Yes, Virginia, "Cultural Appropriation" Really Does Exist

By opening the whole territory between Tennessee on the north and Louisiana on the south to the settlement of the whites it will incalculably strengthen the southwestern frontier and render the adjacent States strong enough to repel future invasions without remote aid. It will relieve the whole State of Mississippi and the western part of Alabama of Indian occupancy, and enable those States to advance rapidly in population, wealth, and power. It will separate the Indians from immediate contact with settlements of whites; free them from the power of the States; enable them to pursue happiness in their own way and under their own rude institutions; will retard the progress of decay, which is lessening their numbers, and perhaps cause them gradually, under the protection of the Government and through the influence of good counsels, to cast off their savage habits and become an interesting, civilized, and Christian community ....

And is it supposed that the wandering savage has a stronger attachment to his home than the settled, civilized Christian? Is it more afflicting to him to leave the graves of his fathers than it is to our brothers and children? Rightly considered, the policy of the General Government toward the red man is not only liberal, but generous. He is unwilling to submit to the laws of the States and mingle with their population. To save him from this alternative, or perhaps utter annihilation, the General Government kindly offers him a new home.
[U.S. President Andrew Jackson, Address to Congress, December 8, 1830]

I was on my way to a Zen Meditation retreat in Kentucky when I heard the news, on the radio, about the deaths during a "Spiritual Warrior" workshop in Sedona, Arizona, led by James Arthur ("As seen on Oprah, Larry King and The Secret") Ray.

The Temple where the Zen retreat (not the Spiritual Warrior workshop) was held had been built in the architectural style of a traditional Korean Buddhist temple. The adoption of this design was done at the urging of Zen Master Seung Sahn, one of the leading figures in modern Korean Buddhism (in fact, he is considered one of the "Great Soen [Zen] Masters of Korean History"). The precise location of the Temple itself was determined using Feng Shui, in which Zen Master Seung Sahn was an adept. The retreat was led by an american, Zen Master Dae Gak (who has been my Zen teacher for almost 20 years), who received his training to be a Zen Master under Master Seung Sahn.

So there I was, an American of European ancestry going to Kentucky (of all places) to participate in a Korean Buddhist religious ritual. A significant part of the retreat consisted of traditional Buddhist chanting done twice a day. This chanting was done mostly in Chinese (actually Sino-Korean, the liturgical language of Korean Buddhism, similar to classical Chinese). Even more important were the daily talks given by Zen Master Dae Gak, who (as is usually the case for Zen teachers) uses the "koan" literature from the Sung Dynasty in China as the basis for his talks.

Was I engaging in "cultural appropriation"??

Obviously not.

Both Buddhism and Geomancy (Feng Shui) came to Korea from China. Both underwent significant changes in Korea, but I would argue that at least in the case of Buddhism (my knowledge of Feng Shui is vanishingly small), the essence of the Buddhist teachings was preserved (and in some ways perhaps even strengthened) in the process of adapting them to Korea. Of course the Buddhist tradition had originally come from India and had already undergone significant changes in it's transmission from India to China. For more on Geomancy in Korea see, for example, the book The culture of fengshui in Korea: an exploration of East Asian geomancy by Hong-key Yoon. For more on the tradition of Korean Buddhism see, for example, the website of the Jogye Buddhist Order, the largest Buddhist denomination in Korea.

Buddhism is one of the great "success stories" of world religions. Starting in what is today the nation of Nepal, it spread to the west as far as the Hellenistic kingdom of Bactria; south to island that is today known as Sri Lanka; east to China, Korea, Japan; and north to Tibet and Mongolia. It also spread throughout the Indian sub-continent and from there to Southeast Asia (including where the nations of Thailand, Burma, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Malaysia and Indonesia are today).

But unlike Christianity and Islam, Buddhism did not engage in a spiritual scorched earth policy as it spread. In India people continued to worship their old Goddesses and Gods, often while simultaneously following the teachings of the Buddha. In Tibet to this day people still practice the ancient Bon religion which long predated the arrival of Buddhism (in fact, the modern Ri-Me movement of Tibetan Buddhism explicitly promotes the simultaneous study of Bon and Buddhism). In East Asia Buddhism developed syncretic forms in combination with Confucianism, Taoism and more ancient traditions (such as Shinto in Japan or Shamanism in Korea), but in addition to mutually influencing each other, these traditions also persisted in institutionally distinct forms. Not one religion, anywhere on earth, has ever been "extirpated" in the name of Buddhism.

That's the thing about "cultural appropriation". It really does exist, but it is merely one aspect of a much larger phenomenon: cultural genocide. Where cultural appropriation genuinely occurs one will find that it is part and parcel of a wider effort at eradicating the very culture that is being "appropriated". This "appropriation" is like the charming practice of early Christians who destroyed Pagan Temples and then "appropriated" bits and pieces of what was left over for their Churches.

The charge of cultural appropriation made against James Arthur Ray actually has some merit to it, but not because he is a New Ager wanker pretending to teach things that he knows nothing about (although that is true enough). James Arthur Ray is involved in cultural appropriation because he actively and proudly promotes the culture that enriched itself on the savage exploitation of the native americans. That culture is called Capitalism, which, in turn, is simply one of the modern faces of Christendom. For the inextricable linkage between Capitalism and Christianity see the works of Max Weber (for example, his Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism) and, more recently, Rodney Stark (for example, his The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success).

In fact, the whole "self-help" movement is deeply rooted not only in the ersatz pop-psychology bilge that is the essence of Capitalist "culture", but in the very teachings of Christianity itself. While this is most easily seen in the perfect merging of Calvinism and Capitalism found in the non-scriptural credo, "God helps those who help themselves" the connection goes much deeper. The difference between Max Weber and Rodney Stark is that Stark sees the much deeper connection between Capitalism qua Capitalism and Christianity qua Christianity.

For his own part, James Arthur Ray is not ambiguous concerning his relationship with Capitalism. He promotes himself, literally, as the "Master of the Entrepreneurial Mindset". You can't make that shit up. Also see the immediately preceding post in this blog On the Personal, the Political, the Pathetic, and the Commoditization of the Spiritual and especially the paper by political scientist George Davis quoted in that post, and the many helpful references found in Davis' paper.

Finally, below is a very relevant excerpt from Sita Ram Goel's Catholic Ashrams: Sannyasins or Swindlers? In that book Goel examines the more subtle tack taken by some Christian missionaries in India after the spectacular failure of more aggressive tactics. In particular Goel takes on the phenomenon of "Christian Ashrams" and the more general phenomenon of so called Indigenization. The following is Chapter Two of Goel's book, Indigenisation: A Predatory Enterprise:

The precedent cited most frequently by the literature of Indigenisation is that which was set by the Greek Fathers when they used Greek cultural forms for conveying Christianity to the pagans in the Roman Empire. Fr. Bede recommends this precedent to the mission in India. "The Church," he says, "has a perfect model of how it should proceed today in the way it proceeded in the early centuries. Christianity came out of Palestine as a Jewish sect. Yet within a few centuries this Jewish sect had taken all the forms of thought and expression of the Greco-Roman world. A Christian theology developed in Greek modes of thought, as did a Christian liturgy in Greek language and in Greek modes of expression; a calender also developed according to Greek and Roman traditions. Surely all that is a wonderful example meant for our instruction of how the Church can present herself to an alien world, receiving forms into herself while retaining her own Catholic message."1

Another expert on Indigenisation is more explicit about what the Church had done in the Greco-Roman world. "As we reflect on the process," writes R.H.S. Boyd, "by which Christianity in the earlier centuries became acclimatised in the Greek world, and by which it made use of certain categories of Greek thought, we are struck by the double face of its acceptance of 'secularised' Greek philosophy and philosophical terminology, and its complete rejection of Greek religion and mythology. Greek religion was gradually secularised. Philosophy was separated from what had been a religio-philosophic unity. The religious content - which had already been deeply influenced by secularisation right from the time of Aristophanes and Euripides - developed into a cultural, literary, artistic entity 'incapsulated' and isolated, except in the Orphic and mystery traditions, from that living, existential faith which transforms men's lives."

There is no evidence that Greek culture had become secularised before some of its forms were taken over by the Church. The history of that period stands thoroughly documented by renowned scholars. The record leaves no doubt that it was the Church which forcibly secularised Greek culture by closing pagan schools, destroying pagan temples, and prohibiting pagan rites. In fact, the doings of the Church in the Greco-Roman world is one of the darkest chapters in human history. Force and fraud are the only themes in that chapter. But facts, it seems, have no role to play when it comes to missionary make-believe.

In any case, Dr. Boyd has convinced himself that "there is at present a rapid process of secularisation going on within Hinduism". He finds that philosophical Hinduism in particular has become "demythologized". "It would seem, therefore," he continues, "as though Hinduism were already started on the path followed by Greek religion. And so we are led to the question of whether or not it is legitimate for Christian theologians to use and adapt categories of what still purports to be religious Hinduism, and yet is very largely secularised. What, indeed, is the real meaning of the word 'Hindu'? Does it describe the fully mythological Hindu religion? Does it describe certain philosophico-religious systems? Or is it simply a synonym for 'Indian culture'? We shall find that some Indian Christian theologians, notably Brahmabandhab, have believed that Christianity was not incompatible with cultural, secularised Hinduism."

Legitimate or illegitimate, compatible or incompatible, the literature of Indigenisation provides ample proof that several Hindu philosophies are being actively considered by the mission strategists as conveyors of Christianity. The Advaita of Shankaracharya has been the hottest favourite so far. The Vishistadvaita of Ramanuja, the Bhakti of the Alvar saints and Vaishnava Acharyas, the Integral Yoga of Sri Aurobindo and the Vichara of Raman Maharshi are not far behind. For all we know, Kashmir Saivism and Shakta Tantra may also become grist to the missionary mill before long. Missionaries working among Harijans are advocating that the Nirguna Bhakti of Kabir and Ravidas should also be accepted as candidates for service to Christianity. The more enterprising mission strategists recommend that different systems of Hindu philosophy should he used for tackling different sections of Hindu society. In the upshot, we are witnessing a keen contest among Indigenisation theologians for acquiring doctorates in Hindu religion and philosophy. Christian seminaries in India and abroad conduct crash courses in the same field. Christian publishing houses are manufacturing learned monographs, comparing Hindu philosophers with Christian theologians - ancient, medieval, and modern. And the same operation is being extended to other spheres of Hindu culture.

Fr. Bede is not bothered by considerations of legitimacy or compatibility. What concerns him most is the need of the Church. "We are faced," he says, "with a tradition of philosophy and mysticism, of art and morality, of a richness and depth not excelled, and perhaps not equalled, by the tradition of Greek culture which the Church encountered in the Roman Empire. What then is our attitude towards it to be? It is clear that we cannot simply reject it. The attempt to impose an alien culture on the East has proved a failure. There are no doubt elements in this tradition which we may have to reject, just as the Church had to reject certain elements in the Greek tradition. But what is required of us is something much more difficult. It is an effort of discrimination, such as the Greek Fathers from Clement and Origen to Gregory of Nyssa and Dionysius the Aeropagite undertook, not merely rejecting what is wrong but assimilating all that is true in a vital act of creative thought."

This is not the occasion for an evaluation of the philosophical calibre of the Greek Fathers. Those who have taken the punishment of examining their performance without wearing theological glasses, tell us that even at their best they were no more than practitioners of petty casuistries. What comes in for questioning in the present context is the Christian claim that Jesus scored over Zeus simply because some theological text-twisters tried to pass Judaic superstitions as Greek sublimities. The history of Christianity in the Roman Empire is not an obscure subject. The careers of many Christian emperors, popes, patriarchs, bishops, saints, and monks are proof that the contest between paganism and Christianity was decided not by philosophical cajoleries but by brute physical force.

The mission in India had no scruples about using force whenever and wherever it had the opportunity. It changed over to other methods only when it could wield the whip no more. The latest method sounds soft but is no less sinister. "Indigenisation," say Kaj Baago, "is evangelisation. It is the planting of the gospel inside another culture, another philosophy, another religion." What happens in the process to that "another culture, another philosophy, another religion" is not the mission's concern.

Fr. Bede give the clarion call. "In India," he says, "we need a christian Vedanta and a christian Yoga, that is a system of theology which makes use not only of the terms and concepts but of the whole structure of thought of the Vedanta, as the Greek Fathers used Plato and Aristotle; and a spirituality which will make use not merely of the practices of Hatha Yoga, by which most people understand Yoga, but of the great systems of Karma, Bhakti and Jnan Yoga, the way of works or action, of love or devotion, and of knowledge or wisdom, through which the spiritual genius of India has been revealed through the centuries." Mark the words, "make use". The entire approach is instrumental and cynical. Yet Fr. Bede calls it a "vital act of creative thought". The whole business could have been dismissed with the contempt it deserves or laughed out as ludicrous but for the massive finance and the giant apparatus which the Christian mission in India has at its disposal.

As one surveys the operation mounted by the mission under the label of Indigenisation, one is driven to an inescapable conclusion about the character of Christianity: Christianity has been and remains a sterile shibboleth devoid of a living spirituality and incapable of creating its own culture. This spiritual poverty had forced Christianity into a predatory career from the start. It survived and survives to-day by plundering the cultures of living and prosperous spiritual traditions.

Christianity's predatory nature is loathsome to pagans who have inherited and are proud of their own culture. Yet it is quite in keeping with Jehovah's promise in the Bible. "Just as the Lord your God promised to your ancestors, Abraham, Issac and Joseph," proclaims Jehovah, "he will give you a land with large and prosperous cities which you did not build. The houses will be full of good things which you did not put in them, and there will be wells you did not dig, and vineyards and olive orchards you did not plant."

The Bible preserves a graphic and gory record of how the descendants of Abraham and Issac and Joseph helped Jehovah in fulfilling this promise. They appropriated the lands and properties of the pagans with a clean conscience. They were convinced that they were only taking possession of what already belonged to them by the terms of a divine pledge.

Christianity claims that Jehovah switched his patronage to the Church militant when the latter-day progeny of his earlier prophets became disobedient and killed his only son. It was now the turn of the Church to redeem the divine pledge. The history of the Church in many lands and over many centuries shows that it did far better than the preceding chosen people. It deprived the pagans not only of their physical possessions but also of their cultural creations. The condottieri who carried out the operation in the field of culture are known as the Greek Fathers.

It should not be a matter of surprise, therefore, that the mission has started singing hymns of praise to Hindu culture. That is the mission casting covetous glances before mounting a marauding expedition. What causes concern is the future of Hindu culture once it falls into the hands of the Church. The fate of Greek culture after it was taken over by the Church is a grim reminder.

Hindu culture grew out of Hindu religion over many millennia. The once cannot be separated from the other without doing irreparable damage to both. The Christian mission is bent upon destroying Hindu religion. Hindu culture will not survive for long if the mission succeeds. The plundered Hindu plumage which Christianity will flaunt for a time is bound to fade before long, just as the Greek and Roman cultures faded.

Let there be no mistake that the Christian mission is not only a destroyer of living religions but also of living cultures. It promises no good to a people, least of all to the Hindus.

[Postscript: And if you haven't seen the movie Magnolia, well, why the heck not!?!?!?]

On the Personal, the Political, the Pathetic, and the Commoditization of the Spiritual

James Arthur Ray, the leader of the recent "Spiritual Warrior" workshop that ended up killing two people during a sweat ceremony gone horrifically wrong, is one of three people identified in The Secret as, and I am not making this up, "philosophers". The three are:

John Demartini
Bob Proctor
James Arthur Ray

"Philosopher" is just one sub-category of the 24 "teachers" credited as part of the spiritual juggernaut that is The Secret. One "teacher" is identified simply as "The Miracle Man", another as a "Visionary", one a "Metaphysician" and one as a "Past Life Plant Therapist" (OK, I made that one up). I guess the makers of The Secret just asked people what they wanted to be identified as. I would have said "astronaut".

Interestingly, two people are identified as Quantum Physicists, and both of them actually are that: Fred Alan Wolf and John Hagelin have Ph.D.'s in physics (Wolf from UCLA, Hagelin from Harvard). (If Fred Alan Wolf knew the secret to success, btw, he would not be hanging out with these low-brow sleazebags. But you gotta pay the mortgage, I guess.)

James Arthur Ray's "philosophy" appears to be a mish-mash of the teachings of P.T. Barnum, Dale Carnegie, and Professor Harold Hill. Here are some representative quotes taken from his website:

"The real key to creating the life of your dreams is achieving true Harmonic Wealth®."

"You simply (and deeply) want to make more money and become more successful."

"You've come to the right place [if] you want to double, triple, even multiply by ten the size of your business."

"Since the beginning of the Journey, I have increased my monthly commissions 100%." [from a satisfied customer]

The following is taken from a fascinating paper by George Davis (Assistant Professor of Political Science at Marshall University in Huntington, WV), Pop-psychology and the Spirit of Capitalism: Self-Help, and the Work Ethic as Neo-Liberal Governmentality (a paper presented at the annual meeting of the Western Political Science Association, March 2007, Las Vegas, NV):

Understood as a governmentality, neo-liberalism represents a rather distinct approach to social and political life. Although neo-liberalism shares traditional liberalism’s concern with the ways in which individual freedom might be maximized, where traditional liberalism posits the market as simply one domain of freedom among others, neo liberalism “extend[s] the rationality of the market . . . to areas that are not exclusively economic” (Foucault 1997, 74). Neo-liberalism, in effect, crashes the barricades that separate the economic from the social and political. It breaks down any distinctions between the market and other possible domains of modern life and considers all facets of human existence governable by the same economic logic or rationality. Perhaps Gordon (1991) puts it most succinctly when he explains how this logic of the market now

concerns all purposive conduct entailing strategic choices between alternative paths, means and instruments; or, yet, more broadly, all rational conduct (including rational thought as a variety of rational conduct); or again, finally, all conduct, rational or irrational, which responds to its environment in a non-random fashion . . .
Economics thus become an “approach” capable in principle of addressing the totality of human behavior, and consequently, of envisaging a coherent, purely economic, programming the totality of governmental action. (43)

Where traditional liberalism imagined the state functioning only as the ultimate arbiter and regulator of market freedom (e.g. Smith 2000, 779), American neo-liberalism reverses this relationship between state and market and offers the organizing principle of free market as “the organizing principle for the state and society” (Lemke 2001, 200, emphasis mine). The individual commitment to self, work, and personal responsibility that Max Weber christened the Protestant ethic seems an important foundation stone in this neo-liberal worldview (see Taylor 1984).

Foucault 1997 is: “The Birth of Biopolitics.” In Paul Rabinow ed. Ethics: Subjectivity and Truth. Essential Works of Michel Foucault Vol. I. New York: New Press, 73-80.
Gordon 1991 is: “Governmental Rationality: an Introduction.” In Graham Burchell et. al. eds. The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality.Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1-52.
Lemke 2001 is: “’The Birth of Biopolitics’: Michel Foucault’s Lectures at the Collège de France on Liberal Governmentality.” Economy and Society 30 (2): 190-207.
Taylor 1984 is: Sources of the Self. New York: Cambridge University Press.
For any other sources or references please see Davis' original paper linked to above.

On Retreat

when it's like gnawing on an iron spike, without any flavor, then you must not falter in your intent -- when you get like this, after all it's good news.
[Master Ta Hui (1088-1163), from Swampland Flowers, translated by J.C. Cleary, p. 44]

"In This Sign You Will Conquer"

In the year 324 Constantine became the first Christian Emperor of Rome. Immediately he, in the words of Timothy D. Barnes in his Constantine and Eusebius, "forbade the erection of cult statues, the consultation of Pagan oracles, divination of any sort, and sacrifice to the Gods under any circumstances ... precisely the activities which constituted the essence of the traditional religions of the Roman Empire .... and Constantine ordered all copies of [Porphyry's] Against the Christians to be burned, prescribing the death penalty for any who furtively retained the work." [pp. 210-211]

The ensuing relentless persecution of every single religious tradition other than Christianity (in parallel with an equally, if not even more, violent campaign against all "heretics" in the Christian flock) had, in hindsight, predictable results (although nothing like it had ever been attempted before on such a scale): In the words of historian J.B. Bury:

In a hundred years the Empire had been transformed from a state in which the immense majority of the inhabitants were devoted to pagan religions, into one in which an Emperor could say, with gross exaggeration, but without manifest absurdity, that not a pagan survived.

It is important to note how quickly Christians (1600 years ago!) jumped to the "gross exaggeration" that all other religions had simply ceased to exist!

In 1553 Richard Eden wrote, in his A Treatyse of the Newe India, that when Columbus first encountered the native inhabitants of the western hemisphere, they were "naked, without shame, religion or knowledge of God." In the same year Pedro Cieza de Leon described the north Andean indigenous peoples (of modern day Peru) as "observing no religion at all." (For references see Jonathan Z. Smith's essay Religion, Religions, Religious). I think I'm starting to see a pattern......

And just today, a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America declared that a war memorial erected (on public land) in the form of a Christian cross is perfectly acceptable as a way of honoring all war dead, regardless of their religion or lack thereof. In fact he said that any other conclusion would be "outrageous".

I think we should thank Antonin Scalia for his honesty and his forthrightness in expressing himself. He is not saying anything different form what Christians have been saying for 1600 years: theirs is the only religion that matters, and anyone who doesn't like that, well, they just don't matter.

Atheists, Fanatics ... and Afghanistan

Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is none more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory in itself, than this thing called Christianity. Too absurd for belief, too impossible to convince, and too inconsistent for practice, it renders the heart torpid, or produces only atheists and fanatics.
[Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason]

When Christians first appeared on the scene the Pagans of the Roman world (which included not only much of Europe but also all of North Africa and much of what we today call the Middle East) classified this new sect as atheistic. After all, they denied the existence of all the Gods worshipped by all the peoples of the world, and instead insisted that the only "real" God was a man who not only was now dead, but who had never claimed to be a God while alive. And even if one were to take their "God" seriously, nevertheless the difference between one God and no Gods, compared to the essentially infinite number of Gods, Goddesses, Nymphs, Daemones, etc, etc, of the Pagans, was so slight as to be no real difference at all.

But today the roles are reversed. Christianity is no longer just another variety of atheism, so much as Atheism has become just another sect of Christianity. The important thing is that they both agree that the only question is whether there is one God or none. The Atheists provide invaluable theological assistance to the Christians by supplying what appears (falsely) to many to be independent verification of their view of themselves as the only religion that matters.

Listening to, or reading about, "debates" between New Atheists and their Christian "adversaries" is a lot like listening to Thomas Friedman and George Will "debate" US foreign policy. It doesn't matter who "wins" such debates - the important thing is the way in which the debate is framed, so that the universe of possibilities is narrowly defined to exclude what neither side wants to even think about - or, more importantly, wants anyone else to think about, either.

Take, for example, Jerry Coyne and Andrew Sullivan. Please. When these two "debate" each other all spiritual/religious/theological/philosophical issues are reduced down to: Do you believe in the God of the Christians, or not? Period. That's it. There is no door number three!! I was reminded of this recently while looking through two very interesting blogs, Prometheus Unbound and Thoughts From Kansas, both of which are written by very thoughtful people who have many insightful things to say about New Atheism (and other subjects), but who nevertheless, in my opinion, fail to transcend the terms of the debate as set by the likes of Coyne and Sullivan.

I get worked up about New Atheism when I see something that is at least somewhat directly relevant to Paganism, like Sam Harris' revealing comments about witchcraft, astrology and Tarot cards; or when something rises to a certain level of broader social/political significance, like the New Atheists' bigoted hate-campaign against Francis Collins in which they openly flaunted their disdain for and abandonment of the basic democratic principle of freedom of religion. But other than that I find that there is nothing substantial enough either in the idiocies of Dawkins & Co. or in their Christian debating partners to merit the effort of even making a blog post.

But then I saw that Glenn Greenwald has written something new on "The Suffocatingly Narrow Afghanistan Debate", in which he points out that this "debate", as it is framed by the political class and their media droogies, claims to include "a very, very serious review of all options", according to administration officials, and as reported by the Washington Post and AP. But, as Greenwald further points out:

Apparently, "all options" does not mean "all options." As usual for American wars, examining "all options" means everything other than "ending the war."

It all reminds me very much of that scene from the movie War Games, or that old Genesis standard, The Battle of Epping Forest:



Along the Forest Road, there's hundreds of cars - luxury cars.
Each has got its load of convertible bars, cutlery cars - superscars!
For today is the day when they sort it out, sort it out,
'cos they disagree on a gangland boundary.
They disagree on a gangland boundary.

There's Willy Wright and his boys -
one helluva noise, that's Billy's boys!
With fully-fashioned mugs, that's Little John's thugs,
the Barking Slugs - supersmugs!
For today is the day when they sort it out, sort it out,
yes these Christian soldiers fight to protect the poor.
East end heroes got to score in...

the Battle of Epping Forest,
yes it's the Battle of Epping Forest,
right outside your door.
You ain't seen nothing like it.
No, you ain't seen nothing like it,
not since the Civil War.

Coming over the hill are the boys of Bill,
and Johnny's lads stand very still.
With the thumpire's shout, they all start to clout
- there's no guns in this gentleman's bout.
Georgie moves in on the outside left
with a chain flying round his head;
and Harold Demure, from Art Literature,
nips up the nearest tree.
(Here come the cavalry!)

Amidst the battle roar,
accountants keep the score: 10-4.
They've never been alone, after getting a radiophone.
The bluebells are ringing for Sweetmeal Sam, real ham,
handing out bread and jam just like any picnic.

It's 5-4 on William Wright; he made his pile on Derby night.
When Billy was a kid, walking the streets,
the other kids hid - so they did!
And now, after working hard in security trade, he's got it made.
The shops that need aid are those that haven't paid.

"I do my double-show quick!" said Mick the Prick, fresh out the nick.
"I sell cheap holiday. The minute they leave,
then a visit I pay - and does it pay!"
And his friend, Liquid Len by name,
of Wine, Women and Wandsworth fame,
said "I'm breaking the legs of the bastard that got me framed!"

They called me the Reverend when I entered the Church unstained;
my employers have changed but the name has remained.
It all began when I went on a tour,
hoping to find some furniture.
I followed a sign - it said "Beautiful Chest".
It led to a lady who showed me her best.
She was taken by surprise when I quickly closed my eyes.
So she rang the bell, and quick as hell
Bob the Nob came out on his job
to see what the trouble was.
"Louise, is the Reverend hard to please?"
"You're telling me!"
"Perhaps, sir, if it's not too late.
we could interest you in our old-fashioned Staffordshire plate?"
"Oh no, not me, I'm a man of repute."
But the Devil caught hold of my soul and a voice called out "Shoot!"

To save my steeple, I visited people;
for this I'd gone when I met Little John.
His name came, I understood,
when the judge said "You're a robbing hood."
He told me of his strange foundation,
conceived on sight of the Woodstock nation;
he'd had to hide his reputation.
When poor, 'twas salvation from door to door.
But now, with a pin-up guru every week,
it's Love, Peace & Truth Incorporated for all who seek.

He employed me as a karma-ma-mechanic, with overall charms.
His hands were then fit to receive, receive alms.
That's why we're in

the Battle of Epping Forest,
yes it's the Battle of Epping Forest,
right outside your door.
We guard your souls for peanuts,
and we guard your shops and houses
for just a little more.

In with a left hook is the Bethnal Green Butcher,
but he's countered on the right by Mick's chain-gang fight,
and Liquid Len, with his smashed bottle men,
is lobbing Bob the Nob across the gob.
With his kisser in a mess, Bob seems under stress,
but Jones the Jug hits Len right in the mug;
and Harold Demure, who's still not quite sure,
fires acorns from out of his sling.
(Here come the cavalry!)

Up, up above the crowd,
inside their Silver Cloud, done proud,
the bold and brazen brass, seen darkly through the glass.
The butler's got jam on his Rolls; Roy doles out the lot,
with tea from a silver pot just like any picnic.

Along the Forest Road, it's the end of the day
and the Clouds roll away.
Each has got its load - they'll come out for the count
at the break-in of day.
When the limos return for their final review, it's all thru'
- all they can see is the morning goo.
"There's no-one left alive - must be draw."
So the Blackcap Barons toss a coin to settle the score.

top ten reasons why zen is like sex

I first came up with this back in 1994. I think it's changed some over the years - but this is my current version.

top ten reasons why zen is like sex:

10. it's ok to do it by yourself, but it's even better with others.

9. you can do it anywhere under any circumstances, but beautiful, natural surroundings are ideal.

8. some people insist that there's only one right way to do it. these people should be avoided.

7. the people who talk about it the most tend to know the least.

6. flexibility is a plus.

5. falling asleep is considered very bad form.

4. some people like to dress up and use props - other people think that's ridiculous. don't knock it if you haven't tried it.

3. different people prefer different positions.

2. in the old days there was both a gradual approach and a sudden approach, but these days everyone wants to take the sudden approach.

1. you can read about it all you want, but unless you are doing it you have no idea.

Obama Kissing Up To Our Good Friends, the Chinese -- Refuses to Meet With Dalai Lama

His Holiness the Dalai Lama has visited the United States 10 times in the last 18 years. On each of those occasions he has met with the President, although usually these meetings have been unofficial "drop-ins" (The West Wing once did an episode in which they explain, and demonstrate, how such "accidental" meetings are arranged).

However, in 1997 George Bush not only met publicly and officially with the Dalai Lama, but he gave him a freaking medal. Well, OK, technically Congress gave him the medal, but Bush made a point of being at the ceremony and having his picture taken with HHDL, here's the video:


Obama had planned to meet with the Dalai Lama, and the Administration had even gone so far as to say that they could "live with the Chinese being upset." But then today it was reported in the Washington Post by John Pomfret that the meeting will be "delayed". Obama's spinmeisters call the decision to kowtow to the Chinese "strategic reassurance."

Chasing Waterfalls

"little precious has a natural obsession . . . ."

As I mentioned in a recent post, I was driving home one day last week when the song "Waterfalls", by TLC, came on the radio. This is one of the truly great popular music songs of all time in my opinion (well, of course it's not just my opinion!). Hearing it on the radio gave me the idea of maybe posting a video of it to my blog, and then I found some crazy ukulele covers that I liked, so I posted two of those.

But for the first time I started thinking about what the song actually says: "Don't go chasing waterfalls, please stick to the rivers and the lakes you're used to." This made me think (for reasons that will become clearer in a moment) of Ramon Medina Silva, who was a mara'akame of the Wixáritari people. The Wixáritari are more commonly known as the Huichol, and a mara'akame is something like a shaman or a traditional healer. Really what a mara'akame is is someone who trains (for at least 10 years) in the religious traditions of the Wixáritari people. If you have no idea what I am talking about, then do a google search on Barbara Myerhoff, an anthropologist who has studied and written about the Huichols and their religious beliefs and practices.

One of the things that Ramon Medina Silva had to learn in the process of his education as a mara'akame was how to dance along the rocks on the high cliffs dramatically overlooking local waterfalls found in the part of Mexico where the Huichol live. Barbara Myerhoff describes her first encounter with this impressive display of shamanic power in her seminal study Peyote Hunt: The Sacred Journey of the Huichol Indians:

One afternoon Ramon led us to a steep barranca [a deep ravine or gorge], cut by a rapid waterfall cascading perhaps a thousand feet over jagged, slippery rocks. At the edge of the fall Ramon removed his sandals and told us that this was a special place for shamans. We watched in astonishment as he proceeded to leap across the waterfall, from rock to rock, pausing frequently, his body bent forward, his arms spread out, his head thrown back, entirely birdlike, poised motionlessly on one foot. He disappeared, reemerged, leaped about, and finally achieved the other side. We outsiders were terrified and puzzled but none of the Huichols seemed at all worried. The wife of one of the older Huichol men indicated that her husband had started to become a mara'akame but had failed because he lacked balance.

Compare the above to the famous story from Carlos Castaneda's Separate Reality (on pages 100-103 in the 1991 Simon and Schuster edition). In that passage, Carlos is with his teacher, Don Juan, and another shaman named Don Genaro, and two other men. They are outside walking and they come to the bottom of a waterfall. Everyone sits down, except for Don Genaro who proceeds to climb up the cliff to the top of the waterfall. At the top of the waterfall Don Genaro proceeded to leap from rock to rock starting on one side of the waterfall until he got to the other. Don Juan later explained to Carlos that "tentacle like" "fibers of light" that emanate outward from the navel were "the secret of Don Genaro's balance".

Barbara Myerhoff and Carlos Castaneda were friends and fellow graduate students in anthropology at UCLA. In fact, Myerhoff helped convince Castaneda to not burn the PhD thesis he was working on, which was later published as the inter-galactic best-seller, The Teachings of Don Juan, A Yaqui Way of Knowledge.

Separate Reality was published in 1971, the same year that Paul McCartney formed the band Wings. In 1980 Paul McCartney released a solo album, McCartney II, his first solo album since the formation of Wings. On that album was a song titled Waterfalls, here is the video:



Here are the lyrics to Paul McCartney's Waterfalls:

Don't Go Jumping Waterfalls
Please Keep To The Lake
People Who Jump Waterfalls
Sometimes Cam Make Mistakes

And I Need Love, Yeah I Need Love
Like A Second Needs An Hour
Like A Raindrop Needs A Shower
Yeah I Need Love Every Minute Of The Day
And It Wouldn't Be The Same
If You Ever Should Decide To Go Away

And I Need Love, Yeah I Need Love
Like A Castle Needs A Tower
Like A Garden Needs A Flower
Yeah I Need Love Every Minute Of The Day
And It Wouldn't Be The Same
If You Ever Should Decide To Go Away

Don't Go Chasing Polar Bears
In The Great Unknown
Some Big Friendly Polar Bear
Might Want To Take You Home

And I Need Love, Yeah I Need Love
Like A Second Needs An Hour
Like A Raindrop Needs A Shower
Yeah I Need Love Every Minute Of The Day
And It Wouldn't Be The Same
If You Ever Should Decide To Go Away

Don't Run After Motor Cars
Please Stay On The Side
Someone's Glossy Motor Car
Might Take You For A Ride

And I Need Love, Yeah I Need Love
Like A Castle Needs A Tower
Like A Garden Needs A Flower
Yeah I Need Love, Said I Need Love
Like A Raindrop Needs A Shower
Like A Second Needs An Hour
Every Minute Of The Day
And It Wouldn't Be The Same
If You Ever Should Decide To Go Away

Don't Go Jumping Waterfalls
Please Keep To The Lake

And here are the lyrics to TLC's Waterfalls:

Verse 1

A lonely mother gazing out of the window
Staring at a son that she just can't touch
If at any time he's in a jam she'll be by his side
But he doesn't realize he hurts her so much
But all the praying just ain't helping at all
Cause he can't seem to keep his self out of trouble
So he goes out and he makes his money the best way he knows how
Another body laying cold in the gutter Listen to me
Chorus

Don't go chasing waterfalls
Please stick to the rivers and the lakes that you're used to
I know that you're gonna have it your way or nothing at all
But I think you're moving too fast
Verse 2

Little precious has a natural obsession
For temptation but he just can't see
She gives him loving that his body can't handle
But all he can say is baby it's good to me
One day he goes and takes a glimpse in the mirror
But he doesn't recognize his own face
His health is fading and he doesn't know why
3 letters took him to his final resting place
Ya'll dont'hear me
Chorus

Rap

I seen a rainbow yesterday
But too many storms have come
Leaving a trace of not one God-given ray
Is it because my life is ten shades of grey
I pray all ten fade away
Seldem praise Him for the sunny days
And like His promise is true
Only my faith can undo
The many chances I blew
To bring my life to a new
Clear blue and unconditional skies
Have dried the tears from my eyes
No more lonely cries
My only bleedin' hope is for the folk who can't cope
With such an endurin' pain that it keeps 'em in the pouring rain
Who's to blame for shootin'caine into you're own vein
What a shame you shoot and aim for someone else's brain
You claim the insane and name this day in time
For fallin' prey to crime
I say the system got you victim to your own mind
Dreams are hopeless aspirations
In hopes of comin' true
Believe in yourself
The rest is up to me and you
Chorus

Both songs have the same plaintive pleading message: please don't go get yourself killed, or simply: please don't go!!

Castaneda's books were such a powerful cultural influence in the '70's that I feel certain that McCartney's "don't go jumping waterfalls" was, directly or indirectly, inspired by Don Genaro's fictional waterfall jumping, which, in turn, was directly inspired by Ramon Medina Silva's actual waterfall jumping.

A sad irony is that Ramon died not while demonstrating his shamanic flying skills, but rather in a way much more reminiscent of the TLC Waterfalls lyrics. In June of 1971 he got drunk at a party, got into a heated argument that became violent and led to an exchange of gunfire, and he was shot dead.

Barbara Myerhoff died suddenly of cancer at the age of 49 in 1989. She used to tell people that unlike her friend Carlos she would never become a shaman herself, but that she would become a little old Jewish lady instead.

Carlos Castaneda died in 1998 under appropriately mysterious circumstances. Most people were unaware that he had died until an obituary appeared two months later in the Los Angeles Times entitled A Hushed Death for Mystic Author Carlos Castaneda.

Lisa "Left Eye" Lopes of TLC died in a car accident in Honduras on April 25, 2002. 30,000 people attended her funeral, and her tombstone was engraved with lyrics from the song:

Dreams are hopeless aspirations, in hopes of coming true, believe in yourself, the rest is up to me and you.

Paul McCartney is still very much alive. He is, of course, aware of the striking similarity between his Waterfalls and TLC's. But as far as I know no one has ever asked whether or not he was influenced by Castaneda.

When I was twelve years old my friends and I had a seance on Halloween night in 1969 to see if we could determine whether or not it was really true that Paul McCartney was dead.

Finally, here's Weird Al Yankovic's "Phoney Calls":

Choose Your Delusion: Dancing With the One What Brung Ya

First of all I want to give a big shout out to occult researcher and visionary artist Reverend Illuminatus Maximus over at the critically acclaimed Gnostic Friends Network website. His is the brilliant mind behind the "Choose Your Delusion" graphic that graces this post.

The other major inspiration for this post was Brad Warner, who wrote a fascinating essay for his blog under the title "Use Your Illusions". The main thing that Warner does in that essay is to contrast two different ways of looking at the student-teacher relationship in spiritual practice.

One way of approaching the student-teacher relationship is to (1) project one's fantasies of an ideal, perfect human being onto someone else who has a fancy title (Zen Master, Roshi, Guru, Rinpoche, High Priestess, Grand Poobah, whatever), and (2) when one inevitably finds that the object of one's projections does not live up to this fantasy to wallow in disappointment.

The other way is to relate directly to the teacher as a real, live, flesh and blood human being. That is, as opposed to primarily relating to one's own fantasies and only relating to the teacher in terms of that fantasy. This approach treats the teacher-student relationship much more like other relationships between individual human beings.

Warner mostly focuses on the whole teacher-student thing, but he also makes it clear that same kind of dynamic is involved in how we each relate to our own spiritual practice: Do I primarily relate to my own practice as it really is, or do I focus on an imagined ideal of practice? He even nicely ties these two issues together with a little story about his own teacher. Read his post to see what I'm talking about.

But I want to go off on a tangent by focussing on the word "illusion". Buddhists and Hindus often use the word "illusion" in a purely negative sense. But not always. In fact, the Hindu Goddess Maha Maya ("Great Illusion") is much revered. And Buddhists should also recognize Maha Maya as the name of the biological mother of the Buddha!

Sri Aurobindo, in his ox-stunning masterpiece, The Life Divine, devotes chapter XIII (of Book I) to The Divine Maya. He begins that chapter with these words:

Existence that acts and creates by the power and from the pure delight of its conscious being is the reality that we are, the self of all our modes and moods, the cause, object and goal of all our doing, becoming and creating. As the poet, artist or musician when he creates does really nothing but develop some potentiality in his unmanifested self into a form of manifestation and as the thinker, statesman, mechanist only brings out into a shape of things that which lay hidden in themselves, was themselves, is still themselves when it is cast into form, so is it with the world and the Eternal. All creation or becoming is nothing but this self-manifestation. Out of the seed there evolves that which is already in the seed, pre-existent in being, predestined in its will to become, prearranged in the delight of becoming. The original plasm held in itself in force of being the resultant organism. For it is always that secret, burdened, self-knowing force which labours under its own irresistable impulse to manifest the form of itself with which it is charged. Only, the individual who creates or develops out of himself, makes a distinction between himself, the force that works in him and the material in which he works. In reality the force is himself, the individualised consciousness which it instrumentalises is himself, the material which it uses is himself, the resultant form is himself. In other words it is one existence, one force, one delight of being which concentrates itself at various points, says of each "This is I" and works in it by a various play of self-force for a various play of self-formation.

[pp. 122-123]

Although I think that Aurobindo put that very nicely, it's a bit dense. In fact, unless you already have a pretty good idea of what he is talking about, I doubt it makes much sense at all! Ramprasad Sen, the famed mystical poet and devotee of Goddess Kali, perhaps described the same basic idea more simply when he wrote (as translated by Lex Hixon in his Mother of the Universe):

Though my mind
wanders everywhere
I am not to blame.
Goddess Kali
You are the brilliant Magician,
and I am Your sleight of hand.

The point itself is really quite simple and self-evident. It is easily grasped by the mind in a spontaneous flash, and we hear ourselves say, aha, of course! In fact it isn't difficult at all to see the world of constant change all around us as the play of the Gods, the Dance of sat, cit and ananda (essence, consciousness and bliss). Unless, of course, you happen to be experiencing suffering! Then the "play of the Gods" tends to look more like some monstrously cruel joke.

But even if we are fortunate enough to be able to spontaneously grasp the immediate reality of the dance of Maya, Sri Aurobindo urges us to realize that, at that stage, "all has not yet been explained":

We know the Reality of the Universe, but we do not yet know the process by which that Reality has turned itself into this phenomenon. We have the key of the riddle, but we still have to find the lock in which it will turn. For this Existence, Conscious-Force, Delight [sat cit ananda] does not work directly or with a sovereign irresponsibility like a magician building up worlds and universes by the mere fiat of its word.

[p. 124]

Here Aurobindo is making a not-so-subtle dig at the Christian concept of a "Creator God". Christians imagine an infinitely powerful bearded gaseous vertebrate who floats suspended (by what?) in an utterly empty Void and creates everything out of nothing by the sheer force of his command and will. But the Vedic perspective, according to Aurobindo, sees Maya as a playfully dancing Creatrix, whose feet already touch solid ground [prakriti], and who creates each particular limited impermanent phenomenon ("this phenomenon") out of an eternally existing infinite potentiality. In Latin: Creatio ex nihilo versus creatio ex omnia.

The power to create, it turns out, has nothing to do with pulling universes out of one's arse (ta da!). The Vedic conception of the power of creation is something else altogether:

This power was known by the Vedic seers as Maya. Maya meant for them the power of infinite consciousness to comprehend, contain in itself and measure out, that is to say, to form -- for form is delimitation -- Name and Shape [namarupa] out of the vast illimitable Truth of infinite existence .... [O]ut of the supreme being in which all is all without barrier of separative consciousness emerges the phenomenal being in which all is in each and each is in all for the play of existence with existence, consciousness with consciousness ... delight with delight.

[p. 125]

Lest we think Aurobindo is describing some bullshit fairy-tale universe where all is light and love and angels singing and children's laughter, he immediately says that at first we mistakenly see ourselves as somehow outside of this play "as a separated being", that is to say, "not as a being always inseparably one with the rest of existence." Aurobindo even posits two Mayas: a "lower" Maya that gives us the false sense of separation from the cosmic dance all around us, and a "higher" Maya that is that dance itself, inclusive of each of us (and even inclusive of our sense of separateness).

Again I will look to the Bengali mystic Ramprasad Sen to restate all of this more simply or at least more poetically:

O small self, you are a sparkling fish
at play in the ocean of consciousness,
and your life is swiftly coming to its end.
Death will skim above you and throw its sharp net.
You will not be protected by your watery world,
for selfish actions have kept you in the shallows.

The fisherman's fatal net will surround you suddenly,
Why do you remain so near the surface of relative existence
where Death is granted its fishing grounds?
Yet there is still time.
Leave the dangerous shoreline, mundane mind,
and plunge into the silent produndity,
the black waters of Mother Kali's mystery.

The small self is not so bad, really. A little too cluelessly self-involved, maybe; so much so, in fact, that it fails to realize that it is a beautiful "sparkling" fish swimming through a vast, limitless ocean of consciousness. Once we understand a little better what we are, and what the situation is, this realization must lead to some kind of appropriate action that manifests our understanding. Ramprasad's suggestion is to notice that the water is rather shallow here, near the shore. He encourages us to be brave and to venture out into the deeper waters away from the illusory safety of the shoreline.

Speaking of deeper waters, I have only just barely scratched the surface of what Aurobindo has to say about The Divine Maya. But now I want to leave Aurobindo and Ramprasad and come back to the original question that Brad Warner addressed in his post. The question was:

How does one reinvigorate one's practice after losing the illusions that brought one to practice in the first place?

Even though I liked a lot of what Brad Warner said in his answer, I'm going to come at it from a different perspective. But it's (very!) important to remember that this was a question asked of Warner by someone that he knows. He was responding to the person - I am just responding to the words themselves without knowing anything about the person who asked the question.

And yet I think it is valid to question the very basis of the question itself. The idea that we are brought to practice by our illusions is almost certainly wrong. In fact, we are brought to practice by our Buddhanature (of course).

It's like the butterfly and the butterfly bush. We have three big butterfly bushes in our backyard, and during the summertime they attract huge numbers of butterflies -- not to mention hummingbirds, bees, ants, and even the occasional hummingbird hawk moth! The branches of a butterfly bush are very light - the whole plant is really quite delicate. So many butterflies will congregate on a single branch that they actually weigh it down visibly, which is pretty incredible when you consider that it takes over 100 butterflies just to weigh one ounce! Is that right? I think I read it somewhere on teh internets......

Anyway, why is the butterfly attracted to the butterfly bush? Maybe it's attracted by the color, or by the scent. Or maybe butterflies have their own version of google, and do a search on "what do butterflies eat?", and a picture of a butterfly bush comes up, or something. You could get very scientific and try to identify precisely which genes in the butterfly account for it's being attracted to the butterfly bush. You could even genetically engineer butterflies that had no interest in butterfly bushes at all, in order to test your hypothesis. And then you could start all over again, and identify which genes in the butterfly-bush are responsible for butterflies being attracted to it! And then you could create genetically modified butterfly bushes that no butterfly would pay any attention to!

That kind of thing appeals to certain kinds of people, while other people might recoil in horror at the idea of evil mutant monster franken-butterflies. That kind of person might even go so far as to write love poetry in honor of the romance of the butterfly and the butterfly bush, claiming that these pretty words tell us more than "science" every could.

But the thing is, whether you do experiments or write poetry, still there is really no doubt that it is right and good and proper for the butterfly to be attracted to the butterfly bush. (I mean, you know, that why it's called a butterfly bush!) And just so it is also right and good and proper for human beings to be attracted to spiritual practice. That being said it is undeniably true that, as the saying goes, "many are cold but few are frozen". That is, many people have some vague interest in Zen (etc.) but very few people really persist, year after year, in a serious engagement with the practice of Zen.

Zen is a path that demands a lot. In fact, it pretty much demands everything. Each Zen student is responsible for her or his own practice. It is not my teacher's job to make sure I am comfy on my cushion, or in my head. Zen practice is difficult, and the attrition rate for newcomers tends to be rather high. But this is a self-selection process. No one else can put your ass on your cushion. Whether we practice or not is completely up to each one of us individually.

And what does it really mean to "not practice"? It simply means to return to the superficial, unexamined life: "near the surface of relative existence." The shallow waters of the shoreline appear safe because this is what we know, what we are used to. But in reality they pose the greatest peril of all: the danger of passing our days and nights in vain.

[The cool pic of Brad Warner is from albill's photostream on flickr. The cool pic Sri Aurobindo's statue is from Frank's gallery at Picasa Web Albums.]