water is

—the appearance that the sun revolves around the earth

—most of [us] live our lives without questioning all of our thoughts, views, opinions, not realizing that, as they are filtered through the prism of self, they are likely to be delusional

But Ryan Zee of blogcritics seems to have the best analysis of a possible (and indeed likely) influence from Buddhism on Wallace – either directly or indirectly. After discussing the overlap between Wallace’s speech and Eckhart Tolle’s book, The Power of Now, Zee concludes:

I don’t mean to suggest that Tolle’s book itself influenced Wallace or his speech. (Although the fact that they both use a fish metaphor at one point to characterize an absence of consciousness is definitely odd.) Buddhism seems a much more likely common influence. I’ve already mentioned Tolle’s interest in Buddhism, but as D.T. Max made clear in his recent biography, Wallace also became enamored with Buddhist philosophy later in life. Future studies of Wallace’s work might find Buddhist philosophy an unlikely source of insight.

And yet, as Wallace himself said, this isn’t about religion, it’s about the capital T-Truth we are seeking in this life – so perhaps those interested in Buddhism or Buddhist philosophy because of how it seems to speak clearly about the human condition should be asking themselves not only how Buddhism might have shaped Wallace, but also how Wallace’s ideas and insights might help to better shape Buddhism – and non-Buddhism – in the future.

Buddhist hope for the new Pope

March 13, 2013 By Justin Whitaker

[Note, this story will be updated as possible in the coming days]

Today it was decided, Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, a Jesuit, has been elected as the 266th Pope and will take the name Francis I. According to the Guardian:

The archbishop of Buenos Aires is a Jesuit intellectual who travels by bus and has a practical approach to poverty: when he was appointed a cardinal, Bergoglio persuaded hundreds of Argentinians not to fly to Rome to celebrate with him but instead to give the money they would have spent on plane tickets to the poor. He was a fierce opponent of Argentinas decision to legalise gay marriage in 2010, arguing children need to have the right to be raised and educated by a father and a mother. He was created a cardinal by John Paul II on 21 February 2001.

believes in contraception to prevent the spread of disease [*NOTE: this is likey a mistake by the Guardian, see NPR]

is open to dialogue with other faiths

is not facing questions over any abuse scandals

is not facing questions over the handling of the Vatileaks scandal

would make reforming the curia a priority

When I ‘played’ the Guardian pick a pope game, I got him and Louis Antonio Tagle from the Philippines as two “as close as possible” candidates to what I would like to see in a Pope, so I suppose I should be grateful. As I noted on facebook, playing ‘pick a pope’ might be “a bit of fun, until you see that only 1 out of [115] cardinals is listed as ‘progressive’ (13 are moderate, 84 are conservative, and 17 are ultra-conservative). Sigh…”

Bergoglio, now Francis I, is one of those 13 Moderates, and, as noted above, is open to dialogue with other faiths.

But searching for statements by Bergoglio on Buddhism turns up nothing. Granted, in Latin America there is very little Buddhism with which to hold a dialogue. But there ARE Buddhists there who, we should hope, have been part of Bergoglio’s mission in dialogue. Now, of course, as Pope Francis I to the global Catholic community, he will face Buddhists – and Buddhists must face him (hopefully in mutual respect).

Regarding Pope Benedict XVI Emeritus, I wrote years ago:

As with many things I’m quite skeptical; though I am trying to be less cynical about Catholicism and Christianity in general (the cynic denies claims and refuses to investigate, the skeptic holds judgement until after investigating).

From the Pakistan Daily Times:

In 1997, Ratzinger called Buddhism an “autoerotic spirituality” that offers “transcendence without imposing concrete religious obligations.” Hinduism, he said, offers “false hope,” in that it guarantees “purification” based on a “morally cruel” concept of reincarnation resembling “a continuous circle of hell.” At the time, Cardinal Ratzinger predicted that Buddhism would replace Marxism as the Catholic church’s main enemy. Lerner says, “Ratzinger is being falsely described as a conservative, when in fact he, despite his publicly genteel manner, is a raging reactionary. Unlike many American conservatives who oppose gay sexual practices but not their legal rights, Ratzinger in 1992 argued against human rights for gays, stressing that their civil liberties could be ‘legitimately limited.’”

See also: http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/04/20/news/issues.html

Yet, my own polemics aside, it may suffice to say that his own words are simply mistaken, and it should be hoped for by all people of good character that he move to understand the good of Buddhism, Hinduism, Marxism, and other ‘ism’s’ which he may otherwise see no value in. Of course, if his concern is more for numbers (of adherents) than for the overall spiritual/moral character of the world, than perhaps seeing the good in other ways of life is problematic. However, it is my own belief, one held by the Dalai Lama … that there is good in religious pluralism. In fact, trying to make everyone into a Buddhist, a Catholic, or a Marxist would be disastrous on both mundane and spiritual levels.

It should be understood by any and all ‘reactionary’ Catholics that an oppressive, or even merely ‘unilateralist’, Catholic church will be its own ‘main enemy.’

Where are the Thomas Mertons of the Catholic faith when you need them?

Let us hope that Pope Francis I brings a Merton-like openness to the deepest questions of human flourishing in an effort to bring humanity together in the many great challenges that face us today.

Via Al Jazeera, an important (progressive) update:

Powerful speech

Catholics are still buzzing over his speech last year accusing fellow church officials of hypocrisy for forgetting that Jesus Christ bathed lepers and ate with prostitutes.

“In our ecclesiastical region there are priests who don’t baptise the children of single mothers because they weren’t conceived in the sanctity of marriage,” Bergoglio told his priests.

“These are today’s hypocrites. … And this poor girl who, rather than returning the child to sender, had the courage to carry it into the world, must wander from parish to parish so that it’s baptised,” he has said.

Bergoglio compared this concept of Catholicism, “this Church of ‘come inside so we make decisions and announcements between ourselves and those who don’t come in, don’t belong'”, to the Pharisees of Christ’s time: people who congratulate themselves while condemning others.

As Argentina’s top church official, he has never lived in the ornate church mansion, preferring a simple bed in a downtown room heated by a small stove on frigid weekends.

For years, he took public transportation around the city, and cooked his own meals.

For further background on recent Argentinian Catholic activity, see here.

*my thanks to Richard (of My Buddha is Pink) for helping clarify the new Pope’s statements on contraception.

All insights, opinions, views, and links are welcome. Just click the ‘comment’ button.

A Pacifist Anarchist Catholic Saint

February 9, 2013 By Justin Whitaker

Watch The Life of Dorothy Day on PBS. See more from Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly.

If you don’t already subscribe to PBS’s Religion and Ethics News Weekly, I highly recommend that you do. This story alone is worth it.

It focuses on the life of Dorothy Day, a devout Catholic, a socialist, an anarchist, and, perhaps very soon, a Saint.

I’m no orthodox Marxist, but I believe Day was on to something. We need balance, and these days things seem far from balanced.

When I mentioned this on facebook, a friend reminded me of Thomas Merton and Simone Weil, two fellow radicals and inspirations to all of us from the 20th century.

Miracles?

Another friend reminded me this morning that in order to be canonized, Day would need two miracles attributed to her. There are no miracles attributed to her intercession mentioned in recent articles, although the Washington Post reported in 2000 that a Sociologist named Robert Coles, a Day admirer, said his wife prayed to Day and experienced a healing (actually… see comment below). And in 2011 the Houston branch of Catholic Worker published a letter from a Professor Richard Fossey of the University of North Texas, who wrote:

In December 2009, I invoked the assistance of Dorothy Day, asking her to cure my friend Sarah Maple of a brain tumor that doctors told Sarah would kill her in two years…

He continues:

I am writing to tell you that Sarah Maple has had a miraculous healing of her brain tumor. She had received good MRIs through the autumn of 2010, but in December she went for her regular visit to the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, and the doctors told her that her brain tumor had disappeared. One member of Sarah’s medical team, who is Catholic, told Sarah that she had never seen anything like this and that she believed Sarah’s remarkable recovery is a miracle.

I too believe that the disappearance of Sarah’s brain tumor is a miracle that occurred through the intercession of Dorothy Day, whose assistance I sought just before I wrote the Zwicks in December 2009.

And finally:

If there is anything I can do to help move the canonization of Dorothy Day forward, please let me know. I recall vividly that when I sought Dorothy Day’s intercession, I felt a deep sense that my call for assistance was heard.

Verification of these potential miracles is a lengthy process at the Vatican (here is a report discussing the beatification and canonization process for Pope John Paul II).

If you would like to pray for Day’s intercession, a website has been set up to guide you. But keep in mind this is the woman who reportedly said, “Don’t trivialize me by trying to make me a saint,” and in her own words about miracles in 1934 wrote:

Our lives are made up of little miracles day by day. That splendid globe of sun, one street wide, framed at the foot of East Fourteenth street in early morning mists that greeted me this morning in my way out to mass was a miracle that lifted up my heart. I was reminded of a little song of Teresa’s, composed and sung at the age of two.

“I’ll sing a song,” (she warbled)
Of sunshine on a little house.
And the sunshine is a present for the little house.”

Sunshine in the middle of January is indeed a present.

Indeed. February too.

Philosophers and Catholicism and Buddhist abuse (updated)

April 12, 2010 By Justin Whitaker

Michael Ruse has a good piece this week in the Huffington Post on the Catholic Church. In it he describes that after a period of strong, perhaps (English) cultural disdain for Catholicism, he grew to respect the Church, if only for the many great minds it produced. But the latest scandal, and the revelations (going back many decades) that are coming out, have him rethinking his respect for this institution.

I read Ruse a few years ago in my MA Philosophy days and even exchanged a couple emails with him at a time when he was being attacked (I thought wrongfully) by “New Atheists.” I recall appreciating his gentle approach to religion, while strongly attacking Intelligent Design in Darwinism and its Discontents and The Evolution-Creation Struggle. While carrying the heavy intellectual stick of the philosopher, Ruse has a great skill as a historian in his ability to step aside and let a great story unfold.

While I haven’t followed the current scandal particularly closely, I do find myself agreeing at the present with Ruse when he says,

“Let me say at once that, unlike Dawkins, I don’t necessarily want to see this as the end of religion or even of the Catholic Church in some form. I stress that although I cannot share the beliefs of Christians, I respect them and applaud the good that is done in the name of their founder. But I do now think that as presently constituted, the Catholic Church is corrupt and should be eradicated.”

While not wishing to get embroiled in the drama – read Ruse and the letter he cites – I do feel it incumbent upon me to voice an agreement with those words.

I still consider myself a bit Catholic, by birth and upbringing, and I know that the Church is a huge, broad organization. Like Ruse I am humbled by many of its greatest minds. And I know it could not be without a great depth of spirit and produce a man like Father Thomas Merton. But I also know that the current Mertons in the church are hard to come by, they are out there and doing wonderful things for their communities, but too often they are kept silent by conservative structures that harm the church and everyone near it.

Glad to have ‘jumped ship’ years ago on Catholic practice, into some strange amalgam of Buddhism and academia, I now watch much of this from the sidelines. Yet I know that many within the church are struggling. I hope that each of them can find a healing and fulfilling path through or out of this.

Update: James over at The Buddhist Blog has a very interesting post today that is worthy of addition here:

Sexual Abuse Isn’t Just a Catholic Issue.

I may be wrong on this but it seems rare to hear of a sexual abuse scandal in the Buddhist world but there has been one brewing for some time now in the American Zen circle:

“This article, among other revelations, presents a face of Zen not ordinarily visible to the general public. That is, how well known Zen rōshis and leading Zen figures spoke and acted; or failed to speak and act, in the face of deeply troubling allegations and really severe problems. Thereby, the article also points to the underlying interests of these rōshis.

Interesting questions arise as to the extent to which this mirrors the Catholic scandal. To me it seems almost identical, though on a smaller scale. The Buddhist Channel, which first reported on this last week, links to a letter eerily similar to the one discussed above by Ruse. The Wikipedia article on Shimano claims that:

In 2004 Eido Shimano Roshi received the prestigious Buddhism Transmission Award from the Japan-based Bukkyo Dendo Kyokai Foundation given to individuals who have made a significant impact on the dissemination of Buddhism in the West;^[3] this same organization produced a two part TV documentary on Eido Shimano Roshi and Dai Bosatsu Zendo Kongo-Ji.^[4]

So we have the same institutional failure to act and indeed a promotion (though not all within the same institution, a marked difference between the two cases). As James says, this is serious. And, just like the Catholic scandal(s), we hope that the victims can find peace.

Both cases do show the humility and/or fear of the abused to be silent. The question now seems to be what will the institutions do? The Zen Society, where Shimano is still listed as abbot, has no mention of the scandal or recently released papers. Perhaps I am missing some important announcement on their part somewhere, but for now, they’re looking an awful lot like the Catholics.

Buddhism and St Paddy’s Day

March 18, 2010 By Justin Whitaker

Buddhism and St Patrick’s Day?

Yea, I’m Irish. More Irish, at least, than this guy;.

With some Flood and Doyle on my pappy’s side and some I-forget-what on my mum’s, I’m probably just over a quarter Irish, but I round up to half.

And so, as with past St. Paddy’s Day, it’s time for our annual Catholic-bashing (well, not really).

And for fun I had a couple twitter tweets myself finding curious similarity between Buddhist and Irish (though not necessarily Catholic) culture:

First, this via Bodhipaksa.

About four minutes in he notes, “In the US, they don’t let gays march, whereas in Ireland, gay people get prizes for being the most colorful group.”

And this also from twitter and Bodhipaksa.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c

Holy Sh*t

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Health Care Reform

In the past I’ve noted theirony in mixing mass intoxication and resurrection when St Patrick’s Day conflicted with Easter. I also wrote in protest when Gays and Lesbians were not allowed to march in the 2006 St. Paddy’s day parade (perhaps what Mr. McCourt was referring to above) and back in 2005 when the Catholic church announced that there are mistakes in the bible (gasp!).

We could toss in there this year that the Catholics have come out in opposition to reforming Health Care. But… in very good news of late, Catholic nuns, yes nuns, have come out in support of the current Health Care bill (and here). My favorite line from them is that because “the legislation also will help support pregnant women … “this is the real pro-life stance.”

As something of a Pro-Life (and Pro-Choice, because the two need not conflict) Buddhist, I’m happy to see this. In fact the traditional Buddhist and Catholic views on the sanctity of fetal life are remarkably similar. Buddhists are, however, IMHO much less likely to force their views – via government or otherwise – on others.

But despite the politics of religion – and Buddhists have their faults, mind you – it’s unwise to fail in mentioning the beauty of Catholicism and all religions. Any faith that could provide such luminaries as Thomas Merton (aka Fr. Louis, pictured here with H.H. the Dalai Lama) and Anthony De Mello deserves our respect.

Before I was a Buddhist, I spent several years as something of a raving hardcore atheist (I liked “anti-theist” at the time). But, if anything, Buddhism has softened my stance on all religions. As a scholar I’ve found plenty of faults in Buddhism, as well as secular philosophies and philosophers. As I’ve done so it has been easier to appreciate the beauty of say, Hafez or Rumi, without getting hung up on the theologies or violent people of the same religion. In doing so we learn to see deeply the humanity of all people, and perhaps even beyond that, to sentience itself and our fundamental interconnectedness with all beings. Speaking of Rumi, he states it well here:

“When the soul lies down in that grass, the world is too full to talk about. Ideas, language, even the phrase ‘each other’ doesn’t make any sense”

“Who gossips with you will gossip of you” – Irish wisdom on the 4th Buddhist Precept for St Pádraig/Paddy’s day

and
More Irish/Buddhist wisdom (4th Precept): of a gossiper: “S/he has a tongue that would clip a hedge.” #stpatricksday

And at left is a photo I took in London a couple years back, laying out Irish Philosophy.

Those of you familiar with Śāntideva might appreciate these lines from his famous text A Guide to the Bodhisattva Way of Life (ch6):

9. Even if I fall into extreme adversity, I should not disrupt my happiness. When there is frustration, nothing is agreeable, and virtue is forsaken.

10. If there is a remedy, then what is the use of frustration? If there is no remedy, then what is the use of frustration?

And to bring us full loop, from Ireland and the Catholics, via Śāntideva and the Buddhists, we end with Bobby McFaren

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/video/x1xuvd
Bobby McFerrin – Don’t Worry Be Happy
Uploaded by jpdc11. – See the latest featured music videos.

(sorry for the odd formatting at times, blogger and I just don’t always get along)

Fake Buddha Quotes

March 10, 2010 By Justin Whitaker

My friend and former meditation teacher Bodhipaksa has recently been collecting and commenting upon interesting “Fake Buddha Quotes.” This has been a source of occasional comedy, sometimes frustration, and also a bit of wonder. Why is it that people coin these fake new quotes? Why do others pick them up and spread them, unchecked, across the web and other networks? Why are some, like Bodhipaksa and myself, a bit frustrated with them? First a couple of those quotes (click the link for Bodhipaksa’s comments):

“When words are both true and kind, they can change our world.” (from here)

“Suffering, if it does not diminish love, will transport you to the furthest shore.” – Buddha (from here)

“You cannot travel the path until you have become the path itself”
–Buddha (from here)

“Do not dwell in the past, do not dream of the future, concentrate the mind on the present moment.”
—Buddha. (from here)

He is able who thinks he is able. #Buddha (from here)

And finally, my favorite (from here):
http://www.collegehumor.com/moogaloop/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=1818944&fullscreen=1

Ok, so now that we’ve all had a good laugh, I have to ask: why create fake Buddha quotes? The simplest answer is that it’s just plane old humane mistakes (plain… human). Little slips in translation or memory, or perhaps big ones and viola! (voilà) a new Buddha quote. As a guy who grew up believing that Americans fought a big war about silver in the 1860s and that the second World War was called “war war two” I can see where this is probably very often the case.

In good Buddhist fashion we can call that the ignorance cause. Then there would also be the greed and aversion causes (the three poisons). Greed perhaps for personal aggrandizement or mere attention, aversion could manifest in besmirching someone else (using a made-up Buddha quote) or making a silly one up to make the Buddha look bad.

And now, why do we repeat them? Well, probably for the same reasons – mostly ignorance if you ask me. We all, especially if we call ourselves Buddhists, owe it to ourselves and the world to read some early Buddhist teachings now and then. Check out Access to Insight (you can download the whole thing on your iPhone/iPod) if you haven’t already. Even though I’m a bit of a Theravāda snob these days, I will also heartily suggest reading Tibetan, Zen, Ch’an, Shin, etc writings as well. It’s very important to get a taste of each tradition; you don’t need to believe it or practice it, but see where it is coming from so that you can see your fellow Buddhists and human beings. So don’t forget the great Catholics (Thomas Merton, Merton movie, or Anthony De Mello, “I’m an ass, you’re an ass“), Protestants, Hindus, Muslims and others.

And lastly, why are some of us a bit frustrated with these fake Buddha quotes? Well, as Bodhipaksa suggests in his comments, the Buddha simply didn’t say that. Why make up new things when we already have HUGE canons of real Buddha quotes? Perhaps we could say it’s disrespectful, not to mention the above (ignorant, greedy, malicious) potential roots behind the quote. The stated goal of Buddhism, along with the aleviation of suffering, is to know things as they truly are (yathābhūtaṃ ñāṇaṃ). So fake Buddha quotes, unless they are created out of the heart of a true bodhisattva, will potentially not only spread greater unclarity in the world but also increase suffering.

That brings me to a final, scholarly point. What about the Mahāyāna? And in particular a quote from the Adhyāśayasaṃcodana Sūtra, the “Sūtra for inciting determination”:

Yat kiñcin maitreya subhāṣitaṃ sarvaṃ tad buddhabhāṣitam.

Because, Maitreya, all that is well spoken is Buddha-spoken.

You can find this in some great contemporary scholarly books including: Buddhism, Mahayana Buddhism (P.Williams) And On Being Buddha (P. Griffiths), and Elaborations on Emptiness: Uses of the Heart Sutra (D. Lopez).

The idea here seems to be that whatever is well spoken is the Buddha’s speech; i.e. if you speak well, you speak as a Buddha. This is very definitely an innovation of Mahāyāna Buddhism. In an article (free to Jstror subscribers) L. Snellgrove explains that some “misplaced wording” in one of his articles had Aśoka, a great early Buddhist king, declaring that ‘all which is well spoken is the word of the Buddha’ when in fact he stated that ‘whatever has been said by the Buddha, is well spoken’. We can see where some semantic clarity makes a pretty big difference.

What do you think? Can we ‘fake quote’ the Buddha for good ends? Do we have a duty to point out fake Buddha quotes made by friends? Or is whatever is ‘well spoken’ an automatic ‘Buddha quote’?

Thank you Brit Hume

January 12, 2010 By Justin Whitaker

For anyone who doesn’t know, Fox News commentator Brit Hume made a bit of a gaffe a little over a week ago, when he said of Tiger Woods:

“He is said to be a Buddhist. I don’t think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith. My message to Tiger would be, ‘Tiger, turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world.”

Quickly the Buddhist blog world was abuzz. There were calls for an apology or his being fired, calls to just ignore it as so much Fox News nonsense, and plenty in between.

I’m obviously a bit late in chiming in my two cents, but here they are: Thank you, Brit Hume.

Thank you first for raising a very interesting theological point regarding Tiger Woods’ religion, Buddhism: does Buddhism offer the kind of forgiveness that Tiger Woods – or anyone who has made grave mistakes in his or her life – needs? I think we need more conversations like this. Unfortunately most discussion didn’t seek to answer this question.

The simple answer, one that I could have given you as a child, is yes. All religions teach a path of forgiveness. Buddhism sets out a very clear set of guidelines for followers, the five precepts. These differ in some traditions or are replaced altogether, but the message and intention remains the same. Tiger Woods egregiously violated the 3rd precept, the one dealing with misconduct in sexuality or sensuality.

Buddhism also teaches karma, the notion that there ‘is fruit and ripening of deeds well and ill done.’

Actions have consequences. And Mr. Woods is finding that out now. But we are always reminded that the extent of the deeds and consequences is beyond our knowledge. Perhaps he will inspire “copy-cat adulterers,” perhaps some of the women he is accused of committing adultery with harmed others in their actions, perhaps he and his wife can reconcile, perhaps each will find new love in the future. The future is complex, which is why we must resist the urge to reduce karma to a sort of utilitarian calculus. His actions are wrong not because of the bad results, but rather his actions have bad results because they were wrong.

But along with the ability to cause harm in the world, each of us is endowed with the ability to right it, and to help alleviate suffering in ourselves and others. When we do this we create stores of good karmic fruits, even as our negative ones remain or ripen. This will be Tiger Woods’ task now, if he wishes to practice the Buddhist path.

And thank you, Brit Hume, secondly for reminding me why I don’t have a television and reinforcing these wise words, written over forty years ago but brought again to my attention tonight:

There is a pervasive form of contemporary violence, and that is activism and overwork. The rush and pressure of modern life are a form, perhaps the most common form, of this innate violence. To allow oneself to be carried away by a multitude of conflicting concerns, to surrender to too many demands, to commit oneself to too many projects, to want to help everyone and everything, is to succumb to violence. The frenzy of our activism neutralizes our work for peace. It destroys our own inner capacity for peace because it kills the root of inner wisdom which makes work fruitful.

– Thomas Merton in Confessions of Guilty Bystander:

Mr. Hume, your words seem to indicate your own “multitude of conflicting concerns.” And we, the public, indicate ours by instantly pouncing on your misstep (myself included, even though I’m only now writing about it). This isn’t even mentioning those who, in their own ignorance, failed to see your mistake completely. Getting to the heart of that matter is Br. Anthony Thomas, who commented at Rev. Danny Fisher’s blog recently:

…Brit Hume’s comments are nothing new. It is simply another manifestation of neurotic attachment to one set of metaphors that are assumed to have exclusive claim to truth. The ignorance and arrogance should be called out as just that. Forget the apology. It’s not Hume that matters. It’s the millions that think in the same way about their own traditions and create thereby a framework for hatred, antipathy, violence, and inhumanites of so many kinds.

Hear hear.

And this brings me to the third “thank you, Brit Hume.” Because Buddhism, like Christianity, teaches that it is not for us to point out the saw dust in our brother’s eye when we have a plank in our own. Your comments betrayed ignorance and arrogance. And as I begin to point, I instead welcome this teaching and the opportunity to watch- and not act on- my own ignorance and arrogance.

I wish you well Brit Hume. Thank you for giving us what will hopefully be a good conversation starter at dinner tables around the world. Thank you for making obvious the schizophrenia of contemporary TV News programming, where morning news turns to the sex lives of sports stars turns to a call for conversion. And thank you for reminding Buddhists everywhere that they still have plenty of work to do.

I hope someone you know and trust has helped you understand your mistake. I hope anyone who was truly angered by it takes the time to examine his/her own anger and find a place for you in his or her heart as well. And I hope we all move on, out of this latest frenzy and into a place of abiding peace.

Sabbe sattā bhavantu sukhitattā.

May all beings be at ease.

* updated 1/12/10