Letters to the Editor
hontonoshijin
Published Letters: 140 Editor's Choice: 14
-
Dear Joan:
[Read the article: Thank you, Rush Limbaugh!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You are exactly right, and the letters in response to your article prove it. Thank you for having the guts to speak the truth, knowing that a blizzard of vituperation would follow, that many letter-writers would indeed find a way to defend such indefensible language, and would, as if to prove your point, engage in it themselves.
I for one would be immensely relieved if at least one online magazine would have the courage to simply ban all letters that engage in ad hominem attacks of any sort against anybody. The world is apparently full of rude blowhards who feel anything they say is justified, but do we have to print them?
-
meditation
[Read the article: Meditation for murderers]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This touches chords in me. Not a child of Berkeley, but of Mississippi Southern Baptists, have nevertheless found my way to zen and yoga (primarily hatha so far, but as you no doubt know, yoga properly seen involves the whole being and is finally training in awareness, self-mastery, and union).
Had a very similar idea about the benefits of yoga for the incarcerated. A way to achieve health and balance which requires inwardness, does not require freedom or a great deal of space or equipment. Still feel this would be a very useful adjunct to meditation.
As for Goenka: Seems unlikely that anyone who claims to be the only inheritor of a tradition whose aim is to free the souls of all could be correct, doesn't it? Never ceases to amaze me how far into the truth some can journey and still entertain illusions of self-grandeur. But that, I suppose, is one of the eternal lessons. In one of the more famous vedic stories, Indra was a god, who should have understood the dependent nature of his existence,and yet he vaunted himself.
The opening days of Vipassana sound very much like zazen--as Kocho Ushiyama explains, you simply sit. You are not doing anything else, heading anywhere else. You sit.
(Do not myself practice zazen--am put off, perhaps to my cost, by its very similar insistence that it is THE way--which is what causes me to reject the fundamentalist Christianism--cannot call it Christianity--of my youth and today's loudmouths).
As for whether "we" owe murderers and the like the right to engage in meditation: "We" neither bestow meditation nor withhold it. It is there for anyone who wishes to use it, although teaching and transmission certainly can shorten the time required and increase the immediate likelihood.
More accurate questions are these: Do I wish to withhold the useful knowledge that will benefit another human? And is self-knowledge ever a bad thing?
-
For dave in India and Shaggylocks
[Read the article: Meditation for murderers]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I said that Vipassana (as described--I have not tried it) sounds like zazen. It does, to me. Did not imply or intend to say that there is only one approach to zazen (it is fairly safe to assume there is more than one approach to any human activity). Nor did I mean to imply that Kosho Uchiyama (in Opening the Hand of Thought, which is where I found his statement) sees zazen as a merely physical act involving no meditation (in that case it would hardly sound like Vipassana to me). I am paraphrasing him, perhaps inaccurately, but his point seems to be the complete involvement of the being in the activity--the refusal to seek outside stimulation, indulge in emotional escape, entertain temporal goals, and so on. Seen this way, zazen is not other than meditation, but a path to the same place.
I do not retract my observation about Goenka claiming to be the sole inheritor. If we define his tradition narrowly enough, perhaps he is. I cannot speak for others, and if his way works for them, well and good.
Nevertheless, human attempts at spirituality are full of similar claims to exclusive authority, and I do not trust any such claim. For me the point is not whether people choose to worship him but what he claims for himself. The story of Indra that I referenced--a version may be found in Joseph Campbell's Inner Space and Outer Space--indicates to me that any human (or indeed divine) claim to such exclusivity is vanity.
These are, I repeat, my conclusions. If you disagree with them, I will not contest you further.
Buddhism itself, like Christianity, has splintered into thousands of sects. I see this as resulting from the frailty of mortal understanding, not from the holy's lack of unity.
In my view, truth and the holy are quite capable of taking care of themselves, and do not require human apologists. Hasten to say I am not the sole proponent of this view.
Agree that the test of any practice is whether it works. The evidence is in the results. It is not so important to say that other practices do not work. In my view (again) the point is union with the holy, not doctrinal prevalence.
Agree with the posters who said that listening to even the finest music or considering the finest science are not the same as meditation. In those and many other of our pursuits--poetry, athletics, visual art--ambition and self-validating behavior are strong components--the notion that the ego does, can master existence. Meditation trains one to become aware of the larger self beyond ego and the body (not so much to obliterate ego, I would say, since, moderated by respect and courtesy, it has its uses, as to perceive it accurately and thus not be blinded by it).