The Plum Trees

Such richness flowing
through the branches of summer and into

the body, carried inward on the five
rivers! Disorder and astonishment

rattle your thoughts and your heart
cries for rest but don't

succumb, there's nothing
so sensible as sensual inundation. Joy

is a taste before
it's anything else, and the body

can lounge for hours devouring
the important moments. Listen,

the only way
to tempt happiness into your mind is by taking it

into the body first, like small
wild plums.

This is the poem I would like read at my funeral service.

In Blackwater Woods

Look, the trees
are turning
their own bodies
into pillars

of light
are giving off the rich
fragrance of cinnamon
and fulfillment,

the long tapers
of cattails
are bursting and floating away over
the blue shoulders

of the ponds,
and every pond,
no matter what its
name is, is

nameless now.
Every year
everything
I have ever learned

in my lifetime
lends back to this: the fires
and the black river of loss
whose other side

is salvation,
whose meaning
none of us will ever know.
To live in this world

you must be able
to do three things:
to love what is mortal;
to hold it

against your bones knowing
your own life depends on it;
and, when the times comes to let it go,
to let it go.

What I realized, and it seems so simple to me as I'm writing this, is that veganism isn't actually a Buddhist teaching. At least not directly.

For me, veganism and spiritual practice are inexorably linked. I came to veganism because for the five precepts. I took it to heart the they should apply to all sentient beings, animals and humans alike. For me, the link is clear and obvious: skillful application of the precepts necessitates being vegan. And I think in a sense, I've really been holding it against my fellow practitioners for not having this same view.

Here's the thing, though: Veganism as a concept is in its infancy. It's less than a hundred years old. Buddhism is over two thousand years old. Talking about veganism in the context of human life as it was 2500 years ago doesn't make a lot of sense. It particularly doesn't make a lot of sense as differentiated from vegetarianism, for which there is conflicting directives about within the Buddhist cannon (in so much as there isn't an overwhelming agreement that there is evidence that vegetarianism was mandated by the Buddha).

Today, however, 56 billion (land) animals a year are breed and killed for use as food. This number doesn't include the scores of marine life we also kill for food, and animals we kill for clothing, lab experiments, etc. The animal products we consume as food are not required to thrive, but consumed for pleasure and convenience. Unfortunately for us, this pleasure and convenience is also killing us (read Eat to Live and the China Study if you are unclear about this).

It is important to distinguish strict vegetarianism (vegan) from non-strict vegetarianism now (as opposed to during the Buddha's time) because the way we treat animals today is nothing like how animals were treated when the Buddha was alive. Under our system of industrialized animal agriculture, meat, cheese, eggs and other animal products are indistinguishable from one another in terms of the amount of suffering they inflict. I firmly believe that if the Buddha were around today, he would teach veganism. Some Buddhist teachers, like Thich Nhat Hanh, already have switched to being vegan and are encouraging their students to do likewise.

However, Buddhism can't be separated from the cultures in which it is practiced. In reality, a great number of Buddhists are vegetarians, but many are not and even fewer are vegan. And this has been the case for a very long time. Some Buddhist traditions, like Chan, are more vegetarian-leaning than others. Practitioners in my lineage (Zen) are particularly known for being omnivores.

My point is that I can't really expect anything more from my Sangha, including my teachers, than what is clear and present in Buddhist teachings and traditions. And, unfortunately, veganism isn't one of those things. What I now understand is that a practitioner can be wise, compassionate, and mindful and be an omnivore as well.

Am I still saddened that I don't know a lot of Buddhist teachers who are vegan? Yes, I am. Do I wish more Buddhist practitioners would include all sentient beings in their skillful application of the precepts and thereby practice veganism? Yes, I do. Do I think that people, Buddhist and otherwise could be even more compassionate by practicing veganism? Yes. But I no longer expect this simply because someone is Buddhist. And I feel less anger and resentment towards Buddhists who are not vegan.

But I have also recognized that because veganism is at the foundation of my spiritual life, I need a spiritual guide who is herself vegan. So, I will continue my search for one. In the meantime, I feel better at the idea of practicing again with my mostly non-vegan sangha. Though, I think I will still avoid shared meals (particularly ones of celebration).

I do think that Western Buddhism, as young a veganism itself, has a tremendous opportunity to bring greater compassion to the world through veganism. I look forward to spreading vegan education to my sangha members (far and near, Buddhist and otherwise).

In browsing online for reactions to the Prop 8 decision, I've noticed several complaints by folks who voted for Prop 8 about having their vote overturned. They seem to think that they had their rights trampled on.

But, no where in the Constitution does it say that the majority has a right to deny rights to the minority.

We do not have a direct democracy. We have a representative democracy on which our founders put in place several checks and balances in order to ensure that no one component of our democracy became too abusive in its power. We have Congress, the Executive, the Judiciary and the People. Each can influence and check the other. This is not a liberal idea. This is a fundamental part of the Constitution.

Furthermore, Judge Walker is a conservative, Republican judge. His decision is based in a conservative reading of the constitution. It was not a liberal, "activist" decision, as I'm sure many will want to label it.

Our Constitution put into place checks so that no one majority would be able to exert tyranny over another minority. That is was Judge Walker corrected yesterday. The system worked as it should. This is not a case of the government taking too much power and intruding in to people's lives. In fact, it is the opposite.

From the NYTimes[1]:

The judge easily dismissed the idea that discrimination is permissible if a majority of voters approve it; the referendum’s outcome was “irrelevant,” he said, quoting a 1943 case, because “fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote.”

Removing discrimination regarding the State privileges conferred by "marriage" does not, according to any rational argument, threaten those who want to believe that marriage should only exist between a man and a women. You are still free to believe that, to attend a church that abides by that ideal and to teach that to your children. But these are moralistic determinations and, as Judge Walker said in his decision: “Moral disapproval alone, is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and women.”

Moreover, "marriage" is not a fixed idea. It has been changing throughout history and will continue to change as society and people do. Marriage, as we know it now, evolved largely during the advent of agriculture as a way for men to ensure paternity and guarantee the succession of their property through inheritance. Women used to become the property of their husbands after they became married. I doubt "most people" would still want this definition of marriage.

More from the NYTimes:

One of Judge Walker’s strongest points was that traditional notions of marriage can no longer be used to justify discrimination, just as gender roles in opposite-sex marriage have changed dramatically over the decades. All marriages are now unions of equals, he wrote, and there is no reason to restrict that equality to straight couples. The exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage “exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage,” he wrote. “That time has passed.”

Someone commented to me on Facebook that: "Most people are more concerned about the maintaining the definition of marriage then preventing people from having equal rights."

Now, I'm not sure how that person knows what motivated "most people" to vote for Prop 8. Let's say it is true that they were most concerned with preserving the definition of marriage, as they see it. I get that change is scary. But fear of change does not justify denying rights to others. Enacting Prop 8 and other discriminatory laws does real damage to real people and it's not okay. Voting simply based on one's own fears and interests without regard for the effect on others, in my opinion, is not responsible citizenship.

I don't hate those who vote for laws like Prop 8, but I am disappointed in those decisions. They were either made out of fear, or an outright moralistic determination that there is something wrong with LGBT couples. As I said above, neither is a valid reason for denying rights to others.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/opinion/05thu1.html?_r=1

Powered by Twitter Tools

Powered by Twitter Tools

Powered by Twitter Tools

@wwjimd hehe, actually I will send you a code later tonight in reply to wwjimd #

@abraham ah, bummer! (not for the family vacation of course perhaps we'll see you next year... in reply to abraham #

Powered by Twitter Tools

Powered by Twitter Tools

Powered by Twitter Tools

Powered by Twitter Tools