Golfing with the Dalai Lama

Some may respond that FactCheck.org is not objective, but if they aren’t then who is? There’s good and bad in these numbers and, as Fact Check says: “We leave it to our readers to judge how much credit or blame the president deserves for what has happened on his watch, and we caution that no single number or collection of numbers can tell the entire story. What we offer here are some key yardsticks from sources we consider solid and reliable.”

Obama’s Numbers April 2016 Update

— Honoré de Balzac

I read this today, and I’m not sure I am in full agreement.  Granted, there is truth, but does not this discount rich good people?

So, I’m going to get into the political arena again. First, I’m not Catholic and second, I’m not Republican. I’m not defending Trump and I think the current Pope is absolutely marvelous.

However, it feels as though one of Jesus’s greatest teachings was being nonjudgmental. If that’s the case, isn’t the Pope judging the Donald when he alluded to the building of walls issue.

The world takes all kinds, and I can accept that. That doesn’t mean I have to agree or follow, but I don’t think it’s my place to judge whether or not someone is Christian or not. In fact, we all sin, and if that logic holds true, then are there any real Christians?

Quit Slingin’, and start singin’!

• you don’t understand cancer until you or a loved one has it
• you don’t understand a handicap until someone you know has one
• you don’t understand gun control until someone you know gets shot
• you don’t understand being gay until a family member or friend comes out
• you don’t understand homelessness until you’re homeless
• you don’t understand being broke until you are
• you don’t understand not being able to get a job until you can’t
• you don’t understand religions until you have an epiphany

I don’t understand how anyone doesn’t see the need for gun control. After the latest you would think … But some say it’s all about helping the mentally ill and that taking guns won’t solve anything.

IT’S NOT ONE OR THE OTHER. AND IT’S NOT TAKING GUNS, IT’S ABOUT CONTROLLING THE PURCHASING AND USE OF THEM.

I know some will say that limiting gun purchasing won’t make a difference, but this article seems to indicate differently:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-their-guns.html

Here’s some logical thinking from the Connecticut Governor Richard Blumenthal:

• Universal background checks on all gun sales – close loopholes of just applying to Federally licensed dealers (include unlicensed dealers) and the 72-hour incomplete rule.
• Cut down on illegal trafficking of guns.
• Get rid of high-capacity magazines.
• Laws to keep guns out of the hands of those with mental health issues.
• Laws to keep guns out of the hands of domestic violence abusers and to have them surrender their guns.

What will finally change things?  Those that oppose will eventually know a victim before things get changed because that’s when it becomes real.

Please stay accountable in the ballot boxes.

Can we approach this without inflaming the right? It’s not about taking your guns, it’s about reform. How do we solve the mass killings? Giving more guns to people isn’t working.

I keep hearing that, but my question is, would people without guns kill people?

I know that there are a hundred responses to this and some will be hostile, but that’s not what it’s about.

Some think we need to protect ourselves from the government.  We don’t trust the government.

Some think we need to protect ourselves from our neighbors. We don’t trust our neighbors.

Some think we need to protect ourselves from criminals.  We don’t trust … our police force.

I was thinking the other day how much I admire people who can really stand up for what they believe. You know them – the Democrats that post their Hillary images on Facebook; or the Gun Law proponents. They’re actually not afraid to expose themselves. I thought, I wish I could do that, that’s admirable.

But, then I started thinking – how often do those change the minds of people that are in the middle or vulnerable to listening. Probably not too much. And, then, who do you know to trust? For every lie there’s a truth, and for every truth there’s a lie. And, for every half-truth … and so on. You get the picture.

Buddhist philosophy teaches about being in the middle – The Middle Way. Jesus spoke of being accepting. By being proud of our beliefs (to the point of pounding our chests and screaming “We’re better than you are!”) are we not actually further alienating our fellow humans? Aren’t we further separating the extremes – getting farther away from the middle?

Is it doing more harm than good?

If we quit, will we be leaving ourselves open to the lies of the “competition” or those with other views. And, without being held in check, will that mean that everyone will only believe what they are hearing?

Maybe it’s a matter of simply saying what you believe in, and not what others believe in. Speak about what you think is right and why you think it’s right, but without the incendiary provocations, which elicit inflammatory rebuttals. Can it be done. Start first with yourself and see where it goes.

http://www.tricycle.com/insights/selective-wisdom

If we go into “something” with a preconceived idea of what it will be, we could be concealing the truth.

There is another subtler way to understand the trikaya, and it is this understanding that Trungpa Rinpoche taught. He did it in this way.

Stepping to the blackboard, he picked up a piece of chalk and drew this figure.

Then he stepped back and asked: “What is this a picture of?” Of course no one wanted to say the obvious, and there was an extended silence until finally some fellow raised his hand and said, “It’s a picture of a bird.”

Rinpoche replied, “It’s a picture of the sky,” and in those six words he taught the entire trikaya.

From Tricycle Magazine, Spring 2015

“The proper function of a government is to make it easy for the people to do good, and difficult for them to do evil.”
— Daniel Webster

http://www.tricycle.com/blog/china-asserts-control-over-dalai-lama-lineage

This is interesting from several vantage points. What is the ulterior motive? If China doesn’t believe in the religion, then what is the need to control the next Dalai Lama? Could it be more than just political? Maybe – think of a meditative nation used for more dark purposes? We know meditation can change and group meditations on the same thoughts may have even more power … so is it possible that China is simply allotting resources to capture meditative powers in order to use them for its gain? Ironic? Subversive?

This kind of says it all. 😉

Easier said than done to train your mind to desire the silence.
http://www.tricycle.com/blog/fear-silence

http://www.tricycle.com/dharma-talk/breaking-habit-selfishness

Obviously easier said than done, and maybe not something that can be done all the time in our world. But, good practice for daily mediations and life living.

• Live modestly with goods and belongings
• Live in awareness of the environment and its fragility
• Practice kindness
• Maintain creative practice and activity in the arts
• Be faithful to solitude
• Propagate peace in the world and the surrounding communities
• Remain in active communication with other members of the Order

http://www.tricycle.com/practice/way-ryokan

Do we destroy or do we sustain the world? Of all the current worlds and previous worlds, I wonder where we stand? In some ways, is this God’s little game – his way to experience time?

“There is no denying that our happiness is inextricably bound up with the happiness of others. There is no denying that if society suffers, we ourselves suffer. Nor is there any denying that the more our hearts and minds are afflicted with ill-will, the more miserable we become. Thus we can reject everything else: religion, ideology, all received wisdom. But we cannot escape the necessity of love and compassion.” The Dalai Lama

“Attend when you want to; that’s Swigness; the flow into everything and nothingness, whatever you need at the moment you need it; nothing more, nothing less, unless you require more or less of whatever you need.”

I know that there will be those that will point out that there are those in poverty that take advantage of the system; or that for whatever reason they deserve to be there.  But, unless we’ve been in their shoes, we don’t really know what causes this or what their mentality is.  We say we give everyone the chance to succeed, but is that true?  Let’s not take an extreme attitude on this – yes, there is corruption and loopholes, and  yes, there are those that are invalids or in positions where they cannot take care of themselves at all.  Then, there’s the remaining majority that most likely need our help, too.

– Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi, “The Price of Dignity”

– Stephanie Kaza, “Ego in the Shopping Cart”

I saw this today on Tricycle and two things come to mind:

1. I believe people can be helped by others, although the final step is their own.

2. Why is it I try to find fault in someone else’s thoughts?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/20/world/europe/pope-bluntly-faults-churchs-focus-on-gays-and-abortion.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&emc=edit_na_20130919&pagewanted=all&

In times where extremes are the norm (especially in politics), it’s refreshing to see areas that were once thought to be strongholds to be tearing down those walls.

Just another way (metaphor) of explaining that it’s not selfish to take care of yourself first, but maybe the only way to be in a position to help others.  Think of the people that have helped you the most … your mentors.  Were they balanced?  Were there lives in order?  Mostly likely, yes.

Just as a person mired in quicksand cannot help another until he has himself reached firm ground, our ability to help others depends chiefly on keeping our own balance.

– Andrew Olendzki, “Keep Your Balance”

http://www.tricycle.com/thus-have-i-heard/keep-your-balance