Comments on: BG 163: Can Dharma Help us Turn the Corner? http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/03/bg-163-can-dharma-help-us-turn-the-corner/ Discover the Emerging Face of Buddhism Mon, 06 Sep 2010 17:39:06 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: JoelG http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/03/bg-163-can-dharma-help-us-turn-the-corner/comment-page-1/#comment-369 JoelG Mon, 29 Mar 2010 11:55:58 +0000 http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/?p=561#comment-369 "What can be done directly, starting from Dharma itself, is reformation of sanghas and institutions to move beyond those exclusive-value-based platforms into a real developmental model, that effectively recognizes strengths and weaknesses of traditional loyalty and rigidity, modern rationality and reductionism, and postmodern inclusion and relativism. This would also assume moving beyond the sectarian and conservative impulse. Secondly, spiritual psychology must keep moving forward, and not just with interpretations, but with actually incorporating certain aspects of Western mind-sciences into our understanding and practice. This also means looking with fresh eyes at what really works in order to maximize results (which requires getting rid of the taboo surrounding realization once and for all). And thirdly, embracing an evolution-based view of universe and of our role in it, both individually and collectively. So it's institutional reform, practice recalibration, and replacing the "golden past" myths with sophisticated evolutionary views, as three minimum shifts that would allow us to raise the "center of gravity" and thus make sure spiritual practitioners are in position to take themselves seriously as agents of positive change and as cultural leaders in the world. " This is crystal-clear, Hokai. Sorry for my long-winded and overly literal response--proof that the discussion touched a nerve, no doubt! Best regards, Joel "What can be done directly, starting from Dharma itself, is reformation of sanghas and institutions to move beyond those exclusive-value-based platforms into a real developmental model, that effectively recognizes strengths and weaknesses of traditional loyalty and rigidity, modern rationality and reductionism, and postmodern inclusion and relativism. This would also assume moving beyond the sectarian and conservative impulse. Secondly, spiritual psychology must keep moving forward, and not just with interpretations, but with actually incorporating certain aspects of Western mind-sciences into our understanding and practice. This also means looking with fresh eyes at what really works in order to maximize results (which requires getting rid of the taboo surrounding realization once and for all). And thirdly, embracing an evolution-based view of universe and of our role in it, both individually and collectively. So it's institutional reform, practice recalibration, and replacing the "golden past" myths with sophisticated evolutionary views, as three minimum shifts that would allow us to raise the "center of gravity" and thus make sure spiritual practitioners are in position to take themselves seriously as agents of positive change and as cultural leaders in the world. "

This is crystal-clear, Hokai. Sorry for my long-winded and overly literal response–proof that the discussion touched a nerve, no doubt!
Best regards,
Joel

]]> By: Vishal Lama http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/03/bg-163-can-dharma-help-us-turn-the-corner/comment-page-1/#comment-137 Vishal Lama Fri, 19 Mar 2010 21:15:40 +0000 http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/?p=561#comment-137 Hokai, this is completely unrelated to the discussion on this thread, but I just wanted to point out, based on a small observation I made, that during the course of the conversation between Terry and you, you were making attempts, consciously or unconsciously, to incorporate some measure of an American accent in your speech. Perhaps, this may have to do with your stay in the US, but I must implore you not to lose the sexy "Eastern European" accent you have always had! Too much is at stake. :) Hokai, this is completely unrelated to the discussion on this thread, but I just wanted to point out, based on a small observation I made, that during the course of the conversation between Terry and you, you were making attempts, consciously or unconsciously, to incorporate some measure of an American accent in your speech. Perhaps, this may have to do with your stay in the US, but I must implore you not to lose the sexy "Eastern European" accent you have always had! Too much is at stake. :)

]]> By: Hokai http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/03/bg-163-can-dharma-help-us-turn-the-corner/comment-page-1/#comment-130 Hokai Thu, 18 Mar 2010 21:03:09 +0000 http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/?p=561#comment-130 Hi there, and thanks for your feedback (both Joel and Marshall). Yes, the discussion did go into some specifics in the second half, on the spot with live exchanges involving audience. As far as Joel's objections are concerned, I agree in principle. However, there's a mid-level between highly specific actions and the fundamental awareness/awakening developed and sustained in formal practice. This is, imho, the crucial level and it concerns the framework or structure we enact to translate that awareness into real-world action with widespread social consequences. Both Terry and I come with strong integral elements in our thinking, and the discussion itself took place at Boulder Integral center. So, these prevailing structures are also sometimes referred to as worldviews, and generally known as traditional, modern, and postmodern, and so far have produced cultural wars on many fronts, and have definitely proven to fragment society, making any concerted effort near impossible (there are too many examples). What goes beyond these three, as an emergent, is often referred to as "integral", though even that can have a rather broad connotation. What can be done directly, starting from Dharma itself, is reformation of sanghas and institutions to move beyond those exclusive-value-based platforms into a real developmental model, that effectively recognizes strengths and weaknesses of traditional loyalty and rigidity, modern rationality and reductionism, and postmodern inclusion and relativism. This would also assume moving beyond the sectarian and conservative impulse. Secondly, spiritual psychology must keep moving forward, and not just with interpretations, but with actually incorporating certain aspects of Western mind-sciences into our understanding and practice. This also means looking with fresh eyes at what really works in order to maximize results (which requires getting rid of the taboo surrounding realization once and for all). And thirdly, embracing an evolution-based view of universe and of our role in it, both individually and collectively. So it's institutional reform, practice recalibration, and replacing the "golden past" myths with sophisticated evolutionary views, as three minimum shifts that would allow us to raise the "center of gravity" and thus make sure spiritual practitioners are in position to take themselves seriously as agents of positive change in the world. As far as ancient wisdom is concerned, whether Lao Tzu or Shantideva or anyone worth their salt, no need to discard it. But we do need to supplement, even sandals have evolved into Vibram five fingers.:) Hi there, and thanks for your feedback (both Joel and Marshall). Yes, the discussion did go into some specifics in the second half, on the spot with live exchanges involving audience. As far as Joel's objections are concerned, I agree in principle. However, there's a mid-level between highly specific actions and the fundamental awareness/awakening developed and sustained in formal practice. This is, imho, the crucial level and it concerns the framework or structure we enact to translate that awareness into real-world action with widespread social consequences. Both Terry and I come with strong integral elements in our thinking, and the discussion itself took place at Boulder Integral center. So, these prevailing structures are also sometimes referred to as worldviews, and generally known as traditional, modern, and postmodern, and so far have produced cultural wars on many fronts, and have definitely proven to fragment society, making any concerted effort near impossible (there are too many examples). What goes beyond these three, as an emergent, is often referred to as "integral", though even that can have a rather broad connotation. What can be done directly, starting from Dharma itself, is reformation of sanghas and institutions to move beyond those exclusive-value-based platforms into a real developmental model, that effectively recognizes strengths and weaknesses of traditional loyalty and rigidity, modern rationality and reductionism, and postmodern inclusion and relativism. This would also assume moving beyond the sectarian and conservative impulse. Secondly, spiritual psychology must keep moving forward, and not just with interpretations, but with actually incorporating certain aspects of Western mind-sciences into our understanding and practice. This also means looking with fresh eyes at what really works in order to maximize results (which requires getting rid of the taboo surrounding realization once and for all). And thirdly, embracing an evolution-based view of universe and of our role in it, both individually and collectively. So it's institutional reform, practice recalibration, and replacing the "golden past" myths with sophisticated evolutionary views, as three minimum shifts that would allow us to raise the "center of gravity" and thus make sure spiritual practitioners are in position to take themselves seriously as agents of positive change in the world. As far as ancient wisdom is concerned, whether Lao Tzu or Shantideva or anyone worth their salt, no need to discard it. But we do need to supplement, even sandals have evolved into Vibram five fingers.:)

]]> By: Marshall http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/03/bg-163-can-dharma-help-us-turn-the-corner/comment-page-1/#comment-129 Marshall Thu, 18 Mar 2010 18:54:19 +0000 http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/?p=561#comment-129 Yes, thank you for your comment. I agree with you completely, every word. So, if I have understood this discussion correctly, we should all get together and do something good to help people (as if we aren’t already both in our practice and at work). Why does that sound like a line from Zoolander? This discussion was far too vague, perhaps because they have nothing specific to propose. Is the lack of a call to political organization in the Sutras is an oversight? Understood by that fact the Buddha lived in an antiquated age? Are Buddhism tenants that frown on worldly life wrong? Do we now need to evolve past that? What is “turning the corner”? Making society less selfish? And how do we endeavor to do this? Is cushion based practice insufficient? Am I not getting this discussion because I too have “no trace of urban awareness”? Was Lao Tzu wrong when he advised to wear saddles rather than trying to cover the earth in leather? Yes, thank you for your comment. I agree with you completely, every word.

So, if I have understood this discussion correctly, we should all get together and do something good to help people (as if we aren’t already both in our practice and at work). Why does that sound like a line from Zoolander? This discussion was far too vague, perhaps because they have nothing specific to propose.

Is the lack of a call to political organization in the Sutras is an oversight? Understood by that fact the Buddha lived in an antiquated age?

Are Buddhism tenants that frown on worldly life wrong? Do we now need to evolve past that?

What is “turning the corner”? Making society less selfish? And how do we endeavor to do this?

Is cushion based practice insufficient?

Am I not getting this discussion because I too have “no trace of urban awareness”?

Was Lao Tzu wrong when he advised to wear saddles rather than trying to cover the earth in leather?

]]> By: Vishal Lama http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/03/bg-163-can-dharma-help-us-turn-the-corner/comment-page-1/#comment-118 Vishal Lama Wed, 17 Mar 2010 08:55:33 +0000 http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/?p=561#comment-118 Extremely useful and thought-provoking conversation. Thanks, Hokai, Terry and Vince! Extremely useful and thought-provoking conversation. Thanks, Hokai, Terry and Vince!

]]> By: JoelG http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/03/bg-163-can-dharma-help-us-turn-the-corner/comment-page-1/#comment-115 JoelG Tue, 16 Mar 2010 19:58:34 +0000 http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/?p=561#comment-115 I enjoyed this dialogue, but I do think something that rarely gets discussed when this kind of thing comes up is the difference between specificity and abstraction. I just spent a few minutes on Andrew Cohen’s site. Despite his frequent exhortations to beneficial action in the world, I could find no links on this Web site to any kind of soup kitchen, arm for political activism, program to promote environmental sustainability—nothing. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were some programs in place somewhere, but they are certainly not front-and-center on the site. In Cohen’s case, maybe they should be, since he is so vocal about beneficial action in the world. But I wonder whether it would be fair to expect the same of, say, a Theravada Buddhist center along the lines of IMS, or a Shambhala center somewhere. Beneficial action in the world—at least the type of action that would be central to “turning the corner” as discussed in this dialogue—requires a high degree of specificity. Even if you say you support higher taxes on the rich in order to distribute wealth more equitably to the poor, you are still well within the realm of abstraction. Moving out of that realm requires getting serious and political. The level of specificity, for example, increases exponentially as you start to think about making your formerly abstract idea a reality in the world. That would mean defining “rich” in precise terms and saying exactly what kind of taxes you want to levy and when and to what purpose (not to mention outlining your concrete and realistic strategy for effecting this change). And is this political position not likely to produce unintended consequences—harm along with the good? Can you be sure it is the correct position, and not based on your own personal predilections, class prejudices and irrational beliefs? How do you plausibly tie a stance on, say, whether China should float its currency to Ken Wilber’s ideas or those of the Buddha? Should we really expect Integral Institute or Shambhala International or Shingon or Theravada Buddhism to advocate highly specific solutions to the political, economic and environmental crises we face? Do we want our sanghas to issue platforms on the likes of taxation, abortion, allocation of resources, international trade, global public health, the drug war and so on? Or should it be the case that we come together in our sanghas to develop and awaken our hearts and minds, and then use our own intellects to join the activist organizations that proffer the solutions that make the most sense to us (perhaps using the dharma to make those orgs saner and less divisive)? It makes sense to me to ask Ken Wilber about the nature of reality—not about macroeconomics, where I might turn to Nobel laureate Paul Krugman, or smart ecological policies, where I might study the work of Amory Lovins’ Rocky Mountain Institute. I hate libertarianism’s absolute positions on taxation, environmental regulation and so forth. Would I want to be part of a sangha that codified that and basically said to would-be libertarian Buddhists, “The dharma is not for you.” I’m not necessarily saying engaged action at the organizational level is impossible for sanghas or spiritual movements. I just honestly don’t know how that would shake out once you moved to actual specificity. I’d be curious to learn of any efforts to do this that dealt with truly controversial, specific and ideological subject matter. We can all agree on the likes of helping homeless people, doing hospice work, feeding people and trying to consume less. Unitarian churches and dharma centers everywhere have policies and programs on this kind of stuff. The “turning the corner” stuff is quite a bit different, seems to me. Hmmm… I enjoyed this dialogue, but I do think something that rarely gets discussed when this kind of thing comes up is the difference between specificity and abstraction. I just spent a few minutes on Andrew Cohen’s site. Despite his frequent exhortations to beneficial action in the world, I could find no links on this Web site to any kind of soup kitchen, arm for political activism, program to promote environmental sustainability—nothing. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were some programs in place somewhere, but they are certainly not front-and-center on the site. In Cohen’s case, maybe they should be, since he is so vocal about beneficial action in the world.

But I wonder whether it would be fair to expect the same of, say, a Theravada Buddhist center along the lines of IMS, or a Shambhala center somewhere. Beneficial action in the world—at least the type of action that would be central to “turning the corner” as discussed in this dialogue—requires a high degree of specificity. Even if you say you support higher taxes on the rich in order to distribute wealth more equitably to the poor, you are still well within the realm of abstraction. Moving out of that realm requires getting serious and political. The level of specificity, for example, increases exponentially as you start to think about making your formerly abstract idea a reality in the world. That would mean defining “rich” in precise terms and saying exactly what kind of taxes you want to levy and when and to what purpose (not to mention outlining your concrete and realistic strategy for effecting this change). And is this political position not likely to produce unintended consequences—harm along with the good? Can you be sure it is the correct position, and not based on your own personal predilections, class prejudices and irrational beliefs? How do you plausibly tie a stance on, say, whether China should float its currency to Ken Wilber’s ideas or those of the Buddha?

Should we really expect Integral Institute or Shambhala International or Shingon or Theravada Buddhism to advocate highly specific solutions to the political, economic and environmental crises we face? Do we want our sanghas to issue platforms on the likes of taxation, abortion, allocation of resources, international trade, global public health, the drug war and so on? Or should it be the case that we come together in our sanghas to develop and awaken our hearts and minds, and then use our own intellects to join the activist organizations that proffer the solutions that make the most sense to us (perhaps using the dharma to make those orgs saner and less divisive)? It makes sense to me to ask Ken Wilber about the nature of reality—not about macroeconomics, where I might turn to Nobel laureate Paul Krugman, or smart ecological policies, where I might study the work of Amory Lovins’ Rocky Mountain Institute. I hate libertarianism’s absolute positions on taxation, environmental regulation and so forth. Would I want to be part of a sangha that codified that and basically said to would-be libertarian Buddhists, “The dharma is not for you.”

I’m not necessarily saying engaged action at the organizational level is impossible for sanghas or spiritual movements. I just honestly don’t know how that would shake out once you moved to actual specificity. I’d be curious to learn of any efforts to do this that dealt with truly controversial, specific and ideological subject matter. We can all agree on the likes of helping homeless people, doing hospice work, feeding people and trying to consume less. Unitarian churches and dharma centers everywhere have policies and programs on this kind of stuff. The “turning the corner” stuff is quite a bit different, seems to me. Hmmm…

]]> By: Alan http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/03/bg-163-can-dharma-help-us-turn-the-corner/comment-page-1/#comment-114 Alan Tue, 16 Mar 2010 17:07:12 +0000 http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/?p=561#comment-114 More, I want more! What a wonderful conversation; if only the rest of the spiritual community would continue it. More, I want more! What a wonderful conversation; if only the rest of the spiritual community would continue it.

]]> By: Alec_S http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/03/bg-163-can-dharma-help-us-turn-the-corner/comment-page-1/#comment-112 Alec_S Tue, 16 Mar 2010 16:26:02 +0000 http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/?p=561#comment-112 Hokai and Terry bring the pain!!! "Oh, yeah, I must put more effort.” Well, what if it’s not about effort? You know, you’re not stupid, you’re not lazy. Something really real could be going on here." I'd be willing to bet there are a lot of people struggling with exactly this. Great discussion. There is some really good material here, definitely worth contemplating! Hokai and Terry bring the pain!!!

"Oh, yeah, I must put more effort.” Well, what if it’s not about effort? You know, you’re not stupid, you’re not lazy. Something really real could be going on here."

I'd be willing to bet there are a lot of people struggling with exactly this.

Great discussion. There is some really good material here, definitely worth contemplating!

]]> By: davybuoy http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/03/bg-163-can-dharma-help-us-turn-the-corner/comment-page-1/#comment-108 davybuoy Tue, 16 Mar 2010 07:33:08 +0000 http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/?p=561#comment-108 Thanks for the info Vince, I am listening again to episodes 30-33 and getting a lot out of them. I have recently started sitting with a Soto Zen group as there is not a lot of choice in the area of Ireland I live and there is no mention of the fact that mediation only covers 2 parts of the eight fold path. I wonder sometimes is Zen Buddhism. Thanks for the info Vince, I am listening again to episodes 30-33 and getting a lot out of them. I have recently started sitting with a Soto Zen group as there is not a lot of choice in the area of Ireland I live and there is no mention of the fact that mediation only covers 2 parts of the eight fold path. I wonder sometimes is Zen Buddhism.

]]> By: Dan Rizzuto http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/03/bg-163-can-dharma-help-us-turn-the-corner/comment-page-1/#comment-107 Dan Rizzuto Tue, 16 Mar 2010 03:31:51 +0000 http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/?p=561#comment-107 Nice work guys. Thank you. Nice work guys. Thank you.

]]> By: VinceHorn http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/03/bg-163-can-dharma-help-us-turn-the-corner/comment-page-1/#comment-106 VinceHorn Mon, 15 Mar 2010 20:49:44 +0000 http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/?p=561#comment-106 Good question & good point. This is the only part of this discussion, because though there was another hour, after this, of question and discussion, it was not possible to easily turn that material into another episode, due to the fact that I didn't have a media release from those who participated. Next time, I'll plan on doing that though. Good question & good point. This is the only part of this discussion, because though there was another hour, after this, of question and discussion, it was not possible to easily turn that material into another episode, due to the fact that I didn't have a media release from those who participated. Next time, I'll plan on doing that though.

]]> By: davybuoy http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/03/bg-163-can-dharma-help-us-turn-the-corner/comment-page-1/#comment-105 davybuoy Mon, 15 Mar 2010 19:49:58 +0000 http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/?p=561#comment-105 Is this part one with more to come? It was very interesting, but I feel a more apt name for this episode might have been; Can cushion-based practice help us turn the corner. Is this part one with more to come? It was very interesting, but I feel a more apt name for this episode might have been; Can cushion-based practice help us turn the corner.

]]>