Experience – breaking the duck?

I am totally enamoured with Brad’s style – despite the political issues, his style typified in this post on enlightenment and virginity. In his talk on sin sex and zen in “some Brad stuff” the manner in which he discussed the dharma was human – as opposed to what might be called sanctimonious dogma. OK, that’s an exaggeration, probably unfair, and is against this Dogen Sangha precept:- but still …. I haven’t retracted it. This post is going to be too arrogant so I will take my time before putting it up. I have spent my retirement time looking at Theravada, and it has been a great help – no doubts. Coming to terms with all the dogma has helped understanding but of course it has fed my intellect – and I am too intellectual. Too full of ideas, stick too much to idea sets – even sticking to realisation sets that are past their sell-by-date. In searching for the esoteric I have determined that appears to be an answer. To be fair to my underlying dharma I have spent much of my time with the intellectuals arguing for insight, and have had some nasty encounters with intellectuals because of this. Brad just sits there and says zazen is finding intuition – no mu, no jhanas, just experiences and intuition. Intuition – a fine word by me. My first monastery attendance amuses me with irony now. I applied to the guest monk who normally asked for a stay of a few days. For some reason I could only stay overnight and he was kind enough. I have no recollection as to why in a Summer break of maybe 6 weeks or more I could only stay one night but that was it. I had a litmus test, and in the middle of the night there they were, the guys, the muse, the visual vibrations that I associated with experience – that I now relate to or the innate dharma from this Dogen quote:- “Consequently, those who sit in meditation will, beyond doubt, drop off body and mind, and cut themselves free from their previous confused and defiling thoughts and opinions in order to personally realize what the innate Dharma of the Buddha is” Shobogenzo[p35]. In the morning before I left the guest monk asked whether I had got anything, and I was so pleased to tell him that the guys had visited me – and that I had got it. He was polite, I don’t think he’d got the guys, but that monastery was my spiritual home in the UK. Over the years I associated with Theravada I don’t know how many of the monks got the insight, I think they got the lifestyle. In the lifestyle there was freedom from wage-slavery and steady sustenance, there was study and learning from senior monks, and there was meditation. For many the routine of meditation controlled their lives, gave them insight, but – here comes the arrogance – some might not have realised the importance of insight – maybe it just came with the package. Some monks repeat the dogma, have touched the insight, and gained from it, yet have not released the intellect or the need for faith – continuing to accept the idea set of dogma, maybe seeing this as the source of the insight. Other monks will have got it, the experience, , but they are caught in the lifestyle, the institution, and accept the experiences within those parameters. To be clear the lifestyle can confuse meditation, dogma and insight, how much does this matter? For the monks probably not but for me it is the insight and not the lifestyle that matters, and that insight is not from a lifestyle but from meditation and understanding. When it is confused it allows intellectual proliferation however, something that Theravada has in abundance. Where in Theravada is ? I cannot answer that except for one person – Buddhadasa. And here again is his quote from the Ariya Sacca that reinforced my jump to Zen:- “For example Theravada Buddhism is very straightforward, and is kept within certain fairly strict limits. People who don’t have enough intelligence and wisdom are unable to understand the Theravada teachings properly. Mahayana has tried to open everything up and simplify things so that even foolish people (old grandmothers in the street the ordinary man in the road) can have access to Buddhism with the idea that Mahayana, being the great vehicle, can take even the foolish people along. And then in Zen. Zen knows it’s never going to work, and narrowed it down and made it an exclusive refined teaching for only the most intelligent people. If one isn’t very sharp and clever, one can never figure out Zen Buddhism. It is the most direct teaching but it’s also only for the most intelligent. In Vajrayana, in all those things – tantra and all that, they have kind of packaged the teachings in the most attractive, most colourful, most enticing and interesting way. So you’ve got basic approaches to presenting Buddhism, the direct approach, the big approach, the quick and fast approach and the attractive approach, but even though there are these distinctions, all of these come to the same point – to the same fact, which is “removing attachment from the 5 khandas.” Ariya Sacca. I so much like Brad’s minimalising of the mu effect – the experience. It reminds me of Jim Carrey’s excess, I hope he is still effusive but I don’t know. The experience does not bring with it sila I am ashamed to admit. It was only when I began meditating regularly that sila was added – and it has been a virtual bone of contention with Openhand – who seem good people to me. I have a question. Meditating old-style on sila or the 4 brahma-viharas was beneficial, I feel it suffused me with their attributes. Zazen doesn’t do this focus on a “concept” leading to suffusion, do zen monks do this sort of meditation sometimes? Should I introduce it? I liked Brad’s comparison with virginity, I do not however remember my own the same way. I was young and stupid – and very lucky on that day. After the drunken night when the “loss” happened, the next day I must have been exuding a glow because others spotted the breaking of the duck – I responded with typically chauvinist cameraderie. I am ashamed of the details but I can remember later an encounter with the lady concerned with a new boyfriend – and he glared but was good enough to leave it at that. I apologise to the lady in the comments and all the women who have suffered from the ignorance that is male sexual development in the West. If my then friends were anything to judge by, their own breaking of the duck might also have left other women with regret. I never had serious sila until 20 years or more after my first “bells and banjos”, and I regret this. And there were those with morality I belittled because of arrogance coming with that experience. These belittled probably never had any bells banjoing – still never have, but they do have some sila hard-wired and with whom women never had to hold regret at their losing of virginity.

Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education. Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.

Brad, Precepts and the 1%

I am confused as to why I stopped zazen last time – and surprisingly I did not blog the decision. First reading of the Dogen Sangha’s precepts definitely shows that morality cannot be the issue – see here [p4]:- The first thing I looked at when retiring was sila and order link . The rest of the precepts bring sila with them. Maybe it was the 4NT that was why I stopped. On reflective retrospection I did not get from zazen what I am getting now so maybe that was the reason. Amongst some Brad stuff is a talk on Zen and Politics. Here is a clip. In this he describes Zen as doing the little things because the bigger things lead to frustration – the frustration that was at the basis of punk rock. Let’s examine this in the context of the 1%. The 1%-system includes the control of change. Colonialism changed to neo-colonialism primarily because maintaining a colonial presence was too expensive – this was before the politics of the MIC and before a shift in economics. Let me try to explain this shift in economics. As ordinary people we understand economics as we pay for something, if we don’t have the money we don’t have – unless we borrow. If we borrow we have to pay back and this is a millstone around our necks. The 1%-system does not work like this. Over time economics has changed, and let’s consider the MIC as an example. War is big business. He amounts of money are spent on war products that creates a flourishing economy in the areas where those products are made. The money for such products come from governments, and that money they argue is taxes but in reality most of it is fiat money – money created. America has a huge amount of debt because of this fiat money that it keeps creating but who do they owe it to? Who is going to make them pay it back? Through the MIC the 1% get vast amounts of money, and the economy ticks over. This is a pack of cards, totally unstable, but where will that instability come from? It requires an awareness of the instability. In 2008 the 1% wanted to control the economy, too many people were getting rich through hedge funds. Through the media the crash was engineered – see the Two Johns for an explanation of these hedge funds and download Money Masters for an analysis of the crash. Much instability was exposed then and since 2008 the gap between rich and poor has increased, to understand the hand of the 1% we have to examine what happens and not what they say; this is now economics. The instability is still endemic in the system whilst the 1% get richer. This is what economics is – a mechanism to make the 1% richer, and not the delusions of the textbooks. Colonialism changed because policing was not financially effective, it is cheaper to get people to police themselves. In the West this is what we do. We live in the 1%-system, and we accept the benefits of that system; previously in “Am I extreme?“, I have examined how those benefits arise. We collude with all that is wrong. In this audio clip Brad says that Zen deals with the little things and avoids the frustration of the bigger stuff – I surmise because the frustration causes suffering. The little things are part of the 1%-system – they allow you to have small victories to give you the delusion of effecting change. Typically unleaded petrol came in when it was practical for them to make a profit from it, health and safety regulations were first used by unions to make better working situations now they insist on them so profits are made from sticking to the regulations. Whilst winning little things can be beneficial to the winners, in the bigger picture they don’t matter. In the bigger picture Snowden is in exile, Assange is under arrest on trumped up charges, and Manning is in prison for 30 years – all for telling the truth. So the zen issue is as Brad describes it, (paraphrasing) accept the status quo and work for the little things. Morally this is unacceptable because of all the hurt that is caused by the 1%-system, but can it be accepted because it reduces suffering? In my life I found less frustration by being true to myself, it was frustrating but I was not deluded. I definitely feel this was better for me, would it be better for all? Or is accepting the status quo better, accepting delusion? I do however completely agree with what he says about the speed of change, but I would maintain that if that change grew out of a grassroots movement in which all participants owned the change then the speed would appropriately change. As for political leadership I feel that spiritual people should lead in spiritual matters only, that is their field of expertise. Brad sees Zen as not being spiritual, that is his decision. However he is not a wage-slave; he chooses what he wants to do, his zen teaching and writing, and hopes he has sufficient money to live. If you have not learnt from the life of being a wage-slave perhaps you are not equipped to understand the struggle, and politics in the 1%-system is fundamentally about controlling the wage-slaves. Can someone not in the struggle lead those who are struggling? Such people as monks end up advising because they are respected for their spiritual knowledge; some advise about sex when they are celibate!! I have difficulty accepting this but it is up to those concerned. So where does this leave me? On the question of morality and zen I was confused. On the 4NT that is not zen but there is nothing to say I can’t do them …. so far, and as zazen is helping I continue. I have to work on Dogen’s Shobogenzo whilst continuing with zazen.

Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education. Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.

Zen, Nina Hartley and Brad

This morning I was without direction looking for zen stuff and clicked on this interview between Brad and Nina Hartley . I read through but didn’t study the article; it made me think. This morning I failed in zazen and kept thinking about the article, and gradually came to the realisation that the last time I had tried zazen I had given up because “where is sila?” and “where are the 4NT?” I couldn’t get away from that this morning, and the sitting was over – time up. I have just reread the interview again, and it was better!! There is so much good sex advice in there that I have grown up with since the 60s, and which needs to be said – I leave aside the feminist discussion for the moment. The older I have got the more I see how peoples’ sexual needs are so different. Reading Nina Hartley I see a woman who appears to know where she wants to go – even though she is focussed much on sex. And then I look at myself and see someone who has enjoyed sex some of my life but I have never been sexually fulfilled. And this is because my spiritual desire is so much more important, and I have never been able to marry that important desire with the less important sexual desire. Example, in my30s I had an enjoyable sexual relationship, but in this relationship the woman brought so much baggage I was in pain with all her stuff. It came to increasingly dominate the relationship, and my spiritual needs were suffering. The baggage was human suffering, so how could I say screw them because my spirituality was suffering? In the end I was so unhappy I left. Throughout life women have seen me as a good catch because I am a good man and faithful. I have tried a number of times – driven by my dick, but have never been able to attain spirit/dick balance. In the end I have realised I don’t offer most women anything. I have my own ways, and whether these are right or wrong they help me in my spiritual direction. How can I live with someone, love them, care for what they want, and drop everything for my spirituality? It doesn’t work. Many women take pride in their homes, my own ways got in the way of that especially when I was expected to pay. They wanted the home their home their way but it was my home to pay for. One user accused me of wanting a housekeeper with sex. From a certain detached viewpoint that was true but a limited view. For me the issue was freedom. In a relationship the two people need to be free to do their own thing including paying for the thing they wanted to do. If the money in a relationship is not equal then their thing becomes your burden and a financial burden limits your freedom, freedom that you have earned. In the same relationship where my spirit made me leave, there were additional problems. I went into the relationship feeling that I loved her so I accepted her burdens as mine. Her burdens required me to completely change my lifestyle including taking on different work that I had previously given up. Gratitude became an issue. I felt she should be grateful that I had accepted her burdens, but she expected it. I just wanted a feeling of gratitude, I never got it; I suspect she never wanted to feel indebted to me yet she should have accepted that because she was. My freedom was severely curtailed by her burdens, I was not free and left. I later realised that she never loved me. Whatever love goes for when you are young – early 30s, I loved her, but the negatives gradually just completely weighed me down. I know I had no choice but to leave – I was dying as a person, in a world where those in relationships accept burdens and the curtailing of freedom many saw me at fault. I also confused love with trust and that came back to bite me financially in a big way. Not only is Nina’s sexual advice good it is clear she has a good 1%-consciousness. But what about her consciousness about the need for trust – about the problems caused by promiscuity and the lack of faithfulness. Quite rightly she sees it important to fulfil her sexual needs and those of her husband, and the way she describes this she has fulfilment. Well done, it is hard to find. If I were sex police and tried to force her and her husband into a standard monogamous situation there would be a legitimate reaction. But how many people are attracted to her lifestyle or similar when they would be much happier with standard monogamy – perhaps with a bit of Nina Hartley sexual education to help with their fulfilment. Most people do not have awareness of their desires – being led by the dick is one result of this. As she says “Watching the men, just showing them my vulva, I realized how sad it was”, there is a lot of sadness in the way sex goes down. Desire creates envy. People see others “having fun”, and desire that façade. For many it is desire that destroys families, and not love nor need. How much damage is caused by the failure to stay within monogamy, damage to children, divorce and all that ensues? The above was consideration of sila – sila desire and awareness. Does Nina Hartley hurt anyone with her style of relationship? The way she describes it – NO. But in relationships, men primarily, choosing to wander without agreement does cause hurt. With sila hurt is not caused. I am not giving the 10 commandments, only one – compassionate sila. Nina describes herself as zen, does this mean she has compassionate sila? There is nothing in the article that says she doesn’t – but significantly as Brad is interviewing her there is nothing that does. She talks about compassionate awareness and acceptance as far as she can, is that sila as well? Here Buddhadasa describes sila as the basis for practise in Anapanasati:- [pp49-52] I just found Brad in an interview describing how Zen gave him morality. Confused. Sila is a serious problem in western society. Muslims talk about the decadent west, and many laugh but it is decadent. Fulfilment of desire at whatever cost is a significant drive that is considered legitimate by many. The individual emphasis, that is encouraged by all that is west – all that is 1%, means that many try to fulfil desires irrespective of what happens to others. It is important to understand promiscuity in this way. For many men they approach promiscuity as a freedom, men and women being equally free to enjoy each other sexually. But for how many women is that sexual freedom something they fit into – or are they seeking a long-term partner? How many people get hurt in one-night stands? Do one-night stands lead to partnerhip? How much does one-night stands produce a coldness that takes a long time to break down? There is no doubt in my mind that western relationships do not encourage an openness and freedom despite what they say. I am not saying that elsewhere in the world relationships lead to fulfilment. In the end people need to be aware to get good relationships, and even then it doesn’t always work. What about the number of issues of sexual abuse that have arisen with “gurus”? It’s complicated. And this brings me to the 4NT, and what I remember from my last zen time? Is there a priority on the 4NT? Now I am too ignorant of Dogen to answer that. What has happened to me so far with zazen has been an improvement in me but has not had any relationship to 4NT? Maybe I have done enough on that recently, and the dharma wants me to focus on zazen. I have been too intellect so that is good. But this morning it wouldn’t let me stop thinking, and I had to focus on the 4NT. Later I began to think. What zen is for others does not matter, it is what matters for me. This blog is evidence of the potential trap of intellect for me, so zazen is particularly important for me. Why not zazen and the 4NT? Zen takes precepts, I suspect this is their sila – their conduct; I have to examine the precepts of the Dogen Sangha link to overcome my confusion. Completely differently I love what she says about feminism, I am rereading just to perceive her relationship with feminism. What has the man-hating aspect of some feminists got to do with her lifestyle? And of course most women prefer to have a relationship with men – as she says. People standing up to represent the interests of all women need to represent ALL interests. Equally I support her empathy towards men who are lost following their dicks “Watching the men, just showing them my vulva, I realized how sad it was”. “But I see men as human, I see men as equally victimized by the system. Men are also victims of the patriarchy” of 200 families – as she puts it.

Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education. Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.

Some Brad Stuff

Some Brad Stuff Description of Zazen from ConsciousTV Interview A download. On Conscious TV Interview on Sin Sex and Zen Podcast on Zen and Politics Zen and Politics

Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education. Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.

Conflict and 1%-world – frustration

I was always in conflict with the system as an adult. At school I was completely asleep, more asleep than my peers. In retrospect I see this as a defence mechanism, how would I have handled any form of awareness as a child. Alex became aware when young, fought the system, started his adult journey early, became aware of the outer world, and defensively shuts off his inner world. In my case I knew nothing of this fighting when I was young – only immature spats, became aware as an adult, and fought the system having been plonked on the Path by hitting bottom. That hitting bottom made me see the system as being at fault – repression, family, system and miseducation. Yet for most none of this conflict exists. A keystone of the system is compromise. The 1% make profits, take advantage of all around, and make us all wage-slaves. There is a 1% directive – make as much profit as possible. As they are in control all the people working for them fit into that directive. A factory causes environmental damage, yet no one person makes a decision to cause that damage – except the directive (a directive many accept as business-is-business). The manager tries to make a profit. Down the line all follow what the hierarchy says, any decisions that are made are small. No-one decides to cause the damage, all will follow environmental guidelines, yet no-one says we will cause damage. But no-one says we will not cause damage because not causing damage will decrease the profits. There might be marginal calls, calls that would bring a certain amount of conflict – lack of promotion, loss of employment, people compromise on these margins. But no-one has to decide to cause damage. One might blame the environmental guidelines but these are under control through government lobbying by the 1%. Because the calls are marginal and because no-one appears to be responsible for the damage conflict rarely exists. By nature I was brought into conflict in education, for me the clarion call of education was the very sword that brought me conflict in schools. Because schools were not about education – they are about providing a skillset that fitted into the 1%-system and about educating people for 1%-world. Having been given this skillset most people do not have conflict. They accept what is a “normal” way of life, struggle for their families and pleasures, and there is not a conflict with the system – only the struggle inherent within the constraints of normalness. I have suggested to Brad (cajoled?) that his perception lacks the clarity that comes with conflict, that might be so. But if he has no conflict is his perception not clear? If I suggest that Brad educate for awareness of 1%-world, am I suggesting that he educate to create conflict? When I say educate awareness my immediate answer is yes, I am suggesting he create conflict where now there is none. At present he does not educate for conflict, he puts forward the Dharma and does not expose 1%-world for what it is. Is that enough? Previously I have said no. I have discussed here how important these 4 heinouses are:- 1) How important is #BlackLivesMatter? 2) How important is 1% control? 3) How important is climate change? 4) How important are the wars against 4 Muslim countries and drone attacks against 3 others? When I argued this I suggested that monks including Brad should include awareness of 1%-world and how important these heinouses are. Awareness of these four and allowing them to be part of who you are will create conflict with 1%-world – if they are genuinely part of you. I am now questioning that. Every part of my being says “make people aware of 1%-world”, but that is my being. Every part of my being says that it should be a part of everyone’s being but that is just me. I can’t answer this because for me personally there is no doubt. Is awareness of these 4 a matter of choice? NNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, maybe YES! I still can’t answer it so I have to say let the teachers and the people choose. Brad, a Zen monk, gets into daily life. As an aware person he develops an understanding of daily life, but how far does he go? As far as he goes. How far should he go? As far as he goes, the Dharma must guide him. I don’t understand why the Dharma doesn’t take him further. It is frustrating because I don’t understand but I must trust the Dharma. It is arrogant of me to think he doesn’t know enough to be aware of these heinouses so instead of questioning him I have to question my frustration. QED

Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education. Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.

Extreme?

Am I being extreme? Brad Warner is a zen monk, I respect him and I am a big “fan”. Now Brad takes on some interesting positions, for example he writes on the Suicide Girls’ page; I am not sure I would do that even if they were good enough to offer. But …. not important, his choice. I have not read all his books but his last one was “Sex, Sin and Zen” in which he investigated “near-the-knuckle” sexual attitudes. Excellent, I am happy monks take on socio-political issues as well as present the Dharma. But I have found myself being critical of some of his socio-political positions, and I am not happy that I felt I had to do that because of my respect for him. As Brad is a monk and as he is, quite rightly in my view, attempting to look at the socio-political situation, I have to ask “Am I extreme?” I have used the words “socio-political” to describe the positions I have been critical of, but this is not how I see them. I do not like to think of what I am examining as social or political I use the term “what-is-what” – as used by Ajaan Buddhadasa, teacher in the Theravada tradition. In other words these are positions that on my examination I describe as what is. Let’s consider the issue of #BlackLivesMatter – this is not an issue where I have been critical of Brad. With #BlackLivesMatter black people are being killed by the police. The police have to try to keep people safe even in areas of the US where gangs are prevalent, but this is not a sufficient excuse for the murder of these black people. Nor is it an excuse for the police not to be held accountable. There is something wrong in the US that governments and states allow these gangs to exist, allow their citizens to live in gang-controlled areas without providing them sufficient security, and then put the police in the front line to deal with the problem. As human beings police respond and black people have been murdered. This is wrong. There are many people with far more knowledge than I on this situation but stepping back, being detached, this is wrong and #BlackLivesMatter. In my view this is what-is-what with no excuses or perspectives. Our world is controlled by the 1%. The 1% is not a precise term, it could be seen as a development of the term bourgeoisie – the old Marxist term, but maybe not – that would be a viewpoint. What is not a viewpoint is this “Our world is controlled by the 1%”, this is what-is-what. When you look at what is happening in the world it is clear that the results of government decisions lead to the profits of the 1% increasing. The 1% do not necessarily micro-manage, they don’t necessarily have to tell a politician to vote in a certain way but the consequences of government actions is that the profits of the 1% increase. Climate change is happening, science tells us that this is very dangerous for the world. If the profits of the 1% had to include the costs of environmental degradation caused by the production of their goods, they would be drastically reduced. The various COP conferences have not produced effective policies to prevent climate change. This is what-is-what. This century NATO has been involved in 4 wars in Muslim countries – Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria. The US and other NATO countries have been involved in drone strikes against other Muslim countries – Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia. Following 9/11 the US and NATO countries have been involved in a “War against Terror” but the terror they have made war against is Muslim extremists – and not White Supremacists for example. When you detach yourself and examine the “War on Terror” it is difficult not to see a war against Islam. In NATO countries there has been an increase in Islamophobia since 9/11. In a war situation it is common for governments to develop a media attack against their opponents. In war situations it is common to see funds being used to promote literature against opponents. Science is knowledge – based on the etymology of the word. To develop scientific understanding it is often necessary to experiment. Who pays for the funding? A significant proportion of the funding comes from corporations. Do they fund science for the betterment of mankind or to develop products that they can profit from? All of the above is what-is-what but in the “greater scheme of things” am I being extreme in the balance I perceive the West with regards to these points? 1) How important is #BlackLivesMatter? 2) How important is 1% control? 3) How important is climate change? 4) How important are the wars against 4 Muslim countries and drone attacks against 3 others? 5) When considering science how important is the funding? All of these issues seem important to me. I pay the greatest emphasis on any unjust wars that countries fight. If a country is in a war then I believe a compassionate person needs to set as a priority the ending of that unjust war; is this extreme? If the only work I can get is working for the 1%, am I wrong to think of it as wage slavery? If we are slaves should it not be a priority for all people to try to work against that slavery? Is this extreme? If our world is heading towards ecological destruction should it not be a priority for people to try to work against such ecological problems? Is this extreme? If this is not extreme should monks also be prioritising these actions? In the greater scheme of things a monk has a very important role – promoting the Dharma, the teachings. I have no issue with a monk focussing solely on that. But Brad has taken on a socio-political element in his writings – good for him. But is his background suited to such writings? By his background I am talking about possibly being “cloistered”, have Brad or other monks been cloistered? Let me consider the background of working people. Based on the 5 above “importants”, are people free to express themselves concerning the above 5 points without it affecting job tenure? How often do people come into conflict if they try to express opinions concerning these 5? Does this conflict determine the importance of these points? If you have no conflict, can you correctly prioritise these 5 points? Are priorities in error if they are based on conflict or does the conflict arise because of the awareness of the people concerned? In conflict one sees these points, should the importance of these points be affected if unaware people do not have conflict? Or should these points not be given importance because people have no need to be aware of these points to live their lives? And with regards to monks how much of their “job” should creating awareness of these issues be? In the West, NATO countries, there are many good “things” that I have not discussed. In order not to be extreme I need to discuss these and try to achieve a proper balance. To begin this I need to try to describe what-is-what again. I visited the US only once for a training course – the US has never attracted me. I had a pleasant time in New Mexico, and saw bits of the US – they were also pleasant enough. And the people were good to me – mostly. They were similar to the people I grew up with, a suburb of Manchester UK where people just got on with their lives, where decisions were taken for them. What I have looked at as important were not part of the decisions of the people I grew up with, I surmise they are not part of the decisions for the people in New Mexico, and equally not for most people in the world. There is a danger to this. Maybe 20 years ago I was in a campsite in Zimbabwe – before Mugabe bottomed out their economy. I met some guys from South Africa. Before I talk about the meeting I should give some personal background. In the UK I had been a campaigner against the apartheid system, and when I went to work in Botswana, Southern Africa, the Afrikaans accent grated because of my politics; this was unreasonable – but a description of my background. Once living in Southern Africa I became more aware of the situation but apartheid was still wrong. Back to the guys – they were South African, and they were willing to open up to me – nice of them; they were just guys. They spoke of conscription, how they had been violent going into townships – sometimes killing black guys, how they did not know about black guys but they had a bad view of them, and how they were having guilt as they were becoming aware of what their system had made them do. I looked at these guys, and they were who I had grown up with – they could have been my father. All they were doing was living in a country where they were looking after their family, and they did what they had to to do this. This was my people in the Manchester suburb, I assess this is New Mexico, Akron Ohio – everywhere. Yet now – absolutely – everyone accepts apartheid was wrong. Ordinary people fit in with what is wrong if that is what is accepted, that is what-is-what. Back to the 5 important things, people in the US and in NATO countries fit in with their governments who ostensibly make the decisions about these things. The guys in South Africa – white – were in a system that accepted apartheid, and yet looking back they knew it was wrong. Some white people were fighting apartheid, and were probably considered extreme – many of them were in the SACP, were South African communists. Whether fighting apartheid was right is a different issue – and not part of this description of what-is-what, but these white people who were right about apartheid were considered extreme. In this world whether you are in an electoral democracy or not, most people keep their heads down, look after their families …. or just survive. They let the leaders make decisions whether they trust them or not, for most people dealing with their lives is enough – being active in fighting injustices does not factor into their lives unless it knocks them on their head. This is what-is-what, and it is my view that the 1% know about this and use it. I consider monks to be leaders. As leaders monks can just teach dharma but monks such as Brad choose not to limit themselves to the dharma. I assess that Brad would like to consider that he is applying his training to daily life – admirable. But his zen training has not brought the conflict with the system that makes what I have described as apparent. Brad is much more capable of seeing what-is-what than I, but he lives in a community that actively educates against seeing what-is-what – actively educates against seeing the 5 points. The revolving door between the 1%, corporations and government does not want us to see this typical 5 points, should leaders not be giving awareness of these? When we look at our lifestyle, in New Mexico, in Akron Ohio, in the Manchester suburb, do we see history and economic relations? Of course not. We see families, friends, community, daily life. But what is that normalcy based on? It is based on the money that pays for everything. In Manchester the standard of living historically was based on the cotton industry which was based on the colonialism of importing raw materials primarily from India. This was not fair trade but exchange imposed by force. I have no details as to the 400-year history or so of the people in New Mexico and Ohio or the US in general but it is observable that the US is a world power especially since the second world war. This power brings with it economic prowess and progress, again not based on fair trade but based on that military power. And in parts of the US especially California their economies are based on the trade in weapons – what is known as the Military Industrial Complex. Whilst day-to-day ordinary people do ordinary things that seem ordinary and reasonable, the reality of their existence is not quite so pleasant. Is it extreme to recognise this? As a leader and teacher, aren’t the above observable facts that contribute to awareness? What do we do with this awareness? The revolving door will not make us aware because the 1% and government have accepted self-interest as their way of life. Do meditators expect to see what-is-what? I think so. What do teachers and meditators do about this awareness? That is not for me to say, it is for them. For me my life had conflict because of awarenesses. It helped me learn, it helps me see what-is-what. Brad, I have no wish to be disrespectful as I respect your “teachings”. Am I extreme?

Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education. Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.

Searching for the Esoteric

The word “esoteric” I met long ago with the theosophists, I came across esoteric Catholicism. What this meant to me was that beyond the catholic dogma there was a deeper spiritual meaning. At that time I had only recently started on the Path, had grown from rejecting the church of Catholicism, so it was a bit of a jump for me to accept Catholicism of any form. However with theosophy I had started on a spiritual path and because they accepted esoteric Catholicism it was something I could consider. Over the years I dabbled with spirituality until eventually I came to Buddhism when I was 50. Whilst the spiritual search was continuous in my life, it had not been studious nor had I taken retreats but it was central. When I reached Buddhism it was a spiritual search. I read a few books but had a “conversion” at Wat Phra Kaew, and then I met British monks in a British monastery based on the Thai tradition of Forest Sangha and they appeared to be trying to get understanding. I found that this Buddhism began answering my questions. The books these monks were interested in, what they taught me, all seemed to fit in with the spiritual journey I had been on. I have begun to question this now, and the issue revolves around the word esoteric. If one is in the UK and has reached a level of spiritual awakening – whatever sort, then you don’t look to the church and its congregation. Maybe there are Christians who are on a journey, when I met my niece she was one, and they look at soul and grace and a more “esoteric” interpretation of the scriptures, bible etc. I never got that myself but in discussion with people like my niece I have no problem with there being an esoteric core. With westerners and Buddhism I never saw the need to differentiate because westerners usually had been on a spiritual journey before reaching Buddhism. I had a kind of unwritten assumption of an “esoteric” nature in their journey. There is another factor to this. Western education is deeply intellectual, and at the same time as I rejected that conditioning I started spirituality – my Path, finding my soul. There was also a pre-judged assumption that the journey for others was anti-intellectual, seeking to find the esoteric beyond the intellect. There is a difficulty with being anti-intellectual, it is one’s own intellect that expresses that anti-intellectualism. So when I have been in discussions about such matters my own intellect engages with other intellects to determine what is the esoteric – non-intellect. A key word for me in this is insight, in this situation I could almost say the esoteric and insight were synonymous. And Buddhism discusses insight much. I was lulled into a feeling that discussing Buddhism was discussing the esoteric – insight. This was reinforced by living in Thailand. This is a Buddhist country, it is more Buddhist than the UK is Christian. Observing a little what Buddhism meant to the Thais I could see an institution that had grown around the wats (cf churches). These wats are community centres involving institutional practices connected with life such as births, deaths, marriage and others specifically Buddhist. However these temples are not places where people are searching for the esoteric – searching for insight. Throughout Thailand however there are Buddhist intellectuals studying even having a word for this intellectualism – Buddhasasana. I do not understand what they do because of my limited language so I cannot know whether this intellectualism ever moves beyond dogma to the esoteric. However insight is discussed much, and I cannot evaluate that (because of language). I have another confusion with regards to Buddhism and the esoteric, Buddhism appears to discuss the esoteric far more than Christianity. This is a personal judgement, and I have no way of assessing how true it is. As a child I was “sort of” immersed in Catholicism but I rejected this. Catholicism was church, morality – 10 commandments, and the anecdotes of the bible. I have since vaguely seen the esoteric discussions about esoteric Catholicism where the hidden spirituality of the anecdotes were explained but because I never met this in the mainstream it was not the religion I grew up with. By comparison Buddhism appeared to go deeper, the dogma of Buddhism appeared to go deeper. With this background I can clarify my questioning. Are the Buddhists I have contact with any more than intellectuals? Is the Buddhism they discuss just an intellectual construct albeit a sophisticated intellectual structure of mind? For some this is certainly the case. Intellectuals accept a set of dogma – ideals, whilst they might play with these ideals, examine by intellect and other analytical approaches they end up accepting these ideals. With Christianity accepting the dogma is usually accompanied by a belief in God, for Buddhist intellectuals they can accept the dogma without the need for any belief – perhaps for them that is the attraction of Buddhism. Buddhism for some can simply be the acceptance of dogma. One of the indicators of how Buddhism is fraught with intellectualism is the deep divisions between the traditions of Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana. I felt they were fundamentally going the same way. One intellectual rejected my idea out of hand, as opposed to this Buddhadasa described this unity in all Buddhisms as trying “to remove the I and mine from the 5 khandas” [here]. Esoterically they are the same, and my problem has been that I have allowed the intellectual tradition that intellectually examines an excellent study of mind to deflect from the esoteric. Stephen Batchelor wants to dissociate himself from the battle of the traditions, and sees stricter adherence to what the Buddha taught as a way forward. But this is what Theravada says, and joining Theravada is not what he means. In a sense I agree with Stephen, except that because I immersed myself more in Theravada I see the same divisive intellectualism. I haven’t made my mind up about Stephen, but the root he is seeking is not the teaching root but the esoteric root in my view. I don’t like the word “esoteric”, it implies some form of magic or “Dr Strange”. The word does suggest hidden, in a sense it is hidden but it is only hidden to the intellect. Yet even that is not true, it is not hidden to deep questioning – an intellectual method, it is hidden only to intellectual ego – an ego which wants all to be explained by intellect. The Buddha talks of jhanas (SN45.8). “And what, bhikkhus, is right concentration? Here, bhikkhus, secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, a bhikkhu enters and dwells in the first jhana, which is accompanied by thought and examination, with rapture and happiness born of seclusion. With the subsiding of thought and examination, he enters and dwells in the second jhana, which has internal confidence and unification of mind, is without thought and examination, and has rapture and happiness born of concentration. With the fading away as well of rapture, he dwells equanimous and, mindful and clearly comprehending, he experiences happiness with the body; he enters and dwells in the third jhana of which the noble ones declare: ‘He is equanimous, mindful, one who dwells happily.’ With the abandoning of pleasure and pain, and with the previous passing away of joy and displeasure, he enters and dwells in the fourth jhana, which is neither painful nor pleasant and includes the purification of mindfulness by equanimity. This is called right concentration.” This is experience and not intellect. Questioning would require a search until there is such an experience, the intellectual ego cannot allow that. My recent contact with intellectualism also indicates this lack of total questioning. The intellect concerned had supported Buddhadasa. I then quoted from Buddhism Now blog “Now intuitive insight, or what we call ‘seeing Dhamma’, is not by any means the same thing as rational thinking. One will never come to see Dhamma by means of rational thinking. Intuitive insight can be gained only by means of a true inner realisation.” The intellectual did not accept this. How much could he have gained by truly investigating why Buddhadasa, who he liked, could accept this and he couldn’t? In this blog (not posted yet) I discussed rapture. I liked the movie, and mostly I like what Openhands do. Their Ascension is focussed on experience. The esoteric is about experience, Buddhism is about experience, the esoteric is about experience, the journey is about experience, Openhands is about experience. This experience is not hidden except to the intellect or the dogma literalists. Dogen says “Consequently, those who sit in meditation will, beyond doubt, drop off body and mind, and cut themselves free from their previous confused and defiling thoughts and opinions in order to personally realize what the innate Dharma of the Buddha is” [Shobogenzo p35]. . Those intellectuals who are happy with dogma don’t always meditate, and some have argued that the Buddha did not say meditate – he didn’t literally, apparently. But he meditated on the night of the 4 Noble Truths, is it esoteric to meditate? Total questioning can see what is needed, as Brad says “Sit down and shut up”, and feel the experience. Searching for the esoteric just means going beyond the dogma that intellect traps you to.

Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education. Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.

Zazen Body

This zazen is taking its toll on my body. OK I’m 64 in 2 days, and I’ve not always looked after myself. But for 9 years now I have been on a cheewajit diet – vegan and fish. I have not always been healthy in that time. I went through periods of healing, and thought things would be good only to find at the end of the healing that I had a chronic lung problem, a problem I still have when there is wind. But I am active and mostly OK. I mentioned in a recent blog what I considered was balancing matching the therapeutic treatment for my knee and resulting problems. But what’s going on is far more than that. I remember when doing Tai Chi, and the instructor, Brian, talking about 10 points of alignment and lungs dropping. The zazen is working mind and body dropping so maybe that is what it is. But there is all kinds of stuff happening including a certain amount of gasping at breath – my lung issue. Over the years I have used “letting-go” techniques, especially when I let go of Nancy when I was in Nyanga. I have used these since letting go of any small amount of stress that arose during retirement. I am surprised to feel that there is much that is not “aligned” – except for the knee and its consequences. Yet there is still more than this going on as there is weirdness at night. In the middle of the night I woke up it wasn’t a nightmare, and then I thought about being trapped in an enclosed coffin – a bit like George Clooney in . A huge localised fear came over me, and then I thought about not being attached and free from fear – and it went. The previous night I had woken as if there was a shell all around me – as if separating, and then I said “there is no me” and it went. I put all of this down to the zazen; good stuff. I suppose this is all dropping mind and body – maybe I just want that. I hope I keep it up, it is hard but what good must it be doing.

Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education. Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.

Homepage Buddhism

Lost in my website is a personal homepage that really has no access, it was just there because it was an original homepage. I have now amended it and called it My Mid-Life Review. There was a bit on Buddhism I have just updated with the following:-

I have just started considering Shobogenzo (his book and my page), and it made me reconsider what I had written on this unused homepage. Click on this screenclip to see what I wrote in Summer 2004:- In some ways the issues are the same now (February 2016), where is the genuine Buddhism? Back then I thought Theravada was genuine. Following retirement in 2006 I continued with that theme focussing my study on Theravada. By that concentrating I have come to see Buddhism so differently. Where is “what the Buddha taught?”, and my answer now is “who knows?” Theravada has the high ground in the sense that the mostly claim to source their teachings in the suttapitaka, but this is not something I now feel confident about. The Theravada sources are themselves are shrouded. I do not know the full history but what is written in the Theravada sources (which can be downloaded here) were committed to paper many years after the death of the Buddha. Theravadans claim that these people had perfect memories and it was common for things to be recounted that way. I am sceptical. In this original piece I had completely bought into the belief that Theravada following the original teachings of the Buddha, now I see there are important areas of disagreement amongst Theravadans especially the issue of anatta and reincarnation amongst the Forest Sangha. But Buddhadasa has taught me much, and that is to question views held as original Buddha teachings via Theravada. The questioning is mainly concerned with interpretation. The suttas are seen by many (especially intellectuals) as literal, and by studying Buddhadasa to some extent I have started to see this literal perception as a misunderstanding. Intellectuals discuss dogma, argue minutiae of dogma, argue authenticity of dogma, argue discussions about dogma, and miss the boat concerning what the purpose of the teachings are. In Buddhadasa’s interpretation he argues context, typically:- The Buddha needed to use words that implied acceptance of reincarnation because at the time all in India needed scripture that accepted reincarnation. People generally say that the Buddha avoided discussion of reincarnation but did emphasise anatta as in paticcasamuppada. The longer I discuss in this way the more I too get bogged down in intellectualism, authenticity and so on because language and society is about these things – not truth. I interpret what the Buddha taught as not about any of these, to me Buddhadasa is about the underlying meaning of the Buddha’s teachings as he attempts to get at what the Buddha taught. Buddhadasa lived in Thailand where Buddhism is the mainstream religion, and there is much discussion and much written about it. Buddhadasa also discusses, gets into authentication, and did a prolific amount of work. Whilst Buddhadasa’s work focusses on idappaccayata-paticcasamuppada (inc anatta and ariya sacca) in my view his work is not meant as an intellectual study, in other words it cannot be understood by intellect alone. [Note this indicator – those teaching westerners at Suan Mokh offer as download Idappaccayata – scroll down to idappaccayata.zip] (or download from mysite or from mega). To a certain extent I understand Buddhadasa’s focus through a quote from Shobogenzo:- “those who sit in meditation will, beyond doubt, drop off body and mind, and cut themselves free from their previous confused and defiling thoughts and opinions in order to personally realize what the innate Dharma of the Buddha is” [p35 Shobogenzo book] Buddhadasa talked about “removing attachment form the 5 khandas” in Ariya Sacca. Is this “drop off body and mind”? What is left? “the innate Dharma of the Buddha”. When I think of my experiences when writing, the writing occurred when I reached the “muse”, a state of mind that was free and just creative – writing. This muse or state of mind I have just come to realise is jhana, when in jhana there is no attachment to khandas – unless I try to cling to it. Am I just seeing “the innate dhamma”? Of course not because that innate Dhamma would be Voidness, but it is getting towards that in some way, in a way that is not intellectual, cannot be described by language. In the end I do however hold to the Unity that Buddhadasa describes here:- “For those of you sitting here who are interested in going to study Buddhism, please take notice that there is no such thing as Theravada Buddhism, Mahayana Buddhism, Vajrayana Buddhism, Zen Buddhism and all that stuff. There is just one real Buddhism and this is just pulling that I and mine out from the 5 khandas so that there is just the khandas – removing this I and mine out from the khandas. This is Buddhism. Everything else has just been added to make things showy, to make it interesting, to make it impressive, to entertain the children and all these things, so it makes the real teaching seem very profound so that nobody can understand it – all this extra stuff . Please find out what the real thing is, and save yourself the trouble of the other stuff.”

Zazen

Zazen meditation is so different and that much harder – when I say harder the time seems so much longer. Previously my meditation was just about clearing the mind, and then I would get the mind to do something like Brahma-Viharas. The mind was always active, calm the concoctions of sankhara – intellect, and then focus on something beneficial. It was letting-go of chatting intellect but then positive intellect. Zazen is just sitting, and it is slowwwww …. What do I do? Not thinking. If I do think I think letting go of mind and body but I try not to think of that. My eyes are open – rule, I don’t like that. Every so often they want to close. Today I dozed in my study chair before meditation, yet during meditation my eyes wanted to close and it felt like sleep coming. It wasn’t a sleep need, between 12 and 12 (I started zazen at 12.30pm) I probably had 10 hours sleep. The other thing is balance. Balance is a big problem for me at present because of the balance problems caused by locked knee (see below). Balance keeps coming up. I am writing this straight after zazen and I feel like dozing now. For completeness I should talk about methodology. I have my usual posture issues because of my knee so ignore those requirements (see below). In Brad’s book “Sex Sin and Zen” there is a short appendix on zazen, saying zazen is just sitting and not thinking. The methodology is covered in Fukan ZazenGi so I have put it on the Shobogenzo page. I started yesterday in which I forced two sessions – so that is a good improvement. Because the methodology requires the discipline it is better, I don’t know why I didn’t force myself twice before. Previously my mind was too active to do an evening session, and I just put that down to daily life and accepted it. Now there is the discipline so I am doing it …. so far. “Below:- I locked my knee playing football when I was 15; this might have been as a result of running down Edale and twisting my knee on a clump. After the knee locked it was in a huge bandage, and there was physio but I didn’t try properly and never straightened it. It took me until 3 years ago to realise that. Basically I didn’t understand my knee was still locked. Every so often I would lock my knee by jerking, this is what I thought. In reality what the jerking was doing was further locking the knee – only more drastic and with pain. When I was 18 I was physically a complete wreck – drunk and unfit. I would sit up and jerk the knee. I visited a specialist, and he told me there was nothing that could be done other than removing the cartilage – and get rheumatism. Young me said get rid, but fortunately 45 years ago doctors and parents could still make decisions for kids (18-year-old kids). A few years ago a massage Grannie said she could fix it. I went to her and she improved it – I found movement I had never had for 40 years, but she didn’t fix it completely. Then I found Boonyeun, a physiologist, and he worked on it improving it even more. Now a physiologist sees the body as an integrated muscle system, and he tinkers all over the left side of my body. Because I had favoured my left knee, I had closed up the hip joint and maybe more. Boonyeun is opening this up and so I am feeling uncomfortable walking as my body tries to adjust. This is the balance I am feeling in zazen.

Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education. Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.