Religious pluralism?  What the hell is that, right?  In this case, we are talking about  a worldview according to which one’s religion is not the sole and exclusive source of truth, and thus that at least some truths and true values exist in other religions, or according to His Holiness the Dalai Lama, the assigning of validity to all faith traditions.  This is the subject of a short article written by His Holiness in the latest edition of ‘Shambhala Sun Magazine’ and more importantly, the reason you should turn off your computer and head to your local book store right now and pick up a copy.  The beginning of the article can be read here, and while I am not going to reproduce the entire rest of the article here both for copyright reasons and issues of the health of my fingers, I would like to share the paragraph I felt really hit home with me.

…from the theistic religion’s point of view, if one believes that the entire cosmos, including the sentient beings within it, is a creation of one all powerful and compassionate God, the inescapable consequence is that the existence of faith traditions other than one’s own are also God’s creation.  To deny this would imply one of two results:  either one rejects God’s omnipotence – that is to say that, although these other faiths are “false ways”,  God remains incapable of stopping their emergence – or if one maintains that God is perfectly capable of preventing the emergence of these “false ways”, He chooses not to do so, then one rejects God’s all-embracing compassion.  The latter would imply that, for whatever reasons, God chose to exclude some – in fact, millions of his own children – and left them to follow false ways that would lead to their damnation.   So the logic of monotheism, especially the standard version that attributes omnipotence, omniscience and all embracing compassion to God, inevitably entails the recognition that the world’s many religious traditions are in one way or another are related to God’s divine intentions for the ultimate well being of His children.   This means that, as a devout follower of God, one must accord respect, and if possible, reverence to all religions.

Although I have tried to put this into words for years, I have never been successful because I have never been able to argue the point of view that ‘my faith tells me I’m right and you’re wrong.”  I just didn’t have the smarts to debate that argument.  Obviously, His Holiness is vastly superior to me in the realm of religious debate (not to mention several million other things, I’m sure).

His Holiness turns 75 today!

I ran the The Heart Sutra through http://wordle.net. Pretty interesting.

Give it a shot yourself. (Best viewed in Large or Original on flickr. Just click the image.)

The Heart Sutra

I believe that most of the world’s great religions stem from the same place.  Not tone person or one place, but that most religions tend to spring from the same thing:  man’s attempt to find a reason for existence and to understand the true nature of reality.  This may be a controversial stance to take. An Evangelical Christian would say that his religion has nothing to do and nothing in common with that of a Hindu.  The Jew may say that his religion and that of Islam are diametrically opposed, but I truly don’t see there being that much difference in the basic, fundamentals of what each is trying to accomplish.

We all examine this multi-colored rainbow that we can refer to as ultimate reality but we tend to shade it. It’s as if we were wearing colored glasses as we look at the rainbow because we can’t fathom the whole thing in it’s entirety. Each religion wears a different colored lens on the glasses so the glasses filter out part of the whole, amplify another part and distort still more. As a religion grows, that which was amplified is made more important and deemed more correct. That which was filtered out is not known and deemed incorrect and the distortions grow and get even more distorted.

In the small Arkansas town where I was raised, believe it or not there was a certain amount of religious tolerance, at least within the crowd that my family was a part of.  Although a practicing Presbyterian, my grandmother was a self taught student of world religions and was very open to the points of view of all religions, regardless of whether that point of view was positive or negative to her beliefs.  When I was very young and my grandmother would read to me, we were just as likely to be reading about the basics of Zen, Hinduism, Islam and Judaism, or the life of Thomas Jefferson as we were about The Adventures Curious George or Babar the Elephant.  This not only gave me a wide breadth of knowledge, but a certain tolerance for things that were different.

When I became a Buddhist, there was a certain part of this attitude that I lost.  While I was perfectly willing to live and let live, I would get very defensive, to the point of going on the offense, if I was faced with a discussion comparing my religion with another.  Buddhism was my territory and thou shall not criticize my territory.  I jumped in and defended my territory at all costs.  But as time went on, I began to see that the problem wasn’t their reaction to my religion, but my reaction to my religion.

As I began to look deep within my own path, and at the same time try to understand theirs, in much the same way my grandmother had 40 or so years earlier.  I began to discover that at the source, there is not much difference.  In every religion, some things are emphasized, others forgotten about, and still others are probably just misinterpreted.  But we are all are looking for the same things.  Peace, happiness, respect and acceptance.  We have just chosen different ways of realizing it.  We are walking on different paths to the same goal.

Now when my spiritual path is criticized by another, I try to look at and emphasize what we have in common, not where the differences are.  This may not help the other person to realize where I am coming from, but it certainly helps me realize where they are coming from, and that’s made quite an effect.

Ok..Ok.. Before you start screaming at me about ‘not believing in karma’, let me explain. I’ve talked about karma on the podcast before, but it’s one of those subjects that has so many levels that we can explore.

I’ve heard a lot of people recently talking about karma, but I think they have some misunderstandings about it.  I’ve heard comments such as “He’s gonna get some bad karma for that.” or “Karma says he’s gonna suffer three fold for that one.” or “Something good should come to her, with all that good karma.” or “Wow!  She won!  She must have some really good karma.” First let me address the ‘three fold’ issue and put that one too rest. This is crossing from another religion/philosophy. This is from the Three Fold Law in Wicca. Now, first, I am no Wicca expert, but the law says “Ever mind the rule of three. What ye send out comes back to thee,” which basically means whatever you do, you will get back times three. Again, this is part of the wiccan belief system, not the Buddhist.

This brings us to something that can be confusing about the concept of karma. There is no such thing as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ karma. I have heard many advanced students and even llamas talk about “good” karma and “bad” karma and it’s just incorrect, plain and simple. Karma is like gravity. It just “is.” Good or Bad are adjectives we assign depending on how we perceive the situation that either generated the karma or the situation where the karma comes to it’s fruition.

“But Lans, I thought if I do something bad, karma will do something bad to me. And by the same token, if I do something good, I will get something good.”

Yes, yes. This is the common assumption. But good and bad are relative to your personal situation and the set of circumstances laid out before you. Let’s look at a simple example. A man throws a brick through a window. Is this good or bad? If he is breaking into a place to rob it, we would say it’s bad. If he were breaking in to rescue a child from a burning house, then we would say good. But the karmic act we’re discussing is breaking the window with the brick. It’s an action, that will generate other actions and situations. You can label them good or bad as you like, but in reality, they are just effects with no adjectives assigned.   It’s that simple.

More complicated is the karma generated by the intent. Yes, intent creates karma too. But once again, motivation, and the goodness or badness of it is still something that is something that is relative to how we perceive it. We are not perceiving things as they truly are. We are perceiving them colored with our own thoughts and opinions.

The underlying concept of karma, is very simple. It’s cause and effect. That’s it. But where karma get’s confusing to some is when we have to factor in all karma into the equation. Karma is not personal. Thinking that karma is personal reinforces ego and flies in the face of the teachings on emptiness which tell us that no one thing exists independently. This is not to say that karma you generate will not effect you. It most certainly will. But what I am saying is that karma you generate will have an effect on tons of other situations, many not directly related to you.  By the same token, karma generated by other beings will have an effect on you too.  Here is the mystery of karma.  In order to figure it all out, you have to be able to comprehend the intertwining of all the karma being generated by all beings and how it effects the specific situation you are being confronted with at the present time.  We can pretty much all agree this is impossible.  So the point to remember is that karma “is what it is”, nothing more, nothing less.

Just as water, when you don’t stir it will become clear, so with mind, when it is left unaltered, it will find its true peace.

I’m often asked about what books on Buddhism I would recommend, so I decided I’d jot down my favorite Top 10 books on Buddhism.

1. Turning the Mind Into An Ally – Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche – I feel like this is probably the best book for beginning meditators.  It shows not only the how, but the what (happens) and the why (it happens).
2. Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism – Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoch – I talk to soooo many Buddhists who say this was the first book they read on Buddhism and it truly hit home.  With a track record like that, it has to be on my list.
3. Essence of the Heart Sutra: The Dalai Lama’s Heart of Wisdom Teachings – His Holiness The Dali Lama – This is my favorite book on the Emptiness teachings of the Heart Sutra.  The Emptiness teachings are some of the most complicated in Buddhism, but this book is the ‘A Brief History Of Time’ for these teachings.  They are made remarkably accessible.
4. The Tibetan Book Of Living and Dying – Sogyal Rinpoche – A book on death doesn’t seem like it would be that appealing unless you are faced with it in some form or fashion, but Sogyal Rinpoche takes these ancient teachings and makes them relevant in modern times.  A handbook for the terminal, the caregiver or those who just want to understand, this is a wonderful guidebook.
5. Turning Towards Liberation:  The Four Reminders – Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche – I think this little book is out of print, but if you find it used or someone not using a copy, grab it.  Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche explains the Four Reminders in an extremely clear, concise manner.  If you’ve never read it, read it!  If you’ve read it, read it again!
6. Comfortable With Uncertainty – Pema Chodron - This little gem was a gift to me when I took refuge vows and formally became a Buddhist, but I don’t think that’s why I find it so special.  It’s 108 little 2-3 page teachings on numerous aspects of Buddhism as it relates to modern life.
   
7. Indestructible Truth – Dr. Reginald Ray – This one appeals to some, and not to others.  Dr Reggie Ray is a Professor of Buddhist Studies at Naropa University and this is basically a text book he wrote.  It reads very much like a text book, very academic, but Hiniyana and Mahayana Buddhism are covered beginning to end.  I, like me, you are comfortable reading academic type books, this is a must.  Just the sheer volume of history and teachings discussed are incredible
8. Zen Mind, Beginners Mind – Suzuki Roshi - Suzuki Roshi was one of the first people to bring Buddhism to the West, and this is considered one of his best work.  This book about understanding your own mind is a must no matter what flavor of Buddhism you practice.
9. Born In Tibet – Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche – This book chronicles the life of Chogyam Trungpa through his escape from the Chinese invasion of Tibet.  The story is interesting and exciting and seeing how Chogyam Trungpa conducts himself in the various situations he’s confronted with is a teaching in itself.  When I need a break from the more formal Buddhist study and just want some adventure (with some teachings sprinkled in) I re-read this one.
   
10. Cave in the Snow:  Tenzin Palmo’s Quest For Enlightenment – Vicki Mackenzie – Vicki Mackenzie (Tenzin Palmo) is an English woman who, after becoming interested in Buddhism, went to meditate in a cave in the Himilayas for 12 years.  This is her story.

I’m sure there are some arguments from some folks and that’s ok.  There’s tons of great Buddhist books out there and these just happen to be mine on this particular evening.  If you want to add to the list with your favorite book.  Drop it in the comments sections.  I’d love to hear some other ideas.

I was searching my shelves for some information today and thought it might make a decent picture for my ‘Project 365′ shot for today.  This is a portion of one of about 15 shelves I have with Buddhist books/texts.

I was able to catch a great show for the second time the other night and it got me thinking I should gin up a post, since it’s been awhile. The show I’m talking about is Bill Moyers interview with Pema Chodron on PBS. As is usual with these types of situations, Pema touched lightly on a number of topics and covered nothing too in depth, but it was a pleasure to see an interviewer take a real interest in understanding what she had to say instead of the usual ‘I have to interview another Buddhist kook’ that pervades so much of regular TV. Also as usual, listening to Pema sparked me to talk a little bit about something she touched. Today, that’s groundlessness.

So let’s talk a little bit about groundlessness. We often hear the term used in Buddhist texts, especially from modern Buddhist authors, like Pema, but what exactly is it? From a Buddhist perspective, groundlessness is the state you enter when something that you hold to be true, basic or solid, turns out not to be. This may be a slightly ‘stiff definition and I’m sure as we go along, we will loosen it up a bit, but it seems like a pretty good place to start.

Lets start with what we might consider the ‘negative’ aspects of groundlessness. These can be seen in our insecurity or embarrassment. The death of a loved one can leave us feeling groundless. I’ve lost both parents, and several close friends in the past few years and each time, learning of their deaths left me groundless, at least for a few moments. Likewise, learning we have a grave, possibly fatal illness can send us reeling into groundlessness. These two are fairly strong, but groundlessness doesn’t have to be. Let’s say that there is coffee shop we have gone to every morning for the past 10 years. One morning we show up only to discover that they have suddenly gone out of business. In all of these situations there is that moment when our breath is taken away and time seems to stand still for a moment because that which we ‘knew to be true and solid’ suddenly isn’t. One of the four reminders (see another entry) tells us that change is inevitable. All things will change yet we still lean on things as if they are solid and unwavering.

As with all phenomena, groundlessness not only manifests itself in what we foolishly classify as ‘negative’, but also what we can foolishly classify as positive. Becoming a parent for the first time. This is a wonderful thing, but still, all you know to be true solid and normal has just been ripped away. The rug has been pulled out from under you. Your safety net is gone. Groundlessness can be seen in our awe and wonder. You may even take it down to gazing at a beautiful piece of art for the first time that seems to freeze you for just a moment. We may be viewing the northern lights for the first time, or hearing a Mozart symphony or the gazing at the first snow of the season. These could also be a moment of groundlessness.

I say we ‘foolishly’ classify these as positive and negative because we must understand that this classification, if accurate at all, is only accurate from a particular perspective at a particular time. Examination by others may yield a different opinion. Even an examination of our own at a later time will completely change the outlook. For instance, your mate announces that they are breaking up with you. At the time, we are obviously going to feel groundlessness and are probably going to classify it negative. But a year later, we may look back and say that ‘it was the best thing that ever happened’ to us. It’s the same event, just a different perspective. Hence, I try to avoid classifying groundlessness, as positive or negative. (I feel the same with karma, but that’s for another discussion.) Like everything else, our classification will change. Now lets get back to the meat of the matter, groundlessness itself. Being grounded is a pure reflection of ego. Being grounded keeps ego safe, or better yet, feeling safe. Being grounded is ego’s connection to reality. When we experience groundlessness, our ego’s connection is momentarily broken. Now if we think about it, the definition of ego has to do with our dualistic separation of ‘me and other’. Ego’s frame of reference has to sit there. There can be no concept of ego or ‘me’ without a concept of other.

So when we experience groundlessness, we are actually having ego drop away momentarily. We say that ‘the rug has been pulled out from under us’, but what we really mean is, that which we think defines us (or partially defines us) fails or disappears. We have temporarily lost our definition of ourselves because this definition is based on a perceived relationship to external phenomena. What we have to realize is this is part of the goal! Our comfort with groundlessness, our ability to remain comfortably in a state of groundlessness is, in essence, the whole point of what we are after. Ego cannot be comfortable in a state of groundlessness because is loses what defines it. Therefore, maintaining comfort in a state of groundlessness essentially destroys ego. What goes hand and hand with the destruction of ego? A realization of emptiness, which I have talked about ad nauseum in this forum.

So what does all this mean? I would just say that, when you are confronted with groundlessness, whether you perceive it to be positive or negative, simply be like a cork on the ocean, or a kite in the wind and ride with it. In this state, you are likely closer to realization than any other time.