Buddhism and Valentines Day.

This year the average American will spend $116 on Valentine's Day, which is a holiday in honor of love. In years past, I have boycotted Valentine's Day because of it's commercialism but this year I have decided to focus on the love aspect while discarding the consumerism that clouds this day dedicated to love. In honor of the true meaning of love, I would like to share several quotes from Buddhist thinkers on the subject. First, it is important to understand what true love is about.

Zen master Thich Nhat Hanh teaches that true love, is love that is given freely and unconditionally without expecting reward in return. Love that hinges upon the other person doing everything we like or want of them is not true love, but rather based on attachment, conditions and control.

But, one can not discuss love and Buddhism without mentioning the Metta Sutta or Sutra, which is claimed to have been spoken by Buddha, himself. I am not going to quote the full sutra here, but if you want to read it in its entirely, then click here:

Let none deceive another, Or despise any being in any state. Let none through anger or ill-will wish harm upon another. Even as a mother protects with her life, her child, her only child, so with a boundless heart should one cherish all living beings: radiating kindness over the entire world spreading upwards to the skies, and downwards to the depths; outwards and unbounded, freed from hatred and ill-will. Whether standing or walking, seated or lying down, free from drowsiness, one should sustain this recollection. This is said to be the sublime abiding. By not holding to fixed views, the pure-hearted one, having clarity of vision, being freed from all sense desires, is not born again into this world.

Many people today look to His Holiness the Dalai Lama for inspiration and wisdom. So, I added a quote from him on the matter of love, it's importance and power:

If there is love, there is hope that one may have real families, real brotherhood, real equanimity, real peace. If the love within your mind is lost and you see other beings as enemies, then no matter how much knowledge or education or material comfort you have, only suffering and confusion will ensue" -His Holiness the Dalai Lama from 'The little book of Buddhism'

It is my hope that you find love today and always. If you do not feel love from others then perhaps it's first important to focus upon loving yourself. It's hard to accept or believe true love when it presents itself to us if we don't accept that we deserve to be loved. And, I want all who read this to know that I deeply love you and care about you all; and hope that this day and many others will find you filled with that love as well.

You are not alone--imagine the world-wide sangha all coming together to acknowledge your worth and importance with a collective hug; feel the compassion and acceptance coursing from our hearts and veins into yours. But, don't forget to pass that love on to someone else!! May you we all soon be free from selfishness, hatred and self-loathing. These are all delusions that keep us from feeling the ever present love that is essential to a life without suffering in this universe.

~Peace to all beings~

Dalai Lama via WikiLeaks: Save Environment BeforeTibet.

Per, Jason Burke at The Guardian. A tip o' the hat to Rod at Shambhala Sun for turning me on to this story:

The Dalai Lama told US diplomats last year that the international community should focus on climate change rather than politics in Tibet because environmental problems were more urgent, secret American cables reveal.

I think the Dalai Lama is on point because we may not have an Earth capable of supporting either a communist Tibet or a free, independent and democratic Tibet. As usual the DL understands interconnection and it's importance. All links in the chain that make life live-able on Earth are essential. If too many of those links get bent toward a breaking point then it's not going to do the Tibetans any good. Unfortunately, many of us do forget about the animals, and state of the environment. It can seem to be, "just scenery" to some but it's vital for undertaking everything we do on this planet. Even the smallest things are integral to a life-sustaining Earth.

Coral, for example, is one of the smallest beings on Earth but it is essential and important in controlling the amount of carbon dioxide in the ocean. So, thanks to carbon dioxide pollution from our cars and factories, we have less of a carbon dioxide fighter in the corals. And, so, we see that environmental degradation occurs at a rapid rate, which compounds exponentially. So, not only do we lose a carbon dioxide fighter but we make the air and oceans warmer, which kills off phytoplankton. Without phytoplankton we make the air even worse for those of us on land!!

Dalai Lama is truly a man who understands the interconnection of life, so profoundly that he understands what's most important--and it's not politics.

Buddhist Bhutan Bans Monastics from Voting.

In the Buddhist kingdom of Bhutan monks have been allowed to vote in political elections, but that is about to change. The government says it's to maintain a distinct space between religion and politics. Yet, one has to wonder if they've gone too far in that pursuit since Buddhist clergy have been beneficial over the years in effecting political change that helps create a fertile field for less suffering for a vast, diverse number of people.

Two obvious examples being the Dalai Lama and Thich Nhat Hanh who both have advocated for political freedoms of all people but especially in their homelands of Tibet and Vietnam.

In fact, Zen master Hanh has developed a form of socially active Buddhism called, "Engaged Buddhism" which teaches Dharma practitioners on how to apply Dharma lessons to real world challenges such as social, political and economic realities. His aim, however, isn't necessarily to favor one political side over another. In fact, during the Vietnam War his group focused on the innocent community caught in between the armies of the Communist and Democratic sides. Engaged Buddhist inspires us to practice the Dharma in ways that aid us in helping our communities become better stewards of the people and its resources (nature and otherwise) so that the collective suffering can be lessened. Hanh embraced this way of engaging the world as a form of following the natural conclusions of compassion combined with the reality of interconnection. In other words, monks and the layity can't practice compassion as called for by the reality of interdependence without being apart of the community.

Engaged was partly inspired by the Chinese monk Taixu. Taixu was concerned about monastics and laity alike in Pure Land Buddhism being distracted and obsessed with working to escape Earth for the otherworldly and supernatural Pure Land. He felt that the awareness of the suffering of others, which engenders compassion to help transform this current life--in this current moment into a happier reality was being lost out of a personal desire for transcendental bliss. It wasn't the belief in an end to suffering via Amida in the Pure Land itself that he was concerned about. It was with his perceived obsession that many had with it, which he felt was disconnecting people from each other, turning people into selfish beings and ultimately preventing the betterment of the society he lived in. It certainly inhibits one from fulfilling the Bodhisattva Vow taught by many Buddhist traditions.

At it's core, the Bodhisattva Vow is a commitment one makes to take action toward helping others within one's community receive the same respect, happiness and betterment that we might have and wish for our own family. This then is a wonderful code for politicians and other leaders today to guide their service for citizens. It goes to show that Buddhist principles aren't simply for spiritual pursuits but can also be beneficial in the public service arena. Still, I think it's important to find the middle ground between politics and spirituality. However, I feel that this decision to outright prevent monks and nuns in Bhutan from voting to be veering off the Buddha's compass of the middle path of finding a healthy balance between politics and spirituality.

Some believe that politicians are incapable of ruling in a just way as politics is driven by desire. Yet, take the example of Emperor Ashoka who used the Dharma as his guide when ruling his people. He was initially a brutal and greedy leader until he was changed by the Dharma, which led him to change many of his ways; including turning toward a vegetarian diet out of compassion for animals. His later rule was motivated by kindness, egalitarianism and philanthropy.

In Bhutan, the monks and nuns may personally decide to avoid politics altogether to dedicate all of their efforts toward spiritual endeavors. However, to prevent them from voting, (if they are so inclined) means taking away peoples' personal freedom, which isn't just antithetical to good government but also to the Dharma's message to not spread suffering and discord. It makes me wonder what the Dalai Lama would think of Bhutan's actions given his views on politics. As well as the reality that Bhutan predominately follows the Tibetan version of Buddhism. Preventing monks and nuns from voting means taking away from communities the many voices of moderation, peace, compassion and happiness that the monastics represent. If we feel that hearing their opinions helps improve life then we'd be silly to prevent those opinions from being registered in the political process.

At the same time, there does need to be a clear line drawn to prevent religion from getting involved in the actual crafting of policy in government. This also goes for preventing government from sanctioning and propagating one religion over another, which raises another question in Bhutan. The Bhutanese constitution that was drafted in 2008 still heavily favors Buddhism, which seems to contradict the government's policy of keeping religion and government separate.

~Peace to all beings~

World Cup Buddhist.

Phayul, July 10, 2010

Dharamsala, India -- Barcelona and Spain defender Carles "Tarzan" Puyol who scored the only goal of the semi final against Germany to send his country into the first ever world cup final has a keen interest in Buddhism, according to his friend Ven. Thupten Wangchen of the Casa del Tibet, Barcelona. Ven Wangchen told VOA that Puyol's interest in Tibetan culture and Buddhism started after reading Sogyal Rinpoche’s book, The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying which helped him deal with death of a family member. Puyol, Ven. Wangchen said, has a Tibetan tattoo on his left arm which reads “Power is inside the Mind. The strong can endure.”

Puyol, also an admirer of the Tibetan leader has met His Holiness the Dalai Lama during the latter's visit to Barcelona in 2007. Ven. Wangchen said Puyol has also expressed his interest in helping the Tibetan national football team in the future.

James: I was thrilled like millions around the world to enjoy the football mega-tournament, the World Cup recently in South Africa. I think sports are a great way to connect with people from around the world to remind one another that we are all essentially the same. We all want to be happy, or as the Dalai Lama says, no one wants to suffer. It was great to see all the different cultures represented from around the globe and I especially enjoyed hearing all the unique national anthems play before each match. It really was a coming together of the world and I was overjoyed to be apart of it.

As to this article, I am mostly excited about the idea of a Tibetan national football team!! Go Puyol!! How cool would it be to see Tibetans play in the greatest game the world has ever played!! But the footage I'd love to see the most would be the Dalai Lama kicking around the hexagonal ball. Maybe surprise us with his stretching skills from years of meditation and go for a bicycle kick? That would be epic. I also happen to know that the 17th Karmapa has the bug for football/soccer and followed the World Cup. Besides I just think it would be cool to see a monk in robes blast a ball into the back of the net by way of a bicycle kick. I just think that dueling imagery would be cool to see. Ancient robes bustling in the air while a very modern game (football) is being played by the monk wearing those robes.

~Peace to all beings~

Reviewing "Not in God's Name" by Paula Fouce.

India. The cradle of Eastern spirituality (if not the capital of world religion) is where the documentary, Not in God's Name begins. And the nourishment of that spiritual child is the Ganges river. The beginning scenes on this mystical and legendary body of water are stunning in color, lighting and scope. Truly the imagery evokes sensations of viewing a unique and sacred place.

However, we are also reminded in these initial moments of the dark side of religion--hatred and violence. We are guided through this mine field by the Paula Fouce who spent many years traveling the subcontinent. She saw the best and worst in religion.

Including militant Sikhs who sought to secede from India but were violently expelled from their sacred shrine, which mixed two traditionally explosive ideologies together--religion and politics. In the aftermath many dead Sikhs and soldiers littered the streets and even the Prime Minister Indira Gandhi became a casualty of this clash.

She was assassinated for ordering the raid. As Indira Gandhi was a Hindu, her assassination pitted radicals of the two great religions of Hindiusm and Sikhism against each other. Religions that at their heart are supposed to be about peace and acceptance. I was moved by the images and in one particular quote by Blaise Pascal:

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious convictions."

The Dalai lama is interviewed for this documentary and he reminds us that the aim of most religions is to provide inner peace. In addition, he admonished us that there need not be one religion, and that they exist because of the various types of personalities upon this planet. In part I would suggest based on our different and varied karma.

The film goes on to spotlight the main religions of India (Hinduism, Islam, Sikhism, Buddhism, Jainism) and how they have influenced the culture to create such a unique place in the spiritual world. Hindu sages and Muslim Imams speak about tolerance in the movie yet we are reminded as well that the two religions have often violently clashed. The movie made me think that unfortunately many adherents become blinded by pride and in doing so pervert their faith into a cause that succeeds only by the downfall of the faithful in other religions. This has often taken the form of violent clashes over disputed holy sites in a deluded clinging to the outward, physical representations of their faith. Sadly many see holy sites as able to provide some sort of outward infusion of spirituality into their inner lives. And while they can be helpful, clinging to them and fighting over them is not just counter to teachings of these great religions but violations of human dignity.

The Buddhist part was short but good and I especially liked the quote the great non-violent Ashoka would said that if you denigrate one religion who denigrate yourself. I also really liked how the narrator spoke of the Dalai Lama as not only being a symbol of political and religious freedom to Tibetans but to all people of the world.

My only complaint about this documentary was that the time line and narrative 0often jumped around a bit but yet the message was never diluted or lost because of that editing.

Not in God's Name is a testament and a potent, timely reminder of just how quickly religions can become the opposite of helping mankind evolve toward a more harmonious life and society. Overall I would suggest this documentary to anyone looking to better understand the many religions of India and how they interact. Another reason to see this film is that it is in the running for an Emmy award nomination in the Non-Fiction Special Category. The Los Angeles Times listed it as a front runner.

10 Questions for the Dalai Lama.

The thing that I like about the Dalai Lama and other Buddhist teachers taking questions from everyday people is that you get such a wide variety of queries that most people can relate to. Sometimes you read an interview of the Dalai Lama or other teacher where deep, philosophical questions are put forth from some journalist or documentary director.

At times, they are so in-depth and esoteric that I don't even understand what's being asked!! I do like deep, philosophical questions and dialogues from time to time but sometimes it's like drinking to quench my thirst from a fire hose. So, it's with joy that I present one of ten questions for the Dalai Lama from average folks who don't feel the need to show off how profound they are with their question:

Do you ever feel angry or outraged? —Kantesh Guttal, PUNE, INDIA
Oh, yes, of course. I'm a human being. Generally speaking, if a human being never shows anger, then I think something's wrong. He's not right in the brain. [Laughs.]

James: I really like how direct yet disarming he is with his answers. He gets right to the point and doesn't feel the need to go into a dissertation all the time as some spiritual teachers can, which is why I think he is so popular with every day people. He knows how to speak to his audience, and to each question. So, one day he can be speaking very simply and the next very in-depth. This shows to me just how much he is in tune with the present moment and the energy and essence of each person. Again, I don't mind in-depth discussions but I also like a teacher who is well-rounded to be able to speak with average people too. That is a common trait I think with those who are awakened, as Buddha was known to be able to teach differently to whomever came before him. He understand that because of different karma, not everyone learned the same way. And so it is with the Dalai Lama as well. To read his other questions from the Time magazine article, click on this sentence.

UPDATE: My friend Markus wrote the following on Facebook in reply to my posting the above question regarding anger. I thought it would be a good addition to the post, "Marvellous, thank you! Sometimes certain Buddhists seem to think that feeling angry or outraged is non-Buddhist and it would be better to stay Holy and Pure all the time. "Look at me, I'm a Buddhist, I'm always smiling and singing Kumbayah!"

To which I replied:

@Markus. I agree. Yes, if we Buddhists were supposed to be "enlightened" just for being a "Buddhist" then why are we still living in samsara? Simply being Buddhist doesn't mean you don't get upset anymore about things. From my studies and contemplations I've found that It's about understanding your anger. Why are you angry? Contemplate and meditate upon it regularly. Embrace it in meditation with a compassionate mind of understanding. Don't heap on the guilt as that's just more anger--directed at you).

Doing this allows us to see what makes us angry. Thus, what to avoid in the future to reduce it in the future but pretending to not be angry isn't any healthier than spewing that anger about. So, rather than somehow being perfect and ignoring your anger, it's about how to LIVE with that anger. That living directly with anger is through the Buddhist teaching of mindfulness. When we are mindful of what set-off our anger we can better prepare for the next time, so that we over-time increase our abilities to react differently. However, to somehow expect to magically make your anger disappear for good is perhaps falling prey to another of the three poisons, delusion.

It's also not about ending pleasure from our lives as some Buddhists believe. I don't believe it's about living a sterile and sanitized life. It's fine to enjoy pleasure--otherwise we'd be nihilists, which we know Buddha advised against. No, the way I see it, pleasure is fine but the problem to guard against is becoming ATTACHED to that pleasure to where you suffer deeply without it. According to the teachers I've read and listen to--that's the essence of what Buddha meant when discussing "desire."

If we were to avoid ALL desire then don't we have to stop being Buddhist? Because at some level we Buddhists WANT to be Buddhists to end all the suffering in our lives. Isn't that very desire to end suffering, "non-Buddhist" if we are to follow the logic and admonitions of the Buddhists who say we shouldn't desire anything or enjoy pleasure?

PHOTO CREDIT: Vincent J. Ricardel / Contour / Getty Images

~Peace to all beings~

Receive a Free Pair of Tickets to Hear the Dalai Lama Speak on May 20th-22nd.

The one and only Dalai Lama will be coming to Radio City May 20th-22nd teaching six sessions of holiness and you can receive a free pair of tickets to hear him speak on May 20th! All you have to do is Follow @MSGnyc on Twitter and RT (re-tweet) the following tweet below to enter:

RT @MSGnyc: Win a pair of tix to see the one and only @DalaiLama 5/20 at Radio City! Follow & RT to enter! http://bit.ly/bbxASu

More info on the sessions here: http://www.radiocity.com/events/hh-dalai-lama-510.html

---End of Transmission---

What is the Dalai Lama's Favorite Sport?

(The Dalai Lama seen sitting in the stands of Gillette Stadium, which is where the New England Patriots American football team plays home games. Taken before a public talk about Buddhism. He is wearing a hat with the team logo on it. PHOTO CREDIT: Reuters).

The Dalai Lama isn't much of a sports fan but CLICK HERE to find out what his favorite sport might be. I liked how he said he played this one particular sport despite not knowing the rules!! Awesome!! Who needs the competition in sports?!! What a great lesson he gave us with his self-deprecating style and humor that you can have just as much fun playing a sport in a non-competitive way.

He saying just do it to enjoy it!! Don't be so serious about getting it "perfect" and not making any mistakes. Now, if only we could teach that to the ego-driven professional athletes, and parents at their kids' sporting events who take the game more seriously than the kids!! Sometimes leading to fights amongst parents of players from the opposing team!! I'm not saying all competition is negative but it can easily lead to a lot of unnecessary suffering.

But I digress. The Dalai Lama is such a joy to behold and I adore his childlike innocence and his infecteous laughter and giggling. He is so disarming and I can't help but be uplifted by his essence. He is deeply inspiring, and listening to him and his common sense Buddhism always reinvigorates my dedication to my Dharma practice. He is a true treasure to the world.

~Peace to all beings~

Can You Imagine the Dalai Lama Holding a Machine Gun?

Neither can I, but that's exactly what some are suggesting now that Tibet has been under Chinese occupation for over 50 years. A recent online article called for the Dalai Lama to end the campaign of non-violence in relation to the oppressive Chinese government:

It has been 51 years since the last most significant Tibetan uprising against Chinese rule. That’s a long time. In the ensuing years under the leadership of the 14th Dalai Lama the Tibetan people have chosen a non-violent protest against Chinese occupation. You don’t have to be a brain surgeon to know that this has not worked. In fact I am here to say it will NEVER work. This is because the non-violence advocated by the Dalai Lama has pacified the current Tibetan to the extent that the Chinese are now in firm control. Mix in some global politics and economics and you can say the Tibetan cause in its current format is utterly hopeless!

That is why it is now time for the Dalai Lama to renounce this non-violence and call for an armed struggle against the illegal Chinese occupation of Tibet. People who know me understand that I am a man of peace. However, as I’ve watched the failure of the Tibet cause in my lifetime, I am now convinced the Chinese will win, if something urgent is not done. While in the past I may have subscribed to the Ghandian view of non-violent struggle, when it comes to the Tibetan cause I am more along the line of the “Just War” position as advocated by St. Thomas Aquinas .

James: Never is a word of impatience because there could be a democratic revolution in China tomorrow and over-night the relationship between the Chinese and Tibet would change. Impatience is a desire to force delusions we have of how things should be if we had our way but being a trick of the mind, things never turn out the way we think they will and thus bring much suffering. Impatience is a lust for control, which is often disguised as a sincere concern but can can often backfire and just cause more suffering. For example, fanning the flames of an armed insurrection in Tibet could just harden the Chinese government and turn a public that quietly supports the cause of the Tibetan people into supporters of the state. Nothing unites a people more than a war.

Plus, how could the Tibetan people even have a chance in a fight against the jaws of the giant Chinese military machine? It would merely end in even more Tibetan deaths and the aftermath would be horrific to the cause. The Chinese would turn Tibet into a further military state and perhaps create a "final solution" for Tibet, which could easily include mass executions and an increased re-population of Tibet by ethnic Chinese.

Besides, if you think that the Dalai Lama is going to give up on non-violence then you really don't know much about him, nor about his religion. Besides being a leading voice in the world for peace today, he is first and foremost a simple monk. It would go against his vows as a Buddhist monk to renounce non-violence. And how could he send Tibetans into war yet not himself espouse violence? In fact, the very act of sending Tibetans into war would be one of violence. It is greedy to demand that one of the holiest men in Buddhism (and the world) call for blood-shed because you are frustrated and impatient that Tibetan freedom isn't coming fast enough. I can see the Dalai Lama smiling in response and calmly stating that none of us are truly free anyway.

Even if freedom was granted over-night there would still be a lot of misery and suffering within the newly independent state. There could be power struggles, corruption and your average crime. What I'm trying to say is that having democratic freedoms doesn't guarantee lasting happiness. There are many people in the world living with all kinds of freedom that are very unhappy. Freedom brings with it other problems such as rampant greed. The author of the opinion piece then gives their reasons for why they are calling for armed insurrection:

1. We’re running out of time – Tenzin Gyatso the current Dalai Lama is over 70 years old. He he is not going to live forever. Even if he lived another 20 years that is a limited time. Once he passes away the Communists in Beijing are going to put forth their own Dalai Lama who is more sympathetic to their cause. The Tibetan people will have their own. This split will be the final nail in the coffin for Tibetan independence. Right now there is unity. Never under-estimate the power of this unity.

James: To assume that the Tibetan people wouldn't relate more to their Dalai Lama seems a bit hyperbolic to me. The Dalai Lama is a central pillar in what makes up Tibetan culture, and to think that they would bow to the Chinese fraud of a Dalai Lama doesn't give the Tibetan Buddhists much credit for their tenacity at maintaining their religion in the face of oppression. Besides, it's not about Tenzin Gyatso himself, so much as it is about the essence of a Dalai Lama. Tenzin Gyatso is just the current version of that essence. Tibetans aren't going to disregard their century long traditions of finding the new incarnation of the Dalai Lama and trust the Chinese "methods." Tibetans of all people know that everything is impermanent and that was the case with their long hidden civilization when the Chinese took over but the other side of impermanence is that eventually China's power will wane too.

And it is important to note that there is a strong and growing Tibetan diaspora in India and beyond, which has brought a lot of attention to Tibetan culture, Buddhism and it's political cause. That attention has brought many countries onto the side of the Tibetan people. Isn't it better for the Tibetans to live within places like India or American or Europe, etc. where the allowance of other cultures and religions maintains and grows their culture instead of wiping out the Tibetans that are left in an armed insurrection? We all want freedom for Tibet but forcing it through violence runs contrary to everything the Dalai Lama and Tibetan Buddhism teaches. So you're not only asking them to go to war against one of the biggest militaries in the world, you're asking them to betray their beliefs in the process:

2. Non-violence only works with liberal democracies – Every non-violent movement cites Gandhi’s success in securing independence from Britain. We now have over 50 years of analysis to figure out why it worked. The answer is simple. It worked because of Britain. I’m not excusing British imperialism or exploits of the sub-continent. All I’m saying is because Britain was a well established liberal democracy you could appeal to its citizenry on moral grounds. You can’t do that when you’re dealing with a violent communist regime like China. (Same goes for the Burmese struggle too.) China is not a liberal democracy. You can not appeal to its citizenry on the basis of compassion and morality. China is gearing up for world domination. It has cash, it has energy, it has enthusiasm. The communist regime will not do anything to give the impression it is weak. And granting anything to Tibet would be perceived as weakness. It will not relent to some pesky monk in a robe preaching.

James: How does this author know that the Chinese people aren't sympathetic to the Tibetan cause, and that they aren't compassionate, moral people? Throughout history it has often been the case that the people under a dictatorship are good, just people who are just as much victims of their government as the Tibetan people are!! And once again, they are assuming that the Chinese people won't rise up themselves against their government. As I said before, a Tibetan uprising could unite the people behind their government at a time when western philosophy and Buddhism are on the rise within the silent majority in China. Why push them into the hands of the oppressor by igniting a war?

And in the end, a country isn't anything but an attachment to an institution that we think is going to make us happy, prevent us from suffering and helping us succeed. Yet here in America, (which is supposed to be the beacon of democracy) we are in a current state of absolute corruption. Our government is owned by the corporations, and is increasingly disenfranchising the people who are increasingly poor and unhealthy.

And being an American I have an up close view of what war does and does not do. Unfortunately America has a lot of experience with war and "liberating" people. After fighting in Iraq for 6 years now, the best we can say about it was that we created a barely stable yet highly corrupt government. And in Afghanistan we are stuck in a perpetual war, with no end in sight. I'm not saying that war should never be used but I believe it should be used very sparingly because while war can bring some good, it can and always does bring unexpected problems. And I'm not trying to say that Tibetans shouldn't be able to decide for themselves if they want a war because that's their right. However, to say that the Dalai Lama, (who is considered by many to be an incarnation of a Buddhist saint of compassion) should push a war is unrealistic. And finally, it's easy to talk tough and call for war when you're not the one who has to fight that war. Of course that's assuming this individual isn't Tibetan or unwilling to fight but I didn't read anywhere in the article that the author would lead the charge or fight in the ranks.

PHOTO CREDIT: The Dalai Lama arrives at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver. AP Photo/Jonathan Hayward, The Canadian Press.

~Peace to all beings~

Dalai Lama in Bodh Gaya 2010.

The Dalai Lama recently visited to Bodh Gaya for discourses to Buddhist pilgrims at the Mahabodhi temple. The following, and above are all pictures taken during his visit to the site venerated by Buddhists as the place where Buddha realized enlightenment. I like the first three pictures and the last one most.~Peace to all beings~

PHOTO CREDITS: Tenzin Choejor of The Office of His Holiness the Dalai Lama.

Bill Maher: Buddhism is a Crock and Outdated.

The Worst Horse as usual is on its game in reporting another example of just how foreign Buddhism still is to many in the West. Bill Maher, the American comedian and t.v. show host (who I usually find hilarious) recently said some pretty uninformed things about Buddhism. His comments are in red and mine in yellow:

Maher: [Buddhism] really is outdated in some ways — the “Life sucks, and then you die” philosophy was useful when Buddha came up with it around 500 B.C., because back then life pretty much sucked, and then you died – but now we have medicine., and plenty of food

(James::Not all of us Bill, a lot of people in this world don't know where their next meal will come from. And medicine? Americans can't even afford medicine these days let alone impoverished countries. Go to Africa where I lived for two years and tell me there's enough food and medicine for everyone. Then tell me that thus there isn't much suffering from it.),

Maher: and iPhones, and James Cameron movies – our life isn’t all about suffering anymore.

(James: And life wasn't all about suffering back in Buddha's time either)

Maher: And when we do suffer, instead of accepting it we try to alleviate it,

(James::Buddhists seek to alleviate suffering too but we also have had the revelation that no amount of "relieving" can end the suffering. What Buddhists are more interested in other than alleviating suffering is to END suffering once and for all through, what I would consider to be the first "12 Steps" program that is the Eight-Fold Path). If Buddha saw life as hopeless as Maher believes he taught then why would he have even tried to develop a system to deliver himself from it?

Maher: Tiger said, “Buddhism teaches that a craving for things outside ourselves” makes us unhappy, which confirms something I’ve long suspected about Eastern religions: they’re a crock, too. Craving for things outside ourselves is what makes life life

(James: And despite its highlights, life is full of a lot of suffering Bill. There isn't enough money--even for a lot of millionaires who won't be "satisfied" until they get a BILLION dollars. Even those that spend their money can never buy enough houses, clothes, boats, vacations to feel satisfied for long. We lust after something until we get it and then quickly become bored with it and we return again to enslaving ourselves to crave once more. Buddha didn't say that we couldn't enjoy life but that we should enjoy life in moderation to reduce our suffering, and he laid out a path that many people have followed over the millennia toward lasting peace of mind and happiness.

And Buddha didn't command any of this, which is what I think separates Buddhism from many of the traditionally defined, "religions." Buddha encouraged seeing for oneself if his techniques do indeed bring about a greater peace and a life of less suffering by direct experience, which isn't unlike the scientific method where direct observations are the basis of knowledge. Pursue a life of constant seeking for the next "buzz of pleasure" and then live life for at time following the Buddha's guidelines and see, which way gives you the strongest feeling of satisfaction and happiness of life. If you find you think Buddhism is only causing you more problems then best of luck. Sincerely. A lot of people come and go with Buddhism. Buddhism doesn't want to force anyone to do anything. Buddhism would rather let the people come to it so that they are making a choice of their own free will and feel ready to follow such a path).

Maher: — I don’t want to learn to not want, that’s what people in prison have to do

(James: We're in a prison, now, Bill--look around you--We Want a better job, want a new car, want our body to heal quicker or look sexier, want our spouse to change to how we think they should be, and on and on. It's a prison without bars that lures us with shiny new distractions to keep us from finding a way out of the suffering. However, it doesn't have to be an either or proposition as you're stating. You're saying Buddhism says "life sucks, it has no meaning, purpose or value" but that is a common misconception. That isn't Buddhism--that's nihilism. Buddhism teaches that there is a way to live in balance with things of the world yet reduce your long-term suffering. That is what Buddhism offers).

Maher: And reincarnation? Really? If that were real, wouldn’t there be some proof by now? A raccoon spelling out in acorns, “My name is Herb Zoller and I’m an accountant.” …something?

(James: First of all not all Buddhists believe in reincarnation. A lot of Buddhists believe in rebirth and yet still others believe in neither. As for proof? Even science says that energy never disappears but simply changes form. There are many Buddhists who say that it doesn't really matter much what happens after death (if anything) because the only moment we have is this one. For these Buddhists they focus on the rebirth that happens within this lifetime. For example, I am a completely different person from who I was 10-12 years ago when I was an ardent Mormon who was politically conservative. Now I am a Liberal Buddhist!!

But the point of rebirth, in my view, isn't so much about whether we are reborn a slug, or even reborn at all but rather that we realize how our actions affect our future. It's about becoming aware of how we alone are the architects of our own life and what our life becomes is directly influenced by our actions. So, for me, it comes down to what you reap is what you sow. And if all you water are seeds of hatred, greed and delusion then you will reap a lot of misery but if you water seeds of love, compassion and patience then you will reap the opposite and leave a better world behind then when you were born into it.

Maher: People are always debating, is Buddhism a religion or a philosophy: it’s a religion. You’re a religion if you do something as weird as when the Buddhist monks scrutinize two-year-olds to find the reincarnation of the dude who just died, and then choose one of the toddlers as the sacred Lama: “His poop is royal!” Sorry, but thinking you can look at a babbling, barely-housebroken, uneducated being and say, “That’s our leader” doesn’t make you enlightened. It makes you a Sarah Palin supporter.

(James: Bill, I like you--I really do, and while I think your usually well informed, on Buddhism you're quite ignorant. Only one school of Buddhism believes that their teachers are reincarnated, and that's Tibetan Buddhism. If you have a problem with Tibetan Buddhism then take that up with the Dalai Lama, but I would have expected you to know better than to lump all Buddhists together. I didn't want to write this to defend Buddhism so much as to explain it, as best as a common practitioner like myself can to those who aren't familiar with Buddhism so they, can hear both sides).

~Peace to all beings~

Dalai Lama: Tiger Woods? Who's that?

Besides the obvious advice of cultivating self-discipline, I think the best thing about the Dalai Lama's comments in regard to Tiger Woods and Buddhism was that he needed to be told who Tiger Woods was in the first place!! I think the Dalai Lama's ignorance about celebrities and their lives is a good thing--it's a good example to put forth. So many of us are obsessed with celebrities because we find our own lives unsatisfactory, boring or inadequate in one way or another. This obsession is a craving for a different life, one where we are famous, beautiful and/or rich. Anything but our "ordinary selves."

The world of celebrity looks glamorous and ideal but it's a facade for fellow, flawed humans who are just as miserable as anyone else in this sea of samsara. Because when we peel back the layer of glitz, glamour, make-up and good acting skills we see that they live very flawed lives of sex, drug and money addictions amongst many other chains of suffering that bind them. Our obsession is a form of escapism in a desperate but futile search for happiness in the material world. Yet once we return from the movie or finish reading the celebrity magazine we must face our lives again. The waves of reality come washing back in like a tidal wave to inundate and knock us over with the suffering that we tried to ignore.

This is why, like the Dalai Lama, I generally am not very interested in the lives of celebrities. I appreciate their art but I don't see them as examples of how to live a life with less suffering. One of the only "celebrities" that I think does that is the Dalai Lama himself.

~Peace to all beings~

China to U.S.: Don't Meet with Dalai Lama.

China is one of the places that I want to visit before I die. I have long been attracted to Chinese culture. The traditional architecture of temples, monasteries, neighborhoods and other historic buildings is stunning. The designs are classic yet are still some of the most unique in the world and the public gardens appear tranquil, relaxing and invigorating. Their written language is one of the most beautiful I have seen and with some of the oldest history in the world; China is a must for a historian like myself. They have produced some of the greatest thinkers of the human race and I adore Chinese traditional music. I honor it as being the birthplace of my tradition of Zen Buddhism. Yet, sadly this great country has fallen far from the days of celebrating Buddhism. Actually its government has fallen in that regard, not the people who I think would investigate Buddhism if allowed. As we all know, the government has been actively working to eradicate it from the culture for decades. The most obvious example being Tibet.

The irony with China blocking Buddhism is that Buddhism has much in common with the socialist mindset. It teaches interdependence, oneness and reliance upon each other. In fact, most monasteries seem to act as small communes!! The difference is that Buddhism is also inline with democracy. It values human rights, individual freedom of religion, freedom of speech, etc. So in many ways Buddhism represents the middle-path in politics--a little bit of socialism mixed with a little bit of democracy. This is a political mindset that is found in practice in Europe. Buddhism, however, also encourages a healthy dose of skepticism of the political system in general. In the end politics can and does cause a lot of suffering. It can easily lead to greed as people seek power to control and manipulate the masses for their own selfish gains. Too much politics is just as dangerous as ignoring it. So, in some ways I hesitate even bringing up politics in the same conversation as Buddhism. However, to not participate in voting and maintaining good government can easily lead to losing ones freedom to practice the relatively non-political religion of Buddhism in the first place.

I know that there are some Buddhists who think politics should be avoided altogether but with all due respect I think that's potentially, dangerously naive. In some ways it's ignoring reality and ignoring a big part of our daily lives to be mindful of how our leaders affect our daily decisions that we might not think much about otherwise. Like the freedom to just walk out your door and sit with your sangha, read a Buddhist themed book or visit a monastery for a retreat or other services. Or the freedom to write online about your beliefs to share with others without censorship. Yes, politics can be ugly and cause a lot of harm. That said, however, to retreat from it completely is veering off the middle-path to the point where such denial can literally jeopardize the very basic freedom of religion that you enjoy and center your life around. It's not about protecting Buddhism because it too is impermanent but rather it's about protecting each others right to basic human dignity, decency and free will.

So, I couldn't be happier that U.S. President Barack Obama will be meeting with the Dalai Lama. It is a powerful symbol to the world and to oppressed peoples everywhere that someone, somewhere is standing for freedom. That there are still places in the world that celebrate diversity and encourage religious expression. The light is on shining in the darkness to guide and give hope to those without freedom. I know that the United States has interests with China that might be hurt a bit with this visit but as an American I would rather upset China than abandon those suffering unnecessarily in political oppression.

~Peace to all beings~

UPDATE: China has asked the U.S. to rescind the offer to meet with the Dalai Lama but thankfully the Obama administration said the meeting will go forward as planned.

PHOTO CREDIT: His Holiness the Dalai Lama taken by Manish Swarup for AP News.

The Art of Happiness in a Trouble World.

I just finished reading the follow-up book to the #1 bestseller, "The Art of Happiness: A Handbook for Living" by His Holiness the Dalai Lama and Howard C. Cutler, MD. The follow-up is titled, "The Art of Happiness in a Trouble World. I found things that I liked in this book, however, I wouldn't be honest if I said it was an excellent book. I don't like to be critical in life but I won't say I liked something if I didn't. I must say though that this wasn't the Dalai Lama's fault in the least but rather the author who came across as almost pestering His Holiness when he didn't like the answer the Tibetan monk gave.

For example, the author Mr. Cutler spent the first part of the book (five full chapters) on one subject -- the importance of diversity. Now, this is a very important and noble subject to be sure. That said, the author could have covered the subject in breadth within two chapters but spending 109 pages talking about all the different ways one can say, "Diversity is important" gets frustrating and a bit annoying. Of course, I'm not the most patient person in the world but after 109 pages I was somewhat exasperated.

At one point Cutler even writes that the Dalai Lama appeared exasperated with the line of questioning as to why the author couldn't understand that it's not "Me or We" but "Me and We" when relating to others and yet taking care of one's own needs. The Dalai Lama said:

"So, we are not saying to forget about oneself, one's own concerns. That is not realistic. We are saying that you can think about both one's own welfare and the welfare of others at the same time."

Sounds simple enough but not for the annoyingly minutia dwelling author. He apparently thought that wasn't a good enough answer. So he writes, "Nonetheless I persisted with my original question..." which is understandable at first but this was an obnoxious trait of pushing the Dalai Lama persisted through the book. Even someone with unlimited patience like Dalai Lama can't take that much philosophical rambling. So the author continues, "We continued along the same lines for several more moments, as I pressed him for a way to deal with the "opposing" sensibilities of a Me or a We orientation. The Dalai Lama absently rubbed his palm over the crown of his shaved head as I spoke, a gesture of frustration that was also reflected in his rapidly shifting facial expression. As his expression on a priceless mixture of three parts bewilderment, one part amusement, and a dash of disgust, he shook his head and laughed. "I'm just not clear as to where the contradiction lies! From my perspective there is no inherent opposition here."

I realize that I should have more patience for absolutist, black and white thinking such as the one shown by the author in these interviews but such desire for clear-cut, definitive solutions to broad human problems doesn't make for very easy book reading. After awhile you lose focus as the reader and your mind becomes a bit blurry, numb and confused as to what the original point of the author was. Finally, on page 114 I found something useful and insightful brought about by the interviews as the author asked the DL about September 11th and how could human nature be inherintly good in the face of such horrific acts. The Tibetan monk responded wisely:

"Perhaps one thing is that I look at such events from a wider perspective. When such things happen we often tend to look for one person or a group of people to blame. But I think it is wrong just to look at one individual or group of individuals and isolate them as the sole cause. If you adopt a wider view, you'll see that there can be many causes of violence. And there can be many factors contributing to such events. So many factors. In this case, for example, I think religious belief is also involved. So if you reflect on this event more deeply," he explained, "you realize that many factors contributed to this tragedy. To me, this reinforced one crucial fact: It showed to me that modern technology combined with human intelligence and guided by negative emotions -- this is how such unthinkable disasters happen." This made total sense to me and seemed clear but once again the author responded with confusion saying, "Can you elaborate on what you mean by that?" I understand he wants a clear cut answer that fits neatly into his psychiatric, scientific background. That said, by this point it was starting to give me the impression that he was dragging this out, in part to squeeze more juice out of the "Art of Happiness" turnip for another book.

The next 50 pages was more drilling down and getting lost in the minutia of a subject. This time the subject was on the sources of violence, which while important was done at a depth that just frustrated me. Once again the author dissected the subject down so finely that there wasn't much left to take away. The next chapter, chapter 9 about dealing with fear was really good but by page 181 I was exhausted mentally. Unfortunately this was the point at, which I stopped reading because I just couldn't read anymore of the author's pushing the Dalai Lama to say things the author wanted to hear. However, I'll end my long review with quoting something that I did really like from the author in speaking about violence and having hope for reducing it in the future.

"Aren't we essentially compelled to conclude that human nature is fundamentally aggressive? Fortunately the answer to that is, No! According to researchers, during the age of hunter-gatherer socieites, 30 percent of the male population died by violent means, at the hands of others. What was the percentage during the bloody twentieth century, even with the war, the genocides, the constant warfare? Less than 1 percent! And as the new century and millennium has dawned, this rate has continued to fall dramatically."

I wish I had more good to say about this book because as I said, I don't like being critical but I also don't want to be misleading as I think some reviewers tend to be. I often read snippets of reviews on all these book jackets that just gush over them. However, I can't tell you how many times I've been disappointed to find out for myself that what they were saying didn't square with my reading. So while there are some nuggets of insight within this book the majority of it is pretty annoying and again, that's not the fault of the Dalai Lama.

Thank-You Tibet!

James: When you think of the awesome power of the Chinese Communist Party and the relative weakness of Tibet one would think that Tibetan culture would have been extinguished like a butter lamp being blown out by a cold, Himalayan wind. Countless Tibetans have fled Chinese occupied Tibet for decades upon decades but the most important aspect to the exodus was the knowledge carried out with these hearty folks -- especially the monks and elders. They have carried with them the sacred and historic traditions of Tibetan Buddhism and the greater Tibetan culture. So while Tibet itself is still under siege the Tibetan heart is alive and beating strong. Tibetans have been adopted and taken in by the world and all have benefited. Tibetans are given sanctuary to ride out the storm of religious intolerance and militant occupation of their homeland and the world has been given access to the precious jewel of Tibet -- Tibetan Buddhism.

To be sure Tibetans must long for home and be greatly pained to see their homeland changed so much. As well as obviously worrying for their friends, family and fellow Tibetans still living in that stunningly beautiful country. However, if any peoples are prepared to outlast and actually thrive due to such change and upheaval it would be the Tibetan people. That is because most of them are Buddhist and as we fellow Buddhists know the core of the Buddha's teachings are on how to deal with suffering and change. Surely some Tibetans wanted to stand and fight--and some did but the majority knew it was better to push that ego aside and move on toward India and the greater Tibetan diaspora so that their culture could survive. If they would have stayed to fight then they would have probably been nearly completely wiped out as a people and as a culture. Their traditions would have been lost under the dusty, dirty boot of oppression but as it is their culture is alive and well in dozens of countries keeping the flame burning.

Thich Nhat Hanh has often spoke of what it means to have a home and what is our true home. He like the Dalai Lama is an exile from his homeland. In Nhat Hanh's case, Vietnam:

Who amongst us has a true home? Who feels comfortable in their country? After posing this question to the retreatants for contemplation, I responded. I said: “I have a home, and I feel very comfortable in my home.” Some people were surprised at my response, because they know that for the last thirty-eight years I have not been allowed to return to Vietnam to visit, to teach, or to meet my old friends and disciples. But although I have not been able to go back to Vietnam , I am not in pain. I do not suffer, because I have found my true home.

My true home is not in France where Plum Village practice center is located. My true home is not in the United States . My true home cannot be described in terms of geographic location or in terms of culture. It is too simplistic to say I am Vietnamese. In terms of nationality and culture, I can see very clearly a number of national and cultural elements in me –– Indonesian, Malaysian, Mongolian, and others. There is no separate nationality called Vietnamese; the Vietnamese culture is made up of other cultural elements. I have a home that no one can take away, and I feel very comfortable in that home. In my true home there is no discrimination, no hatred, because I have the desire and the capacity to embrace everyone of every race, and I have the aspiration, the dream to love and help all peoples and all species. I do not feel anyone is my enemy. Even if they are pirates, terrorists, Communists, or anti-Communists, they are not my enemies. That is why I feel very comfortable.

Every time we listen to the sound of the bell in Deer Park or in Plum Village , we silently recite this poem: “I listen, I listen, this wonderful sound brings me back to my true home.” Where is our true home that we come back to? Our true home is life, our true home is the present moment, whatever is happening right here and right now. Our true home is the place without discrimination, the place without hatred. Our true home is the place where we no longer seek, no longer wish, no longer regret. Our true home is not the past; it is not the object of our regrets, our yearning, our longing, or remorse. Our true home is not the future; it is not the object of our worries or fear. Our true home lies right in the present moment. If we can practice according to the teaching of the Buddha and return to the here and now, then the energy of mindfulness will help us to establish our true home in the present moment.

James: The Dalai Lama and many, many Tibetans understand this concept and thus where ever they are, they are home. We should all do this regardless of what country we live in. We could be living in our home country yet still feel disconnected from it, which can make us feel isolated and maybe even ignored. If, however, we follow the advice of The Dalai Lama and Thich Nhat Hanh then we will never feel alone where ever we go because home is not a place but rather a state of being/mind. Our true home travels with us and can be accessed at any time. It can not be taken away regardless of how many foreign soldiers might occupy our country. So, In recognition of the survival of Tibetans and Tibetan culture, 2010 will be a year to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Tibetan resilience. An organization called, Thank You Tibet! is setting up a community online to find creative ways to honor Tibetan culture and people. If you have some time and the inclination do check it out because who amongst us hasn't benefited in someway by Tibetan culture?

~Peace to all beings~

The Next Dalai Lama to be a Woman?

In 50 years of exile from Tibet, this self-professed “simple monk” has been the driving force behind the growing prominence of women in Tibetan exile society. He has even suggested that his next reincarnation could and should be a girl. “Woman is more compassionate and has more power to understand and feel the needs of others as compared to man,” he said at a press conference last November in Dharamsala, his exile home in northern India. That the Dalai Lama—believed by Tibetan Buddhists to be the 14th reincarnation of the Buddha of compassion—should return to the world as a woman is a radical notion that perturbs even open-minded Tibetans, men and women alike. And despite his wishes, the 15th reincarnation will very likely be a boy, just like all the prior ones.

In the film he also spoke admiringly about a milestone in Tibetan history known as Tibetan Women’s Uprising Day. On March 12, 1959—just days before he fled his homeland -- about 15,000 women spontaneously gathered in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa in an unprecedented display of peaceful protest against China’s invasion of Tibet.

Those women were “heroines,” says the Dalai Lama in A Quiet Revolution. It was “as if they already knew the feminist movement!” He laughs gleefully as though he has told a hilarious joke. At the time, Tibet was closed to the outside world. To a Tibetan, Simone De Beauvoir and Betty Friedan might as well have been Martians.

James: I find it odd in a way that some Tibetan Buddhists who revere The Dalai Lama not only as their spiritual leader but also for being the very incarnation of the compassionate Bodhisattva Avalokitshevara (or Guan Yin) would disagree with him on this issue. How can he be wrong if you believe his very essence is to convey, show, teach and bring about compassion? He basically has a Phd in Compassion. I think he knows the subject better than most of us. Also, If we are all one then by not allowing women to potentially be a Dalai Lama is to deny a part of all of us.Besides, I have read several accounts where Avalokiteshvara is somewhat androgynous and has at least, a strong feminine side to him. In some cultures Avalokiteshvara is actually a woman in the form of Guan Yin. I don't see why it would be so controversial for the Dalai Lama to reincarnate as a woman if Avalokiteshvara is equal parts male and equal parts female. The Dalai Lama recognizes the deep compassion and nurturing instinct that many women have is essential in a world that grows more and more cold, harsh, mean and uncaring. And I can't think of a better way for the Dalai Lama to teach everyone about the equality of all people than by being reincarnated as a woman.

~Peace to all beings~

President Barack Obama Wins the Nobel Peace Prize?

I felt like someone waking up from a decades long coma this morning as I sleepily starred at the t.v. anchor telling me that President Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. My first thought was, "For what?" Don't get me wrong, I like Obama and while I don't agree with everything he's done in his short tenure; I still personally really dig the guy. I'm not sure if I'll vote for him yet again in 2012 but I'm leaning toward re-electing him barring a disaster on health care, which I'm really concerned over.

Anyway, despite my admiration for the man I don't think he's done enough for peace in the less than a year that he's been in office to warrant such a prestigious prize. Especially since he has recently snubbed the Dalai Lama; himself an award winner. He struck the right tone, however, this morning when talking about the award in saying he felt he didn't deserve it. And that he was very humbled. He was a bit abashed by this surprise awarding. As well as stating how he wants to share it with the world who have collectively done so much for peace. What else could he say? This award was thrust upon him. He would have appeared rude to decline it and had he accepted it without feeling humbled; he'd be accused of having a messianic complex.

The candidate that I would have chosen would be the 82 year old Vietnamese Zen Buddhist monk, Thich Nhat Hanh who was nominated in 1967. He was nominated by his friend the great Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. for his work to peacefully end the Vietnam war. At the time King, Jr. made the comment, "I do not personally know of anyone more worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize than this gentle Buddhist monk from Vietnam...I know Thich Nhat Hanh." Nhat Hanh is using the peaceful message of Buddhism to effect harmony in the world.

In his native Vietnam a fledgling order of monks was established by him a few years ago, which is now being broke up by the religious police of the Communist dictatorship there. They have used violence to remove the peaceful monastics from the temple monastery yet because of Nhat Hanh's peaceful example these monastics were able to remain calm, peaceful and loving despite being treated so poorly. So, I thought I'd ask my readers, "Which Buddhist would you nominate for the Nobel Peace Prize?" You can chose a non-Buddhist but I was hoping to limit it to Buddhists since this is a Buddhist Blog (smiles). The other one I'd chose since The Dalai Lama and Aung San Suu Kyi have already received it would be one of the monks who led the peaceful protests in Burma recently. Feel free to vote for one I mentioned or one you thought of.

~Peace to all beings~

The Laughing Lama.

That video was brought to my attention by Budding Buddhist and it has become one of my favorites. I watch it often. Recently His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama visited Taiwan and this was my favorite moment of the event, which I read in this article.

At the beginning of the ceremony, the Dalai Lama asked that a small table in front of his seat be removed. However, as officials were in the process of removing it, it collapsed, to a complete silence in the audience. The Dalai Lama broke the silence with loud laughter, which triggered more laughter and applauses from the crowd.

James: I can't get enough of the DL's smiling, laughing and relaxing demeanor. Every time I see his warm, cheery face I can't help but smile too and the same goes when I see or hear him laugh. His laugh is infectious and sincere like the unstifled belly laughs you hear from kids. They (like he) are usually unencumbered with feelings of low self-esteem or a compulsive neurosis over their laugh and body language. That said, at the same time he's that big brother who has seen a lot and traveled many places both in our physical world and within the dungeons of the mind. The older brother who gives you the exact advice needed without being condescending, mean or grumpy.

In fact I can't think of a time when I've seen or heard of the Dalai Lama being grumpy--have any of you? He seems like the kind of person who can give you criticism with a smile and a laugh to where you thank-him for it. He truly is a great master and I really like that he goes against a common view of a Buddhist master as being stern, cold and always intensely serious. I'm not anywhere near the understanding of the Dalai Lama or Thich Nhat Hanh but I'd say that laughter and enlightenment go hand in hand. It's certainly a great way to reduce stress and suffering and besides that; in the end (as Shinzen said recently)what's their to do but laugh at this silly world?

~Peace to all beings~

The Humor Sutra.

I have a pretty good sense of humor--I like to laugh a lot and make other people laugh. I think that laughing a lot is an important part of living a happy life. I have noticed over time that there are are quite a few Buddhists who take themselves a bit too seriously. I have been to meditation sessions where you try to joke and laugh a bit and get grumbles and frowns in response. As well as people who seem a bit attached to the "letter of law" in Buddhism who often walk around obsessed with trying to "ensure" people are, "Doing it right." (It, meaning Buddhism). Well to those who think that humor has no place in Buddhism and that we must always be serious, reserved and well-mannered all the time then you need to re-aquaint yourself with His Holiness the Dalai Lama: Metro News-Exiled Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama jokes with his nasal spray after being asked his opinion on the swine flu epidemic as he gave a lecture at a Swiss stadium. during a press conference. (AFP/Getty Images)

~Peace to all beings~