Watering the seeds of kindness

The post and inspiration for this short exposition were forwarded by @ZenDirtZenDust, on Twitter.

Just finished reading a post over at Digital Zendo on "watering the seeds of happiness" with a profound quote from Thich Nhat Hanh. The general idea is that when we converse with others we are watering the seeds of kindness. Nhat Hanh is famous for these simple true aphorisms that make Buddhism a viable practice in an increasingly hostile world. However, most of what passes for conversation in contemporary society is anything but kind. That reality prompted me to think about the way I deal with old friends on Facebook who have become fans of politically harsh commentators/causes.

I decided to revisit my Facebook account, originally set up as a way to monitor the comments my students posted about me on the "rate your professor" section. I set the account up with a pseudonym and generally monitored comments about my teaching to learn a little about how my students perceived my courses.

All of a sudden old friends from drum corps started popping up on Facebook and we created a virtual corps by friending each other from links found on close friend's pages. Even though I knew some of these folks for 25+ years, I was surprised to read harsh posts and learn the political underpinnings of many of my old buddies. I was aghast that many people who I considered close friends had become, in the intervening years, persons who posted mean political vitriol to shock friends and acquaintances. Generally the drum & bugle corps motto holds that we support one another and stick together, but here on Facebook it was clear that so many of my old friends only cared about promoting harsh views. Social justice, health care for all, fair finance reforms or anything that would promote the general welfare of workers was chastised in favor of policies that benefited the wealthiest 1%. Disheartening indeed.

 As was the case "back in the day," they still called themselves Christian, but the practices/policies they support are anything but in line with new testament writings, especially the Sermon on the Mount which, in my view, is the cornerstone of Christian' theology. Since they were virulent "Christian" conservatives despite the obvious contradictions with actual theology, the whole scene angered me, and at first, I did not water the seeds of kindness in our dialogues.

As a professional philosopher, I lashed back bludgeoning them with the contradictions inherent in their political and spiritual views. I pointed to the inconsistencies between their stated belief structures and the actual policies they supported (e.g., Can a Christian be pro-war? Against health care for all? Against legislation to prevent fraud on Wall St.?) In the end, all that I succeeded in doing was frustrating myself by discussing sensitive issues with people who did not value intellectual and spiritual consistency. I ended these conversations sad and disappointed because I had a naive belief that my old friends cared about others. What I learned through our discourse was that they only cared about themselves and thought I was a very anti-Christian Buddhist.

So now, after reading Digital Zendo this morning, I ask myself. How could I approach the situation from a more compassionate standpoint? What could I have said in response to their harsh comments that would have made a positive difference in turning some towards greater compassion? What is the best way to deal with old friends who have changed? While ignoring these folks is one option, I know I will encounter my old comrades in real life at DCI shows and the wounds from our discussions will be fresh in their minds. How can I heal the rift by "watering the seeds of compassion" and standing up for universal human dignity?My task was clear: I had to work at practicing boddicitta towards those with whom I differ according to analytical Tibetan traditions. Though I do not support my old friends, I have great compassion for their suffering and believe the manifestation of greed in our discussion points to the need for a gentler dialogue. How to be kind without walking away is the real question?

Tipitaka thoughts...

As I set out to design a course in Eastern philosophy for my college, I sought the council of a friend who has considerable experience teaching and traveling to meet scholars in the Buddhist world. Initially I thought we'd discuss the meta categories like Hinduism, Confucian thought, Buddhism and Taoism. However, our discussion quickly focused on the various merits of Theravada and Mahayana teachings. His position was that anything outside of the tipitaka was mere window dressing to the core texts. I disagree and believe the mahayana suttras have many insights worth exploring.

What does one teach to students who are encountering Buddhism for the first time? Certainly the Theravada teachings will form the root introduction to the four noble truths, but aside from the Dhammapada, what else should one teach to beginners? In my experience, texts by Mahayana teachers have been more accessible so I considered focusing on these. After our exchange, I am interested to hear what others believe about core texts one should present if there are only 3-4 weeks to cover Buddhism?

Your ideas are welcomed.

Wise insights on the 8 worldly dharmas

Reading about the eight worldly dharmas again. After 6 months of sustained meditation on ending detachment, arrogance, anger, desire, greed and pride, I think Pema Chondron (When Things Fall Apart) provides a wise insight: any time you have a bad experience your mind is focused on loss, blame, pain or disgrace. Whatever is happening, happens through the lens of our mind. Thus, good experiences come from the other side of the dyad: gain, pleasure, praise and fame. Each experience, both good and bad, are products of our mind dialog combination with the causes and conditions playing out around us.


When Westerners hear this, we think the entire philosophy is an exercise in rationalist solipsism. However, Vicotr Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning, comes to the same conclusion: we may not have a choice of historical circumstances, but we can choose how we behave in response. Thus, it might be beneficial to map emotional reactions in terms of the dharma dyads (pleasure-pain, loss-gain, praise-blame, fame-disgrace).

The process of mapping our reactions using the dyads provides a means for looking at our responses in a not-judging manner.  For example, our reaction to losing a job might be composed of the following:

1. pain: for the loss of something good,
2. loss: of income and status,
3. blame: directed at others and/or self, and 
4. disgrace for the inability to retain employment.

Using the dyads as a map to understanding suffering allows us to see these as predictable reactions rooted in:

• attachment (to the job, money, career, stuff, house, food, etc.),
• desire to avoid negative change and maintain material well-being, and
• ignorance regarding the impermanence of all things, including those that sustain our well-being. 

The benefit of understanding our emotional reaction as a normal, healthy response to loss can help us avoid depression by suggesting areas for growth and self-examination.  Given the example above it is possible to analyze the following with regards to our happiness and well-being:

1. attachments: the amount of money, status and stuff necessary for continued well-being; examining our needs, wants, desires and investments in work can also lead to fruitful new paths that produce new opportunities
2. 
   

Thinking about the eight worldly dharmas & bodichitta

Loss & Gain



Pleasure & Pain



Praise & Blame



Fame & Disgrace



These are often referred to as the "worldly concerns." I have been wondering (for over 15 years) if it is truly possible to disassociate oneself from the above without disengaging from the world entirely? Can one live in a modern society and not get caught up in the eight worldly dharmas?

When I see a selfless, kind person I know it is possible.