John Boehner

The other day, after meeting Pope Francis, John Boehner announced he's stepping down as Speaker of the House and even resigning his seat.

My gut reaction to this news was confusion. I felt like that I "should" be happy to see him go. He stands across the political aisle from my views, and I guess that means he's an "enemy." However, I also know that he has been a moderate voice on the Republican side who's been faced with an uprising from the Tea Party group. The Tea Party view points are even further away from mine, so maybe it comes down to "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." I contemplated what this may mean for the future for a bit, and conclude that I am personally fearful that a hard-line Tea Party representative will replace him. Thus while I disagree with him on many points, the evil you know is better than the evil you do not know. Further, I could observe a seed of compassion in Boehner that I do not see in many other Republicans in this Congress. In conclusion, I am sad to see him go (even if I should be happy given our political differences).

After diving into work for a bit, I pulled up a few news pages. As expected all the headlines revolved around Boehner's announcement. They provided some additional information I didn't know - especially that he had had a private meeting with Pope Francis outside of his addressing Congress. I also learned this day fulfilled a long-time dream of his. They also gave examples and context on just how hard he had to fight within factions of the GOP, and I realized how frustrating that would be for him on a personal level. My conclusion that I'm sad to see him give up and quit became more firm.

By that evening, the headlines expanded to include the reactions of other political headliners. In short, Ted Cruz was out dancing in the street, celebrating this decision. That his resignation makes Cruz happy made it all the more obvious that I should not be happy with this decision to give up his elected position. In this case, the enemy of my enemy is indeed my friend.

To John Boehner: I am sorry to see you give up on this fight. But I understand that being Speaker in the current climate is an untenable and unwinnable situation. I truly hope your audience with the Pontiff has opened your heart and eyes to the possibilities of where treating everyone with compassion can lead us. I wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors and implore you to keep your humility. If your next professional step requires compromise with opposing viewpoints, may the world see you're doing the best with what you've been given.


Because a thing is national of the past, it need not follow that it must be national of the future. -- Sri Aurobindo

One Thing At A Time

Somewhere along the line I read or heard mention of the practice to focus solely on a single task at a time. This was quite a while ago on my journey, so I cannot picture the original source that opened this concept to me. However, it aligns well with the mantra recitation I've written about before  - where when I'm doing something mundane like washing the dishes, I will often repeat "Om Namah Shivaya" to help focus my mind and stop the Ego monologue.

In recent times, this mantra practice has stopped in many home-based tasks because I nearly always have Pandora playing one of three stations (if you're curious, they're Krishna Das Radio, Bhagavan Das Radio, and MC Yogi Radio). The results are similar, however, as I focus on the music and chants and contemplate their meaning rather than doing it on my on in silence.

Back to the point, doing one task at a time, being un-attached to the results of that action, has been a beneficial practice for me. I lost track of the times I've run up the stairs of my townhouse, spilling tea or coffee on the carpeted steps. What used to happen is that I'd wander downstairs for a refill, then jog back upstairs to get back to work. My task was "getting back to work" which doesn't quite fit. The result was that I'd jog up the steps, the liquid would slosh a bit, and sometimes splatter onto the carpet. Then I'd have to delay "getting back to work" to address the "clean up this mess" task before it could stain the carpet. Spilling carelessly is just one side event, but others might include toe-stubbing or forgetting what I actually went downstairs to do in the first place. I'm sure we've all been there!

Nowadays, as my coffee cup empties, I move downstairs with the single task "refill coffee." That may change into "rinse out coffee maker" and other little things in between. Then when I'm going back upstairs, my task is "carry coffee to office." With my focus on that task, there hasn't been a single spill or toe-stub since. It seems to work.

Recently I read 101 Zen Stories (a fun short read) and came across this gem (reproduced without permission; 101 Zen Stories attributes this to Essential Zen. May the original authors be pleased with my use of their story):

Seung Sahn would say, "When you eat, just eat. When you read the newspaper, just read the newspaper. Don't do anything other than what you are doing."

One day a student saw him reading the newspaper while he was eating. The student asked if this did not contradict his teachings.  

Seung Sahn said, "When you eat and read the newspaper, just eat and read the newspaper."

One can of course chalk this little story up to "do as I say, not as I do" but that would discount the wisdom in focusing one's mind on a single task. Rather it speaks to the speed of our modern society. As eating takes some focus, it also takes some time. Reading takes more focus and also takes time. In the interest of time, I believe there's leeway in this teaching to combine certain activities without missing the point. There's no need to try to create a list of activities that are OK to combine, but maybe to point out a key activity that you cannot combine:  Listening. You cannot listen well when you are also reading, when you are waiting to speak next, when you are watching TV, or many other activities. Not listening fully is disrespectful. After all, you expect to be heard when you're speaking, right? So put down your phone, put down the book, face your friend, and listen with respect.

Performing your task with singular focus yet being un-attached to the results is a concept I would like to visit in a future post.


Opinions are not knowledge, they are only sidelights on knowledge. Most often they are illegitimate extensions of an imperfect knowledge. -- Sri Aurobindo

Still here!

Less Writing Recently

Well, it's again been too long since I've posted. There are a few reasons for this. First, I tend to use this blog as my own personal one-to-many soapbox to shout my opinions. But that's also how I use Facebook. Given the higher level of interaction on FB versus a blog, that's where I've been doing most of my recent writing. It does pose a challenge, however, since FB posts must be more succinct and to the point than a rambling blog post. And I do miss my longer form writing practice.

More significantly, however, many of my blog posts evolve over time. They start as a gut reaction to something I've read or experienced. Then I mull over the concept in my mind for a while. Sometimes a couple hours, sometimes a couple weeks. During this internal mulling period, the topic and key points will take shape in my head until I've worked through various details and paths, then I set it to "paper" in a post. Many times, the post follows quite well the script in my head (although any faithful reader will find the exceptions in poorly thought out posts like this one!).

This process has been curtailed recently. Nowadays, as I practice more often "present moment awareness" and "be here now" philosophies, I still find myself running an internal monologue. These are the seeds to blog posts. However, that internal conversation of rehashing opinions and refining arguments is counter to present moment awareness. Thus, I consciously turn off my monologue, partake in an abbreviated breathing meditation, then move on with my day. The end results is that my obsessive train of thought gets stopped at a station, never to reach its destination.

I've started to mitigate this a bit by jotting down notes of topics I'd like to think and write about in the future. It's certainly not a bad thing to spend time thinking about the issues of the day -- yet I do believe it's a bad thing to live your life with that constant Ego voice running amok all day long.

So let me catch up a little here with a few different topics and plant a couple seeds out there for others to think over (but not to ruminate!). I hope to get back to some 'real' writing soon.

Reading

I often read several books at a time, inching my way through each. My recently purchased iPad provides me a more mobile platform (using the Kindle app, which is quite good) and lets me catch up on some books I have in PDF format (hint: email it to your @kindle address with "convert" as the subject line). I've never been able to read books in front of a computer, so this helps. Here are a few things I've been exploring recently:

Bhagavad Gita
Most ancient texts are not simply republished in the latest translation. Instead, they're translated and published along side commentary. After reading some of these, I really wish someone would publish the New Testament in this format. (To be honest, however, I have not looked that hard for this yet.)

For my exploration of the Bhagavad Gita, I'm actually reading two translations/commentaries at once. I'll finish a chapter in Bhagavad Gita As It Is and then I'll read the same chapter in Jnaneshwari. These books could hardly be more different even though they cover the exact same ancient text. I quickly discovered the first is written from the perspective of the Krishna Consciousness movement. I have nothing negative to say about that movement, except that I do not prescribe to it. In their view, they place Lord Krishna above all else - they draw clear distinctions from the Buddhist and other Hindu views that "we're all one." Regardless, they come from a pure and well-intentioned place, and there are many parallels easily drawn from their interpretation.

Jnanashwar lived 800 years ago and is a fascinating person. All of his writing was done before he died at the young age of 21. His commentary on the Bhagavad Gita became so famous that his name and the works title are nearly synonymous. His commentary is wonderfully uplifting and I am enjoying it quite a bit.

I'm only into the 3rd chapter of the Gita. The first chapter harped a little too much on justification of war for my taste, but I am learning a lot and will be diligently finishing these commentaries in short order (I hope!).

Essays Divine and Human
This is a collection of works by Sri Aurobindo. I recommend finding this (or I can send over a PDF if you'd like). The author addresses many subjects from poetry to European influences in Hindu India to divine topics. His writing style as crisp and powerful as his insights. I can only read one or two essays in a sitting because this is one of those works that you have to reflect on what you just read to really let it sink it. A cursory overview won't do it justice.

Politics

It's the start of the next political season in the USA. The next Republican debate is tomorrow evening, and the Democrats will debate soon. My personal opinion is that the entire GOP slate is un-electable. Each of the candidates has numerous positions on issues that I strongly disagree with, but there are many common themes as well. The GOP is well underway continuing it's War on Women and it's misguided evangelical Christian motivations. Eventually when the field thins some more, maybe I'll treat each candidate individually. For now, I'll just address two:

Donald Trump
Trump is the biggest egomaniac I've ever seen. While I write a lot here about working to reduce one's Ego, Trump brings this to an entirely new level. He's racist, misogynistic and classist. I read an analysis of his speeches that determined he speaks at a 3rd grade level -- well below any President in history, and below all of his contemporaries. The problem here is that when you rant like a 3rd grader, you end up with a bunch of 3rd graders following you.

My son quipped over the weekend that he heard people only like Trump because he's not afraid "to tell it like it is." I've heard variations of this theme for months. The challenge here is that nobody else says those things on a national stage because they're not bigoted buffoons. If you really think Trump is the best person to lead this country, you really need to spend some time in self examination of your beliefs and priorities. Sadly, most of his followers likely lack the cognitive capacity required for that much-needed introspection. My fingers are crossed that people will wake up to his antics soon.

Bernie Sanders
Sanders is my current candidate of choice for many reasons. In comparison with the rest of the field, Hillary Clinton and Ted Cruz are more aligned on big-government business-as-usual issues than Clinton is with Sanders. That's very revealing. Sanders has proven leadership, a solid platform, and a no-nonsense approach. The media slander (or outright ignoring him) and the "socialist" label hasn't damped his campaign so far, and he has much room for growth. He recently addressed the Christian Liberty University, and it was all-around wonderful.

If we can get out the word regarding his platform (because the media isn't helping him) I think many middle-of-the-road voters will find solace in his viewpoints. I'm planning to head down to DC next month for a rally in support of Sanders. Hope to see you there!

Conservatives (in general)
While my Facebook feed is relatively cleared of Fox News junkies (they've either been unfriended or hidden), sometimes likes/shares still filter through. I am continually amazed at how negative all of it is. From the Drudge Report (which is barely news -- a blog opinion isn't a news source, and neither is a UK tabloid) to Allan West's disgusting website, nearly every article is strongly negative. I've repeated many times that the right wing is driven by fear, so it's not worth diving into again, but keep an eye out on this as you read their content. Fear and hatred are no basis for a political party. As a contrast, I do see many posts from the left wing edge as well. They too fall into the same missing-sources trap sometimes, but even in those cases, the message is often "this good thing happened" or "we need to address this issue" or "how can help with this tragedy" versus the right-wing standards of "this is horrible", "blame this person for this situation", and "look at this tragedy". The differences are startlingly obvious if you take a moment to look.

Parting Shots

I truly hope to write more in the coming weeks. But even if I don't, let me depart for now with just a few more points.

Diet -- nearly every non-genetic physical ailment can be resolved by moving to a whole-grain plant-based diet. Avoid meat, minimize dairy, minimize processed foods. You don't need to spend 4 days a week killing your joints in a gym to lose weight. Just make better choices and stay active. It really is that simple. See Forks Over Knives for more.

Patience -- the opposite of anger is patience. Every task or event in your life is an opportunity to practice patience. The point of practicing something is that it will eventually become the default response. It's easy to be angry, everyone knows how to do that. But anger makes absolutely nothing better. Nothing. Be patient. When you have a new "problem" arise in your life (from mundane traffic situations to serious home repairs), if you face the necessary actions as a set of tasks, patiently moving to the goal without attachment, everything works much better than the alternative of facing it with anger and self-righteousness.

I experience suffering in my life. But countless others are experiencing more suffering than I am. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could all be free from suffering?


Man may be, as he has been defined, a reasoning animal, but it is necessary to add that he is, for the most part, a very badly-reasoning animal. -- Sri Aurobindo

On my political evolution

My early political views were shaped by my father. We were a white middle-class family, though we seemed to have moved up from lower-middle to middle-middle. He was a strong-minded logical person who'd worked his way up to senior management in manufacturing. I identified him as a typical Republican. For example, he was anti-union, because it would cost the company more money in the long run. Watching the fiscal policy arguments of the day, I was enthralled by Ronald Reagan. I believed a strong military was key to national security under the hype of the cold war. I was against gay marriage because I believed straight people could take advantage of it to avoid higher taxes. I believed taxes were too high, and we had too many lazy people on the public dole, based on extrapolating from the history of the Roman Empire. I was against affirmative action because I believed every individual had the means to escape from the caste into which they were born. I identified my mother as a soft-hearted liberal, and used to argue arbitrary positions with her pretty much just for fun. I had mastered the art of cherry-picking pieces of information that fit my world view, and vehemently defend those views, while ignoring any contrary evidence.

I moved out of the house and went to college, then graduate school. Almost all of these views held steadily, although some liberal social views crept in. For example, I was strongly pro-choice, knowing many female peers who opted for abortions and some very young parents whose lives seemed to dead-end with child rearing. I continued to vote Republican as I migrated to a self-description of "fiscally conservative, socially liberal." I figured I would vote with my wallet, and the social side would take care of itself, as they'll never overturn decisions like Roe v. Wade. I think many middle class people today fall into this category, and it seems to align more with a Libertarian view versus traditional Republican vs. Democrat lines.

After graduation, I was employed in a technology-driven job that afforded me the opportunity to travel the country widely from coast to coast, including some international destinations. I was married by then, with a young child, and my view of the world slowly started to change. I watched the debacle of our war-mongering in the Middle East and utter failure of our military-based answers. I noticed great disparities in the workforce, where no matter your personal drive and intelligence, if you were female or not white, upward movement was stifled at every turn. I was a benefactor of the privileged white male viewpoint through my entire life without ever realizing it. I had never spent the time contemplating how my life may not have been so easy if I were born female or of Hispanic or African decent. Each generation of my extended family seemed to be moving steadily up the ladder of success - but we all were given the middle class white opportunities.

My social circles expanded greatly when I was divorced later. At this point in my life, I met many people that fall into the category of "working poor." They had jobs, and worked hard. Some had gone to college to complete degrees they couldn't afford in their 20s. I met under-employed under-educated hard working people struggling to feed their children, embarrassed to admit they required government assistance just to keep their beat-down house and 20 year old rusted car. I watched the Middle East crumble further into decay and war because we dropped a bunch of bombs, killed a bunch of people, but didn't solve anything; we created a power vacuum that invited extremist viewpoints to take over entire countries. I met grown up homosexual people who were hampered in their strive to equal protection. They were happily committed to each other, but the government would not allow legal recognition of their love, making adoption harder, restricting spousal benefits such as health insurance, and so much more. I watched as supposed Christians pushed their views onto the rest of us in very non-Christian ways. And sadly, I've watched the US Republican party move farther and farther right, from fiscally conservative to downright greedy.

Today, I recognize my conservative viewpoint was motivated entirely by self-interest. Everything in the world was black and white. If a policy didn't afford me a better chance for future success, it was to be argued against. Keep my taxes low, screw the poor. Keep unions out, screw the laborers who didn't go to college. Keep hiring policies the same, screw equal opportunity for all. Keep the military funded to protect me and mine, screw the rest of the world.

More recently I have discovered Buddhism and the path of Dharma that teaches compassion for all living beings. Compassion for others is truly a key to ones own happiness and a peaceful mind. Conservative political policies are almost entirely diametrically opposed to treating others with compassion. They are driven by Ego, structured to ensure the rich get richer and the poor stay poor. Listen to any Republican politician speak today, and beneath the rhetoric all you hear is anger and unhappiness. They profess that they stand for individual rights, but in reality they stand only for personal gain. Every policy direction is governed by personal gain, from hiring practices and equal protection to environmental views and education. There's a mantra in high-end B2B sales that "greed is good." I disagree entirely. The result of these policies has lead to staggering income inequality, a pathetic educational system, buckling infrastructure, and anti-American views around the world.

I apologize unreservedly for every argument I've every had where I took a stand from my Ego and my personal gain. I was wrong. However, I have learned from those mistakes.

I am still privileged. I am a white male in a professional job that pays well. My kids will be able to attend any college they want. I have my own late model car and my own home in a safe neighborhood. But while my income is higher than its ever been, I give more of it away now than I ever have. I still encounter problems in my life, but I recognize they aren't really problems - they're events that may require unplanned tasks to navigate. Compared to the rest of the world, I have absolutely nothing to complain about. I look forward to the day when my kids are out of school and no longer dependent on me. That will hopefully allow me the opportunity to shed further my worldly possessions, minimize my footprint to having "just enough," and focus more strongly on humbly treating every living being with compassion in the hopes that they will find happiness and a peaceful mind.

I encounter suffering in my life. Many others are experiencing much greater suffering. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we were all free from suffering?

"The greatest wealth is to live content with little." -- Plato

"If you want others to be happy, practice compassion. If you want to be happy, practice compassion." -- Dalai Lama

On American Patriotism

Today is July 4, 2015 - the day we celebrate this country's declaring independence from Great Britain. The actual date that occurred in 1776 is actually quite blurry. July 2 was a key date, as was July 4, but the UK didn't really know about any of this until late August. Regardless, for hundreds of years, we've used July 4 to mark the anniversary of this event that lead to a war and changed the world in a significant way.

Americans typically celebrate the day off work (for many of us, except the working poor who still have to serve us this day) with BBQs, beer, and other outdoor activities. The day is capped off with fireworks displays across the country at dusk. It's generally a pretty happy day, and I regularly partake in some form of the festivities. However, it's not a really big holiday for me.

This dawned on me this morning as I was dressing. The typical dress code for the day is an ensemble of red, white, and blue. Many take it further than just the colors and wear US flag apparel or other symbols of their patriotism. As I looked through my closet, I own no flag-based clothing at all. I don't even own anything that is red, white, and blue. In years past, I'd just make do the best I can. Maybe a red and white shirt with a blue sweatshirt. But today I was reflecting on why I own nothing flag-related, and looking at my closet you'd see zero signs of patriotism (although I own many other symbolic T-shirts).

First of all, I'm not a huge fan of our Flag. Compared to the many simpler designs found across the world, or among the 50 state flags, this one, I believe, is below average. While it's full of symbolism of the 13 original colonies and the 50 states, it doesn't really work as a partial design. You kind of need the whole thing, or else it's just blue with white stars or overly-wide red and white strips. I just don't see it as attractive apparel. If it were a simpler design, maybe my opinion would be different.

Second, I really have to admit I'm not a huge Patriot. This word has been hijacked in recent years by right-wing ultraconservatives as a pro-violence rallying cry. It's also a well known fallback for the Tea Party group. I do not identify with either of these groups, but there are countless patriotic liberals as well, and they often wear flag-based clothing, or at least the color palette. 

Don't get me wrong - I am very fortunate to have been born in this country, and I recognize well the opportunities it affords me. I also understand the sacrifices of countless men and women in getting us where we are today so that we can enjoy the freedoms we have. However, my being born in this country really just comes down to a bit of luck. Experiencing rebirth in the precious human form is incredibly more rare than achieving a human birth to happen to land in the USA.

Why should I feel any pride in the accidental place of my birth? I had nothing to do with that, and I kind of view it as a false pride. I think it's generally OK for one to take pride in their work (just don't get too attached to that feeling!), but to take pride in your birthplace? I don't see a logical basis for this at all. I am grateful that I was born in a free society and to have been given an opportunity to touch Dharma and follow a path of my choosing that is not dictated by a totalitarian government. But I didn't do any work towards that goal of my birth (building merit in previous lives aside).

I would much rather everyone across the world set aside a day to celebrate and express thankfulness for being Human. National pride often leads to reinforcing delusions and takes the focus off the real challenges of this short human existence. The greatest joy one can feel is treating other beings with compassion; setting yourself apart from 96% of the world by getting drunk, torching the sky and eating hotdogs is not an act of compassion.

So as I head out this afternoon for activities on this July 4, I will be mindful of my eternal gratefulness that being born in this country affords me. I may even don some red, white and blue if I can find anything in the closet. But deep down, I will be celebrating achieving a human rebirth on this pass through Samsara rather than filling myself with a delusion that I had something to do with our independence from Great Britain in a bloody war over 200 years ago.


"Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism - how passionately I hate them!" -- Albert Einstein

"Patriot: the person who can holler the loudest without knowing what he is hollering about." -- Mark Twain

On Same-sex Relations and Religion

Starting with Christianity, I searched for web site with vested interest in the topic of what the Bible says about same-sex relationships. There are many such pages out there, and I found one here that was well-written and non-argumentative. Across both the entirety of the Old and New Testaments, there are only a handful of places where it's mentioned explicitly, and a few others where it could be read implicitly. Most references are from that massive list of rules, Leviticus. In the New Testament, the topic was aligned to "proper sexual behavior" and so if one follows from Leviticus, same-sex relationships fall outside of there, and so that chunk may apply too. There's some modern discussion around the meaning of the "act" but not the "feelings" to be sinful, but this is one place where language and interpretation fail us. In legal decisions, sometimes it comes down to the specific wording, but I don't think it's the same way with Religious texts.

First off, almost every religious text, and all of the ancient ones, do not have their original words available to us. For those that we do have good original sources for, most of us do not speak the native language the text was written in. And so we have a translation effect added on top of the following discussion.

Religious texts, like any book, are written in specific time periods, and often include specific words or points that are appropriate for their current audience. Not one of any of these authors remotely suspected we'd be pouring over their words with a fine toothed comb thousands of years later. They were writing for their current followers, their current leaders, their modern day peers. In this way, they use the traditional language constructs available to them. If we were writing in America a few years ago, there'd be lots of "he/she" or "his/her" usage that we wouldn't see just 10 years later. We were clearly struggling linguistically at that time with gender equality issues. (Personally, I usually land on using "they" and "them", even when the intent is singular.)

The modern Christian Bible has some things to say about same-sex relations. One can make various arguments as to why it needed to be addressed (ancient taboos, encouraging reproduction), and it doesn't matter too much for this discussion. The words are fairly clearly stated. If a televangelist were writing his gospel today, I guarantee entire paragraphs would be dedicated to this subject, along with reasoning, a list of "do not's", and the appropriate punishments. 2,000 years ago, they clearly didn't think of it with this importance, and they treat the subject largely in passing when making other moral points.

As I read ancient texts such as the Upanishads, and as I read Buddhist teachings from a large range of years, I cannot recall a single sentence spelling out anything explicitly in regard to same-sex relationships. One can extrapolate from this a lack of a view to a position close to the modern progressive striving for all-inclusiveness, especially in the context of Oneness and Love. [n.b. I'm intentionally not counting the stories involving shape-shifting gods here, as the crux of those stories were various moral teachings and examples, and the gender of a specific being at a specific time really didn't matter to the teaching point.] However, there are many references where "wives" are discussed in various ways. When relationships do appear, it's often husband and wife, with traditional gender rolls.

My conclusion is that, based on the above arguments around writing for your audience, and translations across time and languages, these ancient texts were written by men, for men, and drew from their daily lives when needing examples. People in the stories wash in the river and trek through the jungle because that's what they all did in that time period. Or modern day fables of moral examples would have people commuting to work and vacationing in the sun. It's what we do. And back then, if there were literate people to be found, they were largely male. And society was often structured in that more primeval hunter/gatherer model (vs. modern misogyny), where men went out and took care of business while women stayed home to cook and rear children. Thus, when inditing their religious stories to paper, they would write in the role of the husband with a wife, washing in the river, walking through the jungle. The wording for "same-sex partner" would be as unfamiliar to them as the fundamental concept, and so I don't believe they had any reason to contemplate or to write about same-sex relationships. Similarly, even though we who study Buddhist writings are used to pouring over words for deeper meanings (after all, the first paragraph of the introduction to some of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso's books would give you enough to contemplate for a solid week!), when we hear Buddhist teachings that include traditional gender roles, I do not think we need to spend them any mind. And the deeper meaning of that passage lies in other words, regardless of the gender of the participants.

One final thought from the Buddhist side:  In general, attachment to worldly pleasures such as sexual gratification are viewed as distractions on the path to Enlightenment. Given that, there's probably no need to specifically ban same-sex sexual unions when no sexual unions are condoned.

Maybe this is all obvious to everyone, but I had to spend a little time contemplating it. My initial thoughts of "I wonder why the Bible even said anything about same-sex relationships" expanded down this path. Thank you for sharing the thought process, and as always, I would love to hear your thoughts.


Then said he: 'Lo, verily, not for love of the husband is a husband dear, but for love of the Soul (Ātman) a husband is dear.
Lo, verily, not for love of the wife is a wife dear, but for love of the Soul a wife is dear.' 

Upanishads Brih. 2.4.5


"Buddhism has in it no idea of there being a moral law laid down by some kind of cosmic lawgiver." -- Alan Watts

A learning moment?

[No image available for this post because the most appropriate image is one that holds strong negative connotations, so this is a better option.]

I think I had a learning moment yesterday in a realization that slowly dawned on me last night while reading Hesse's Siddhartha in bed. This may be a long wordy post, and it may be a somewhat selfish way to organize my thoughts, but I think and hope my potential insights may be beneficial to others.

Background

I got involved in a FaceBook thread around whether or not the Confederate Flag (more accurately the Battle Flag of Virginia) is a racist symbol. I was quickly outnumbered in this thread with several people defending its use, using the history argument - that it's part of American history and is a symbol of Southern Heritage. My viewpoint is that this Southern Heritage is explicitly tied to racism, which many articles and videos support. It's even a clear conclusion from viewing the Wikipedia page.

I approached the discussion from a rational viewpoint and carefully worded my posts as not to be argumentative. I gave the other participants the benefit of the doubt that they were arguing their position from a non-racist viewpoint. I did have my doubts about this, however. One participant's background image on his FB page looked like a shot from Duck Dynasty, with several bearded white men presenting their middle fingers in an aggressive manner. The person's page on which this thread appeared also showed strong Fox News-leaning tendencies as well, but I wouldn't have called him out on being a racist.

The thread went in strange directions. Many defensive links were posted, all with the same History argument. I pointed out that the swastika dates from neolithic times as a peaceful symbol (yeah, yeah Godwin's Law), but that no one in their right mind would every fly such a flag today. While historically a positive symbol, it was corrupted beyond repair by the Nazi Party. It's even illegal to fly it in Germany except in a museum setting. While nobody is suggesting outlawing the Confederate Flag, those flying it should recognize what a majority of people feel it represents.

Clearly we all disagreed and the discussion wasn't heading anywhere. We all seemed to be reaching a point where the thread had run its course (into a brick wall), and I was ready to let it die. I'm totally OK with not trying to have the last word in these kinds of debates, and it was time just to let it end.

The Escalation

And then my FB friend posted a fresh comment. This was a post shared from Fox News around President Obama's decision to allow private citizens to pay ransom without fear of prosecution. I am not well versed on this point, and I can see at least two sides to that issue. What grabbed my attention was my friend's commentary added to the posted link. It began "Our Muslim President has declared..." and then ranted about this decision.

Right here, I stopped. I made a public comment on this new thread quoting his words and thanked him for letting me put his views on the Confederate Flag in perspective. He is clearly more racist than I had wanted to give him credit for. I don't have any interest in that level of bullshit on my FaceBook feed, or in Real Life, and promptly unfriended him.

He then decided to air this publicly, calling me out by name, which was quickly pointed out to me (after all, we still have many friends in common). Clearly misunderstanding my reason for the abrupt end to our conversation, he called me out on getting "all bent" because of History and Southern Pride. In order to clear this up for him concisely and to close the loop for myself, I messaged him privately letting him know the "Muslim President" comment shows me where he really stands on the flag debate. He has not replied, and I have not further investigated his public airing of his grievance against me. So this is the end, right?

The Aftermath

I found myself in bed, reading, but still thinking about this. If you've read other posts on this blog, or know me at all, I'm very much into the "Be Here Now" philosophy. The past is the past, and there's nothing productive in dwelling on might-have-beens or carrying around past negative events. Yet this exchange kept popping into my mind.

If I was OK with everything I said (I still am - everything was backed up with facts, and I was not argumentative or mean in anything I said), why was this still with me? So I contemplated his side of the events. Was he sitting at home stewing and angry? I've seen and heard how he behaves, especially with alcohol involved, and I know there is a deep streak of anger in this man. I pictured him stewing in anger, feeling persecuted yet again. Maybe he is thinking of me, and pictures me similarly angry and still raving on this? With this thread still in my mind, am I? While contemplating this view, a new thought popped in my mind.

What if he's actually questioning himself? He claims he's not racist, then posts something literally racist. He was seemingly embarrassed enough by my response to on the second thread that he appears to have removed the whole thing. Maybe my pointing this out had some positive effect on him? That would be a great outcome from a pointless debate. Contemplating this, yet another angle came to mind.

The Learning Experience

Maybe he's not questioning anything. Maybe he is just sitting there angry. This, sadly, is the more likely path given my experiences with him. In this case, I've made him angry; I have caused suffering in another living being. Is this keeping me up because I'm ashamed of my actions? But I was trying to do the right thing here, trying to get people to understand the negative connotations associated with a symbol, trying to get them to see the other side of the story. And I'm still confident that I'm on the right side of this debate - history will show that. I was trying to help, and maybe, just maybe, I did.

But... maybe I caused suffering for another living being. Where does that fall in Buddhist teachings? I know well enough that I cannot be the root cause of another's anger - that exists entirely in their mind. However, for one to experience the root delusion of anger, one needs to have an Object on which to exaggerate bad qualities or consider to be undesirable. What if you are that Object to someone else? Is there negative Karma associated with this?

I guess there is always risk in trying to do Good that you will fail. After all, we're all traveling through Samsara together, and if we didn't cause suffering in one another, the amount of suffering in the world may not be enough for us to learn any lessons. Regardless, my take-away here, at this stage in my journey, is learning for myself that what's good for me may not be good for all. I shall endeavor to tread more lightly down these slippery paths where rational debate becomes heated discussion, leading to anger and suffering for someone involved - on either side of the discussion. Once your subject becomes angry, you've lost the ability to teach them anything. If they're angry from the start, having a rational debate is meaningless.

"In a controversy the instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth, and have begun striving for ourselves." -- Buddha