LAPFF Conference 2010: Diversity by Laura Liswood

Still playing catch up on my posts from last year. I did enjoy Laura Liswood, a senior American consultant with Goldman Sachs, talk on “Diversity”.

Her basic argument is that there is a compelling business case for Diversity. If you add someone with the same background to a group you get some improvement but it you add someone with a different background you get more. Transgender Ben is better than Sister Barbara. Why was Stephen Hawkins able to make so many breakthroughs in physics? This is because most physicists write down their ideas on paper. Stephen does it all in his head. He imagines problems. No linear thinking.

Member of dominant group in our society are thought to be competent until proved to be incompetent. Member of non-dominant groups are assumed to be incompetent until proved otherwise. Compare what happens to women who tell their boss they are pregnant with a man who tells his boss that he has joined TA and could be sent to Afganistan.

Why is it that only 16% of all men are over 184cm in height but 57% of the male top 500 CEO's are taller? There is no research whatsoever that proves leadership ability is due to your skeletal structure. Conformation basis. If you believe women play classical music less well. If you think she may make more mistakes, is less strong and less forceful. When you think this and watch – you notice the mistakes. In blind auditions for orchestra’s behind screens, the number of women has gone up by 20%.

Why is it if you ask 11 year girls what they would feel if they were to become a boy tomorrow they would go ugh but be positive about climbing trees, riding bike and getting dirty... but if you ask a 11 year boy about becoming a girl tomorrow - it is the worst thing ever. Why is there this change from 0-11?

There are two powerful myths in all cultures. One is the heroic journey where they seek to find a Holy grail. They may get in trouble along the way but will come back victorious. This is the plot for 99% of Hollywood movies. The second myth is the rescue or rescue me myth. Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty. The oldest version of the tale can be traced to 9th century China.

The most dangerous weapon you can use is words. Laura became a US reserve police officer after 9/11 (as you do). Words are verbal judo. As a Police officer late at night outside bars she can wind up situations or calm them down. In India if you give long answers to questions you tend to get higher grades. In the USA they say the squeaky wheel gets the grease. In Japan the nail that sticks out gets hit on the head. While in China the loudest duck gets shot. In the West girls are taught by their Grandma that if you can’t say anything nice - don’t say it. Men are more subtlety advantaged. They are subject to positive illusion. Tell a man that he should become a MP and he would answer, "yes, of course I should, why did it take you so long to realise"?

I asked Laura a question about her putting forward a powerful business case for diversity but surely it is essentially a moral and political point. She replied “whatever rocks your boat”.

As you can see from pictures of the conference LAPFF needs to do more about diversity but well done for putting on this keynote presentation.  I suspect that Goldman Sachs has quite a bit of work to do on this matter as well.

The Metamorphasis of Buddhism Strengthens the Global Sangha

Whenever Buddhism has taken root in a new land there has always been a certain variation in the style in which it is observed. The Buddha himself taught differently according to the place, the occasion, the situation of those who were listening to him. So, all of us have the responsibility to take the essence of Buddhism and put it into practice in our own lives.

~ His Holiness the Dalai Lama

James: There is so much discussion over Buddhism in the west. There are many from the East who feel that they have a corner or the "true" Dharma/Buddhism and that "Western Buddhism" is diluting the "True Buddhism." Yet as HDL states above, the Buddha taught differently according to the place (which I'm 99% sure meant the culture as well).

The fact is that there many different styles of Buddhism in Asia which has been the cradle of Buddhism. Under the greater umbrella we have the main traditions: Mahayana, Theravada and Vajrayana--all slightly different but sharing the core keystones of the Dharma taught by the Buddha. Then breaking it down further there are differences between Theravada (for example) in Thailand and in Burma (Malaysia).

I think of what Jack Kornfield said in the recent issue of the Buddhadharma magazine.

He spoke of studying Theravada under the Venerable Ajahn Chah and learning so much from him and that "forest style" of Theravada found in Thailand . Then he speaks of studying Theravada in Burma (Malaysia) under the Venerable Mahasi Sayadaw and studying the Dharma from a totally different point of view but still as valuable as the teachings of Ajahn Chah. Both teachers neither changing the core teachings of the Buddha beyond recognition but providing a different angle of the great, multi-faceted diamond that is the Dharma.

It's ironic that (according to Kornfield) monks in Burma will say, "In Burma we have always been the carriers of the true way" even though the ascendancy of Theravada Buddhism began only a few hundred years ago.

James: I have to giggle when I hear such dualistic thinking when Burmese Theravada Buddhism is a realtive child compared to some other traditions!! I guess it's kind of the like the egotisitcal thinking that the immigrants who have been here for a couple generations are more American then those who've only been here for a few dozen decades.

Kornfield goes on:

So, infact, the history of the Theravada, and the history of Buddhism in generally, is actually a weaving of a number of different strands.

James: And that I believe is what is happening within the growing "Western Buddhism."

Sadly not all great teachers feel this way. Eido Roshi states in that same Buddhadharma issue that, I am well aware that a few people reject the traditional ways, but still some people love them, and these people are the ones who have real devotion toward Buddhadharma. That is all I have to say.

James: I hope that Roshi is refering to the main tenets of Buddhism such as the four noble truths and the eightfold path, etc. rather then the cultural attachments of a particular tradition or school from a certain country.

Stephen Batchelor had a more inclusive viewpoint on the matter:

But there is an important distinction between being rooted in a tradition and being stuck in a tradition. To be rooted in a tradition like Buddhism is absolutely necessary, but it's also possible to become attached to certain doctrines, to certain ways of doing things, that do not allow you to grow. They become another form of attachment. From rootedness, we need to be able to respond anew to what the world presents us.

James: Editor Jeff Wilson of the magazine Tricyle: The Buddhist Review provides another interesting example of the diversity within Buddhism and in this particular example the place of meditation within the different styles of Zen:

In America, many people are interested in meditation and that is one reason that Zen teachers discuss it. Asian teachers who like to have Western students talk a lot about zazen to them. When they teach in Japanese, most do not emphasize zazen unless it is in a monastic situation.

In Japan, where virtually all Soto Zen practitioners live, Soto Shu emphasizes moral behavior, respect of elders, charity, and chanting in front of the home altar. Meditation is not a central practice and is generally only performed by a minority of the clergy, who are themselves a very small minority of members.

Yes, it doesn't look like the Theravada in Thailand or maybe Burma and yes, the Zen maybe not exactly look like that found in Japan or Korea but that does not mean that the Theravada, Zen or Tibetan Buddhism blended into American culture are not actual "Buddhism."

Insiting on one way of practicing the Dharma is a type of "spiritual materialism" to use a term from the Venerable Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche. Placing more importance on the form rather then the essence which stunts the growth of the Dharma.

As long as the main tenets stay the same then Buddhism is generally Buddhism. We may look different, meditate a bit different, chant in a different accent, etc. but we are all usually practicing the same Dharma.

I find the different blends and flavors of Buddhism to be beautiful and a testament to the strength of the Dharma. The Buddha had the foresite to see into the future and realize that the religion he had started would need to adapt given the nature of subtle differences between people.

~Peace to all beings~