Ted Williams and his "Golden Voice."

-This is a longer post but it tells a great story of redemption and hope-

When I first came to Buddhism, nine years ago, it really hit me between the eyes and woke me up to a whole other way of viewing the world and navigating through it. It was refreshingly honest to hear a spiritual tradition come right out and admit that, "Life often sucks, but it doesn't have to cause you suffering." Obviously I'm over-stating the first noble truth that suffering is inevitable but it was refreshing to hear after when so many spiritual traditions today try to make life out to be some candy-land world where rainbows shoot out your ass. And, that if you're not constantly, "high on life" that something is wrong with you.

Life has many wonderful, high peaks to enjoy and savor to be sure. However, in America at least, it's a bit taboo to say life is often (but not always) full of suffering. It's considered being a "pessimist." It's not considered "polite" to admit to people when you're having a shitty day. You're supposed to lie when people as you how you're doing. You're supposed to put on a plastic, botox-infused grin and say, "I'm doing great, but I'll get better." Even if you don't mean it. But, thankfully, Buddha laid-out the three other noble truths to show us how to--not, "end suffering" but learn to live with it as a part of life so we aren't constantly feeling over-whelmed and consumed with it.

Well, one of the teachings in Buddhism is that all things are interconnected and that it is through those connections that we find ways to handle the suffering in life with a bit less torment. We don't have to, "go it alone." The Buddhist notion that we are interdependent and interconnected has been given a new incarnation with the internet. It has helped us reach out and connect with people all over the world and help one another navigate the rocks and whirlpools in this raging river of life. This globally interconnected community online, reached out and plunged it's far-reaching arms into the raging maelstrom of the deep, river of suffering and pulled a drowning brother up from the life-crushing undertow--and back onto the shore of hope.

Ted Williams was that man. Who is Ted Williams? No, not the famous baseball player. He was (up until a few days ago) a homeless man in Ohio, USA who had fallen on hard times and began begging for money to start a new life. But, a mindful (aware) journalist (Kevin Joy; an ironic name for an altruistic stranger) from the Columbus Dispatch newspaper stopped and saw the man's sign but said Williams would, "Have to work for his money." According to an article by Christian Red for the New York Daily News. What happened next brings chills of inspiration to my body. Mr. Williams belted out a monologue that one would expect to hear from a radio personality. Out of this raged, tired face came a golden voice for radio:It turns out that he was a voice-over guy for radio back before he became addicted to drugs. He's been drug-free for two years now but needs a job to return to a better life. Well, Williams got his money for the voice-over ditty from the mindful man who stopped to talk to him. But he got so much more than that. Joy filmed this monologue and posted it on the internet, which went viral. People around the world listen to this man's talented voice, and job offers flooded in. Now he is entertaining offers from the National Football League and the Cleveland Cavaliers basketball team!! Rod Mead Sperry over at Shambhala Sun informed me that he has since been hired by the Cavaliers.

So, while life sucks a lot of times, the great part is that we have a whole community to help us live through it and help us actually let go of a lot of trying to control things. And, when we let go, we often find a sense of peace, tranquility and acceptance with the way life unfolds. Letting go frees up our mind to be completely aware (mindful) and open to whatever comes, which often means we can see opportunities that might of passed us by when we were focused so much on how miserable we were. It's o.k. to acknowledge that life sucks sometimes; and it's healthy to admit that life isn't always going to be candy land because then we aren't so crushed when the our expectations don't come true. Expectations rarely do. The way of the Buddha is to live life without expectations--with an open heart. It's certainly never easy; and it's easier said than done but it's possible. That's the important thing. It's possible. It's been done before, and Buddha is that example.

Understanding interdependence helps us ride the storm out with others going through the same shit storm; and that makes all the difference. It helps to know you're not alone. Ted Williams let go of trying to force things but didn't give up and his radical acceptance of his situation allowed him to ride out his suffering until help could arrive. What an uplifting story in a modern world that is so full of ugliness.

~Peace to all beings~

The Buddha is Still Teaching: Contemporary Buddhist Wisdom: A Book Review.

Buddhism appeals to many of us because we are simply exhausted from the pace, chaos and suffering that too often is the price of living in a modern world. Unfortunately we aren't always able to slow down enough to meditate daily and/or savor a in-depth tome on the Dharma. Fret, not!!

The contemporary, Buddhist greats have thrown us a life-line yet again. Once again, this time, we are in-depted to Jack Kornfield. He has compiled short, easy to digest, essays and snippets of wisdom from today's great, Buddhist teachers; perfect for a lunch break that is too short for deep reading but long enough for a quick boost of inspiration. Titled, "The Buddha is Still Teaching: Contemporary Buddhist Wisdom" published by Shambhala Publications.

Case in point, a short paragraph from Tara Branch's book, "Radical Acceptance that is listed in the book:

When we are free of mental concepts and our senses are awake, the sounds, smells, images, and vibrations we experience connect us with all life everywhere. It is not my pain, it is the earth's pain. It is not my aliveness but simply life -- unfolding and intense, mysterious and beautiful. By meeting and changing dance of sensation with Radical Acceptance, we discover our intrinsic belonging to this world. We are "no thing" -- not limited to any passing experience -- and "everything," belonging to the whole.

James: I must tell you that this short, but profoundly insightful paragraph brought as much relief and motivation to my current situation as entire books I've read recently. Especially the way in which she explained how we don't have to suffer alone. We are all in this together and therefore even in our darkest moments, all alone, there is someone out there going through the same thing. And that, I think, makes the pain a little less powerful because the reality is that there are countless people who are ready and willing to help ease that suffering a bit. Just because we don't know who they might be right now doesn't mean that we should give up and assume we are completely alone and always will be.

You never know who you'll meet. Or, who is just a blog comment or email away from helping you see a way out of your suffering. I know it seems daunting but as long as there are people who believe in compassion; there will always be a friend out there. Just knowing they exist is sometimes enough to keep you sane because it's so easy to feel alone or like you are the only one in your life who feels the way you do. Don't give up -- especially in today's digital age. Kind-hearted and compassionate people are just a finger tip away.

That is why books like, "The Buddha is Still Teaching" are so valuable in a world that can so quickly get overwhelming and isolating. I highly recommend it -- especially if you are looking for a light read. Pick it up at Shambhala.

~Peace to all beings~

Buddhism and Abortion.

(Note: These words are purely mine and represent my views and reflections alone. I am not a Buddhist teacher nor represent a specific tradition or teacher) There has been some heated discussion in my last post about whether a Buddhist can be pro-choice (allowing women a legal right to an abortion). But before I get into my views of abortion I think it is helpful to speak to the sutras/texts first. It is true that it appears that Buddha advised against abortion in the sutras and cannons but there is a certain amount of faith that one must have that all of these sutras/texts indeed were the historical words of Buddha. I say this because the earliest texts only go back to the 1st century whereas the Buddha lived and taught 400-500 years earlier.

It is probable that some of his teachings changed over time and some even lost. It is also probable that at least some of the teachings of the Buddha were the work of monks (not Buddha) who came years after his death. And just because one is a monk does not mean that they have the best interests of all at heart. Therefore it can be argued that some of the teachings on abortion and other issues could have come from the minds of others with political, patriarchal or other personal motives. I realize that Theravadans and other Buddhists claim the sutras and texts to be the literal words of the Buddha but many scholars and other Buddhists disagree.

So what are we to do? Well we all have to decide for ourselves and for me I use the Kalama Sutra or Buddha's charter of free inquiry as my measuring stick. In my opinion the sutra exists for one of two reasons: 1). One is that it actually took place where the Buddha advised the Kalama people on how to know what religious teachings to accept as truth. From Wikipedia: The Buddha tells the Kalamas to not just believe religious teachings because they are claimed to be true by various sources or through the application of various methods and techniques. He urges that direct knowledge from one's own experience should be called upon.

So while I follow the sutras in many cases, I also use my meditations, scholarly works, mind-set, values instilled by my family, pondering and personal reasoning to come to that direct knowledge of what I believe to be "truth." I try to use various methods to exhaust all avenues because I do not like to make decisions lightly. 2). The other reason being that it is possible that some monks realized that there were parts of these texts that contradict each other and that faith alone isn't sufficient for everyone. Thus a teaching was needed to help others who are more reason based folks to come to a decision of what the Dharma means in their lives. And thus, the creation of the Kalama Sutra.

Now some argue that the Buddha wasn't saying this method of inquiry should be applied to his teachings but seeing how Gautama was speaking to a group of non-Buddhists surely in his perfect wisdom he knew that they would do just that--apply that very admonition to his teachings as well as to the other holy men and wandering aesthetics. Why would one who didn't set out to start a religion say to those honestly seeking spiritual enlightenment to question every other teacher/source but to not question his teachings and to blindly accept them? And why would an enlightened one be threatened of people questioning and testing his claims on their own? Especially knowing that one can not force enlightenment upon another or give it to you but that it is, in the end, up to you to realize it. That is not to say that we shouldn't place a high importance upon his "words/teachings" when making our spiritual decisions and forming our beliefs because we should.

So now I'm finally getting to abortion, it is because of the Kalama Sutra that I don't agree that we know for sure that the Buddha actually said that abortion is wrong and/or wrong in all cases (It's possible that he didn't even address it. He was known to not answer many philosophical questions and that it was added later by monks looking to set up a codified religion). I say this because the scriptures saying that the Buddha was against abortion in all cases just don't jive with other things he has taught such as the five aggregates/skandhas that make up human life (at least according to the Mahayana tradition and the "Tathagatagarbha" scriptures). Other sources that the five aggregates make up human life: Source 2. Source 3. Source 4. Source 5. I will go into detail a bit about these which are also called the skandhas a bit later but first some information/statistics about abortion:

-Over 90% of abortions are done in the first trimester (the first three months from conception). At two months only half of the brain is formed and while the embryo responds to touch and while pain sensors have appeared, the path ways between the brain and pain sensors are not connected thus most conclude the embryo can not register pain at this stage.

And if you have an abortion earlier (within one month of becoming pregnant) the embyro is only 1/5" and looks something like a tadpole. It has no arms and legs but a tail and fish like gills that eventually become the throat.

Now, with that information let's have a look at the skandhas (the five aggregates of human life/being). I believe in the skandhas because I have meditated upon them, pondered them, can see logically how they would make up life and they ring true to me based on my use of the advice in the Kalama Sutra. So let's see how they match up to the above information which is widely accepted by the medical community:

First Skandha: Form. Which consist of the six sense organs (eyes, ears, nose, tongue and touch) but in order for form to be life there must also be corresponding material objects of those senses. (eyes-visible objects, ears-audible objects, nose-olfactory objects, tongue-objects of taste and touch-tangilble objects). Vision is the last sense to develop and using the Buddhist aggregates there are no eyes yet that can see just holes (according to the world renowned Mayo Clinic eyes are still shut in the first week of the third trimester so a baby certainly can't see during the first trimester when most abortions occur and my measuring stick of when abortions are acceptable) And an embryo (embryo is the name used during the first trimester) can't hear anything (a fetus can hear at week 18-20 which is well after the first trimester and the first trimester is when most abortions occur). There isn't a fully functioning tongue for tasting until week 13-15 within the second trimester. While not unanimous, most medical studies show that a fetus can not feel pain or register touch in it's brain until the 28th week (seventh month). Well after the first trimester when I believe abortion is acceptable:

Fetuses cannot feel pain until at least the 28th week of gestation because they haven't formed the necessary nerve pathways, says Mark Rosen, an obstetrical anesthesiologist at the University of California at San Francisco. He and his colleagues determined that until the third trimester, "the wiring at the point where you feel pain, such as the skin, doesn't reach the emotional part where you feel pain, in the brain." Although fetuses start forming pain receptors eight weeks into development, the thalamus, the part of the brain that routes information to other areas, doesn't form for 20 more weeks. Without the thalamus, Rosen says, no information can reach the cortex for processing.

A nose doesn't even begin to form until at least the last week of the first trimester let alone be able to smell because their isn't a fully formed nervous system or brain to register the messages of smell sent through nerve pathways.

The form aggregate also includes secondary elements. The first are the Five sensory receptors: Eye, nose, tongue and body which we basically discussed above. Then four sense data: These are color, sound, smells and taste. And above I argued that a fetus in the first trimester can not sense these things. Form aggregate also includes life faculty which is the faculty that vitalizes the body and keeps it alive. An embryo in the first trimester (up to week 12) can not keep itself alive without the host body of it's mother. Form aggregate also includes mental base which the mind for Buddhists is not a simple unit, but a complex cooperative activity involving four factors: Feeling, perceptions, mental formations and consciousness: It can be argued that an embryo has consciousness though we don't know for sure and despite that a form must have all four to be considered a life if we follow the teachings on the five aggregates. And since an embryo does not have a fully formed and functioning brain and nervous system it can not register mental feelings, perceptions and mental formations.

Second Skandha: (Sensation or feeling). Which is being able to sense an object/phenomenon as either pleasant, neutral or negative. So given that an embryo in the first trimester doesn't have a fully formed brain and nervous system then they can not sense something as pleasurable, neutral or negative.

Third Skandha: (Perception, conception, appreciation, cognition, discrimination) Registers whether an object of phenomenon is recognized or not (for instance the sound of a bell, of the shape of a tree). This again requires a fully functioning brain, nervous system.

Fourth Skandha: (Mental formations, volition or conceptional factors). This includes all types of mental habits, thoughts, ideas, opinions, compulsions and decisions triggered by an object. Loving kindness is also considered a mental formation. These are not possible in the first trimester due to the lack of a fully developed brain and nervous system.

Fifth Skandha: (Consciousness). It is argued by some that consciousness is present from the minute of conception but that only fulfills one of the five skandhas/aggregates and according to the majority of sources that I've read all five must be present for something to be considered human life. In conclusion, I have submitted in this essay that an embryo (which is the potential human being) during the first trimester does not meet the requirements of all five skandha/aggregates and is therefore persmissable to believe in first trimester abortion as a Buddhist. I do not, however, agree with late term abortions except if the life of the mother is in jeopardy.

So I am for abortion during the first trimester and only for abortion in the second trimester in cases of rape, incest and when the life of the mother is at risk. In regards to the second trimester and rape, incest or when the life of the mother is at risk then I believe the middle path must be used to create these exceptions out of compassion for the mother. This is because the mother's life is extremely developed and would therefore experience more suffering than a child just being born with no life experience or even a sense of its presence in this world.

Imagine the suffering of a young woman forced to raise a child of her rapist or perpertator of incest. She would most likely not be capable emotionally or otherwise capable to raise that child with the love and caring that it needs to survive. Both mother and child would suffer needlessly. And suppose the child looks exactly like the perpetrator, both the mother and child would suffer greatly. The mother would re-experience and be reminded of the suffering she endured by that person with the same face as that child and chances are she'd avoid all connection with that child from subconscious self-protection. And the child would suffer from lack of love and caring on the mother's part.

Of course adoption is a more than acceptable way to go, however, many unwanted children needlessly suffer from being exported from one foster home to another where many foster parents are abusive and only take on the children for the financial gain. And besides, I do not believe it is my right to choose if a teen-age mother wishes to keep a rapist's child or one that came about via incest. And what kind of quality of life does an incest baby have? Most would be born with severe deformaties that would often die within a few months.

As for making the case for abortion in the second trimester and partial birth in regards to the life of the mother at risk the same argument for me applies because again like I argued above, the mother's life is extremely developed and would therefore experience more suffering than a child just being born with no life experience or even a sense of its presence in this world. And I especially support it when other children are already apart of the mother's life. It is not compassionate in my opinion to sacrifice the life of the mother who is the main care-giver of the existing children for the life of a fetus that has no presence of itself and that it is even alive.

The Dalai Lama has said about abortion that it should be a case by case evaluation. I don't believe in a world that is black and white, it simply does not exist. Yes somethings are black and white but there is much grey area too. Simple observation and mindfulness reveals that truth in my mind.

---End of Transmission----

Buddhism and Stem Cells.

I was watching a great lecture given by the great Sam Harris and wanted to relay some of the information he mentioned about stem cell research. He talked about the embryonic stem cells which seem to show the most potential and that the stem cells used from this form come from the blastocyst, which is a collection of 50-150 cells and is only 4-5 days old. It's not organized with a nervous system and it doesn't have a brain. And the blastocysts that the scientists and doctors want to use are excess embryos created for in vitro fertilization donated with consent and used for the research.

Now think about this, the brain of a common house fly has 100,000 cells that make up its brain and that is just a fly!! A fly has a brain and a fly has neurons. Yet most of us don't think twice about killing one of them, however, do worry about destroying a 5 day old ball of cells that will be destroyed anyway? It seems short sighted to not make the most of these blastocysts before they are discarded. As Harris describes it, "We know that more suffering is visited upon this Earth every time we swat a fly than when we kill a three day old human embryo."

Sam Harris again:

"On one had with have this collection of 50-150 cells and on the other we have little girls suffering from diabetes and full body burns, we have men and women with Parkinson's disease, we have literally tens of millions of people suffering terrible torments which could one day be remediated by this research." I submit to you, if you think that the interests of a virtually microscopic collection of cells; I mean if you had ten of these (blastocysts) in the palm or your hand right now you would never notice. If you think that the interests of these organisms may yet trump the interests of a girl with full body burns, you have had your ethical intuitions blinded by religious metaphysics. No ethical argument would get you there. No argument that talked about human suffering and its alleviation would get you there. It's not enough to say that the collection of human cells are potential human beings. Given genetic engineering every cell in our body with a nucleus is a potential human being, every time the president scratches his nose he's engaged in a holocaust of potential human beings.

Just take for a moment the claim that there are souls in this petri dish, that every human blastocyst, a three day old embryo is ensouled. Well unfortunately, embryos at that stage can split into twins so what happens, we have one soul becoming two souls? Embryos at an even later stage can fuse back into what is called a kymero, a single individual born of two embryos, so do we have two souls becoming one soul? This arithmetic of souls doesn't make much sense.

James: As a Buddhist I agree with everything Mr. Harris has said above. I don't believe that we complex humans have souls let alone blastocysts. As one Buddhist scientist described it, "It is the recycling of life." In other words it is using life that would be discarded anyway to better the life and reduce the suffering of a living breathing being. I don't see it any different than donating blood or donating an organ upon your death. In a manner of speaking It's all a type of rebirth and coming from a place that any Buddhist would recognize, compassion.

Want to what the Dalai Lama thinks, so did I as he's the closest thing we have to a central authority on Buddhism. I know not all of us follow his tradition, like myself, but I think we can all agree that he's an expert on the Buddhadharma:

From the Buddhist perspective, the general line of demarcation in ethics is based mainly on the long-term consequences-the results of the scientific research. It's very difficult to distinguish the ethical status of an action simply by judging the nature of the action itself. Much depends on the actor's motivation. A 'spiritual' act with negative motivation is essentially wrong. A more aggressive act may seem destructive, but if that specific action is carried out with altruistic motivation, and the proper sort of goal, then it could be positive. Of course, the motivation is not opaque to the individual who is engaged in the act. So, it very much depends on the scientists' motivation. If you as scientists have a sincerely compassionate motivation, and a sense of responsibility for the long-term implications, then carry out your work and make your decisions. If you have to weigh the benefit for a smaller community against a larger community, the larger community is more important, generally speaking.

But the basic point is that whatever is most beneficial is what needs to be pursued-or at least what an individual feels is probably going to be of most benefit and least negative is what that individual should carry out. On the question of gene replacement and manipulation, this is similar to things we are already doing at the gross physical level. For example kidney, heart, and liver transplants are now very common practice and patients benefit from these transplants. By extension of that principle, one could conceivably replace or change certain genetic components that are instrumental in causing diseases. But we should at least have a very high degree of knowledge of the implications, both the benefits and the side effects. And then, perhaps, in principle, this would be acceptable.

"But how do we understand at what point consciousness enters the embryo? This is problematic. A fetus, which is becoming a human is already a sentient being. But a fertilized egg may actually bifurcate into 8, 16, 32, 64 cells and become an embryo, and yet be naturally aborted and never become a human being. This is why I feel that for the formation of life, for something to actually become a human, something more is needed than simply a fertilized egg. It may be that what you do to a conglomeration of cells that have the possibility of becoming human entails no negative or karmically unwholesome act. However, when you're dealing with a configuration of cells that are definitely on the track to becoming a human being, it's a different situation. (James: My interpretation of this last sentence is that it becomes more problematic at a more advanced stage. For example I don't think many scientists are willing to exploit full blown fetuses for stem cells.)

"In some areas, Buddhism may have a different perspective from secular ethics. I think for example about human rights. From the Buddhist viewpoint, it is very difficult to claim that we human beings have special rights that are categorically different from animal rights. All sentient beings, all beings who have the experience of pain and pleasure, have the natural right to protect their existence and fulfill their aspiration to overcome suffering and enjoy happiness. The claim to rights is based on the capacity to experience pain and pleasure; it has nothing to do with intelligence, which is the main distinction between animals and human beings. They have the same experiences of pain and pleasure that we do.

James: As the DL reminds us, sentient beings are basically those who can feel pleasure and pain. So as blastocysts do not have central nervous systems to even register pain let alone a brain to experience I think it is safe to say that it is not yet human life. In conclusion my interpretation of the DL's teachings above definitely allow for stem cell research as long as it's done at the early blastocyst stage). Of course we know that we can not end all suffering in this world but it would be irresponsible of us not to help when and where we can to ease suffering.

~Peace to all beings~