I'M BAAAACK!!!!!! New posts coming soon!

this sounds alot like Rand's view on science....

Was Buddha more like Alinsky or more like Levine?

I typically don't like to link other articles to express my own views, but this article from American Thinker is too rich to pass up. Written by a professor at Berkeley, it really does put into perspective much of what I have been trying to convey on this blog. At the very least, it will alert any closet-conservatives at Berkeley that they are not alone in the world! Read the article here.

tax....what would the buddha do?

Compassion....just what is it, and how does it relate to the modern Buddhist view of politics?
    Much of what is appealing about the dharma is its love of human nature and the seed of compassion that is planted and naturally developed once the practice has been started. This term "compassion" is the focal point of leftist politics in America, and is often the reason given for leaning to the left rather than focusing on the logic, or lack-thereof , in any political stance.
    The importance of recognizing suffering in the world is one of the four noble truths realized by the Buddha during his enlightenment, and the act of compassion to all living beings is fundamental to every sect of the Dharma transmitted today. The rules are embodied in the precepts that are contained within the vows of every Bodhisattva or potential practitioner. The pledge of the Bodhisattva begins...
I undertake to observe the precept to abstain from ...

1. ...harming living beings.
2. ...taking things not freely given.
3. ...sexual misconduct.
4. ...false speech.
5. ...intoxicating drinks and drugs causing heedlessness

These, of course are just the first five precepts, that are often compared to the ten commandments of Christianity  and Judaism. A monk or monastic will follow hundreds of these, and while they are NOT commandments, they are highly recommended practice in order to live a fulfilled and enlightened human life.
In the course of objectivist thought, rationality, and just plain common sense, the 2nd precept is of special interest to the conservative, and is the foundation for why I believe that the Boulder/Berkley Buddhist is EXTREMELY misguided when it comes to politics.
  While charity is stressed in practice, and mindfulness of the plight of the downtrodden, disadvantaged, elderly, and sick among us should be considered when choosing politicians and organizations to support- the most important part to keep in mind is HOW you go about helping the previously mentioned. If your idea of mindful politics is to vote for someone who will represent the charitable nature of the Buddha and his ideas by imposing your financial will on others via taxation, you are not only shirking your responsibilities of personal charity and compassion, but you are violating a key element of the dharma by causing suffering to others. If you think that taxing the rich feels good, and is somehow compassionate, keep in mind that you are assuming that "the rich" have excess money for you to demand, and that this money wouldn't normally be spent in a way that would benefit society. I wouldn't consider this right thinking, when you consider the fact that not only are you causing suffering to the person or group you are targeting politically, but you are unintentionally causing suffering to all of those people to whom this money would normally benefit in the form of jobs, raises, bonuses, and even charity. If you are not to accept money that isn't given freely, per the second precept, wouldn't the logical conclusion also be that you shouldn't indirectly through your vote for redistribution, direct that money to be taken in the form of an income tax? Taxes are necessary, however, there are more mindful, compassionate, and logical ways to make sure that they are fairly imposed. The most obvious would be via a sales tax- if you want to buy it, you have to pay the tax on it, therefore, you are willingly paying into the system.
Basically, stealing is stealing no matter the excuse....and it isn't very compassionate now is it?

I'm a HUGE Fan of Life......

       Buddhist beliefs hold that life is a precious opportunity that is SO rare that the chances of manifesting in a human body are so infinitesimal , that it is almost incomprehensible with the human mind. A quote of the Buddha maintains that "imagine single ancient sea turtle swimming alone in all of the oceans of the world. Once every 250 years it comes to the surface to take a breath of air. Imagine that it surfaces inside the center of a circle that is 10 feet in circumference. The only such circle that exists on all of the oceans in all of the world. These are the odds of manifesting in a human body".
    Given that these odds are so great, and life is considered so precious, abortion must automatically be assumed as taboo in Buddhist tradition right? If you are a part of the Eastern brand of the teaching, absolutely. In 1995 the Dalai Lama wrote a book titled The Power of Compassion in which he condemned injustice, racial and ethnic hatred, inequality, and abortion. The Dalai Lama is quoted to have "denounced abortion as a sin against 'non-violence to all sentient beings.'" However, move west a few thousand miles, and engross yourself in a political left that consistently hi-jacks eastern philosophy to reach its own devious ends, and here you see the pro-choice Buddhist. This perverted western stance flies in the face of all that is considered noble. The 8-fold noble path of Buddhism is as follows:
1) Right Understanding
2) Right Thought
3) Right Speech
4) Right Action
5) Right Livelihood
6) Right Effort
7) Right Mindfulness
8) Right Concentration
      If abortion is in-fact violence against a sentient being, wouldn't the 1st, 2nd, and 4th precepts of the 8-fold path naturally lead you to not only understand and think of it as wrong, but take "action" to oppose it? If you follow the true teachings of the Buddha, the Lama, and the Karmapa, you HAVE to in order to correctly follow the path. The reason why you have to is because of the 6th precept, right effort....you have to make a personal physical effort to manifest the precepts in the natural realm. In other words, you have to try to make the non-killing of babies a part of the real world around you and not just a theory.
      My understanding is that life doesn’t "begin." Scientists tell us that life got to this planet, somehow, about 4 billion years ago, and since then life has expressed itself in diverse forms beyond counting. But no one has observed it "beginning." We living beings are manifestations of an unbroken process that has been going on for 4 billion years, give or take. To me, "When does life begin?" is a nonsensical question. I am a huge fan of life, so the idea that the question is even an argument in the ability to destroy the unborn is ridiculous.
      Follow this line of thinking, and you have the natural conclusion that since abortion is killing a living being- DON'T DO IT. That would be the objectivist outcome if these aforementioned facts are followed to their conclusion. My Libertarian-stance would be to fight this on the local level and NOT on the national, or federal level.....

Just call me Bodhi......

      I was taking a stroll through a beautiful, but notoriously liberal city in my part of the Western United States, when a self-imposed challenge entered my mind. Before I tell you what the challenge was, let me preface by saying that up until this moment, my practice and my politics never intersected. They have never been at odds with each other, and unless the laws of nature change, I can't see them ever being opposed to each other. I will try to explain.
     The beauty of the dharma, or teaching, is something that constantly amazes me with it's simplicity, yet astonishes me with it's complexity. It gives me peace and satisfies my mind and consciousness when I meditate upon it, but leaves me craving more, like a delicious meal that I can't stop eating even though my body tells me its full. I love the culture that surrounds it, including the fellow practicioners in my Sangha(the Sanskrit word for a local congregation, much like a church group or bible study). Although it is not something we ever discuss, I have to assume I am at odds with most of them politically. I feel  the same when I walk down the sidewalk in a town like Boulder or read a magazine like Shambhala Sun. The wisdom that I learn makes so much sense and enriches my life completely, and I feel such a connection to the people on a spiritual level, but I haven't been able to figure out how they can glean so many liberal ideas and beliefs from a doctrine that is so completely centered on soul-searching and personal responsibility. And thus is the challenge. How do I coherently reconcile the politics of a Ron Paul with the spirituality of a Zen monk? What does Ayn Rand have in common with the Dalai Lama?  What does a businessman like myself have in common with a monastic?

   Intrigued? I'll give it my best shot in the next few posts. Tell your friends...this is going to get interesting.