Master Dogen: A Pragmatic Mind

By: David Xi-Ken Astor, Sensei

It doesn’t take long for anyone new to Buddhist inquiry to encounter the name and lessons of the thirteenth century Japanese Zen Master Dogen. He is referenced all the time in Zen/Ch’an publications today. He is a Zen superstar, and is credited for establishing the Soto Zen school. His work is referenced by both Chinese, Japanese, and contemporary Western Zen Buddhist teachers today as representing how important mindful meditation (zazen) and a common sense approach for a serious practice is. He is very pragmatic in his approach to Buddhist thought. “Useful and productive” seems to be an underling theme throughout his teaching. He, of course, had no notion of the term ‘pragmatic’. While the term has been around for quite a few decades, it is also a modern philosophical construction arising from the American pragmatic movement in the nineteenth and twenty centuries. But Dogen’s path to development of a pragmatic perspective to life, and his subsequent worldview, was one that he cultivated over a period of years, especially in his travels and study in China.

Dogen was one of the major leaders in the Kamakura period’s revitalization of Buddhism in Japan. It was not an immediate consequence of his influence on the cultural changes that took place during this dynamic period in Japanese history, but one that required decades to accomplish. These changes, and the new Buddhist schools that emerged, had either direct or indirect roots in China. These new schools, including what was to become know as Soto Zen, emphasized the practical actions to be undertaken by both lay and monastic students stressing individual practice that was supported by a Sangha open to all. It was no longer just a monastic practice that was required for coming to a realized state of body-mind. What was more important was establishing a strong student/teacher relationship. In order to do this, authenticated teachers were encouraged to make themselves open to those outside the walls of a temple. This was a revolutionary change. In the past, only the best educated and aristocratic families contributed to the monastic communities. In the type of militaristic culture Japan had at the time, it was only possible for the samurai class to participate in the traditional style of education like offered in monastic communities. There were exception, but they were rare. Dogen himself came from an aristocratic family, but early life circumstances provided him a chance to move away from what was expected of him and instead followed his developing awareness that was calling him to step on the spiritual path.

Dogen was driven to find answers to one nagging question, “If we are all enlightened beings, why is it so difficult to achieve this understand?” To get answers that could be useful and productive to his own practice, he decided to travel to China where he thought he would find a teacher that could work with him on this question. He was taking the bull by the horns, and his life would never be the same again. On this first trip to China he stayed for four years and worked on his meditation technique that was stressed in Chinese Ch’an practice over what was emphasized in traditional Japanese Buddhism in the thirteenth century. He experienced a breakthrough that was authenticated by his teacher. When he returned to Japan it was with a new pragmatic approach to practice that was outside conventional structures of his day, and placed emphases on personal experience that acted as the basis for self-realization when combined with a strong zazen practice. Continue reading

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Solitude And The Socially Engaged Monk

By:  David Xi-Ken Astor, Sensei

I speak often about the importance of awakening to how the Four Noble Truths articulate the importance for us to develop the individual as well as social elements of this noble practice we call Buddhism.  We learn how we are, both as persons and as partners, in this web of connections we call life.  As a Buddhist monk that has taken vows to engage others beyond the walls of a temple, it is important for me to confront the realities of the social-self component of my practice.  Without it I do not have much of a Buddhist ministry.  The Buddha emphasized, however, the importance for us to balance our social responsibility with the individual need for our own spiritual renewal.  Siddhartha often removed himself from the everyday activities of the Sangha, and retreated into solitude in order to “recharge” his spiritual energy.  The Ch’an and Zen tradition has a long history of supporting an extended period of retreating into solitude away from all distractions.  This is true in both the East as it is now in the West.

I want to share with you today some thoughts on the nature of this transformative body-mind practice know as “session”, or intentional practice into solitude.  Time or space is not imposed.  It is up to the individual to establish the parameters surrounding the need.  It is always an effect of the causal chain of events that drives the situational aspects of making the choice for withdrawing from social interaction.

Solitude or withdrawal is the state of being secluded or separate from others.  An individual can choose to inter a state of practice of being solitary based on circumstances.  It is an example of situational-practice.  When used at the right time and in the right manner it can have an important role in our spiritual development.

Before his enlightenment Siddhartha Gotama, the Buddha, also spent over six years in extended periods alone in the forests of his ancestral home in what we know today as Nepal.  He was seeking first to understand himself before he could have the wisdom to administer the affairs of others.  That was when he thought his destiny was to govern the region after the death of his father, the King.  That we know now did not happen.  The causal nature of the Universe revealed a different path for him, and we are all the richer for that reality.  Reminiscing on this time many years later he said in the Majjhima Nikaya, “Such was my seclusion that I would plunge into some forest and live there.  If I saw a cowherd, shepherd, grass-cutter, wood-gatherer or forester, I would flee so that they would not see me or me them.”  We know from the many references made in the various Pali Canon that after he attained enlightenment he would occasionally go into solitude.  In the Samyutta Nikaya he is reported as saying, “I wish to go into solitude for half a month.  No one is to come to see me except the one who brings my food.”     Even though Siddhartha came to consider that the fabric of all phenomena-form, including our human one, are interconnected and dependent, it was still vital to withdraw from intentional contact in order to reconnect with renewed vigor.  The notion is that I might be in a room by myself, but I am never totally alone, because all the connections I have with others before I stepped into solitude are never severed, unless that too is an intentional act.   Even then, we are only in a body-mind state of being “alone with others” as Stephen Batchelor puts it. Continue reading

2 Comments

Filed under David Xi-Ken Astor

Transforming Negative Experiences Into The Positive

I would like to share with our readers a response I gave to a question received on the EDIG website about the duel posting on Karma: Where The Ideal Meets The Real.  The question was, “How does one keep positive thoughts when harmed by others?”  Here is my answer:

One thing we must realize about karma is that it has no value until we give it value.  Cause and effect is a universal reality and is pervasive in all things.  Nothing is permanent, even happiness.  The most we might experience is a sustained state of mind that is free from disharmony.  But even that mind state has limits.  It is not unreasonable to assume that bad things happen to good people.  I am not speaking about natural events that is built into our human condition, such as illness, old age, and death.

It takes some practice to see situations separate form their causes, and eventual consequences.  But neither thoughts or actions are without a cause.  There is always a chain of causes.  This starts effecting us before our birth and continues throughout our lives and even beyond our deaths.  When we experience an event, either good or unpleasant, it is natural to ask questions.  The what if game, or the blame game, or the why me game, or the thank-god game.  This especially is what happens when we feel we have been harmed by others.  It may seem more natural if something bad happens as an “act of nature.”  But when it happens at the hand of others, we generally take it personally.  And this is where our practice and a more enounced understanding of how our mind process events comes into Buddhist perspective.  Especially relative to karmic consequences.

It is easy to say that our mind is up to its old tricks trying to justify, rationalize, and find ways to make ourselves feel better.  The real question might be, “Who is harmed here?”  Our everyday-mind (ego) answers me!  Negative karma and positive karma are like seeds.  If either are not planted in soil, will they ever grow?  If they are planted in soil, but given no water, will they grow?  What if they are planted in soil, given water, but never allowed light to reach them, will they grow?  Karma is like seeds.  Causal conditions must be just right in order for them to grow into effects.  Without conditions they will never flourish.  This is why we must always be sure to avoid creating conditions for negative karma to ripen, and instead create conditions only for good karma to grow.  This is most important with our thoughts.  If we identify, nourish, and expand harmful events, either real or perceived, we only continue to harm ourselves.  Harm is a value we give to an event.  Harm retards the feeling of happiness.  When this happens, it growns into resentment and the chance that we will continue the harm by expanding it towards others.  A process that if not checked at the very beginning of an unsatisfactory action, it could quickly get out of hand.

Do you know the problem here?  To much thinking!  Thinking about the past, especially going over bad things that have happened in our minds again and again, serves no purpose.  It is completely useless mental activity.  In fact, it is worse than useless, because it can only harm our happiness.  This is not to mean we should never analyze perceived harmful events in a way to find lessons that adds to our wisdom-file.  This is how a mature Buddhist practice develops insight.  It is the uncontrolled thought constructions that holds on to the negative and labels them harmful.  The mind which gets caught up in useless fantasy and projection is only a self-serving mechanism that has the potential of separating us from others, even if it is clothed with higher purpose.  When we trip on something on our path we did not see coming, we pick ourselves up, maybe apply a band aid to a scratch, and keep walking.   This accident will cause us to be more watchful.  So it is a learning experience.  This is the same with negative causes.  We get up, fix the problem if necessary, and keep walking the path with renewed or additional experiences to add to our wisdom-bag.  We do not hold on to them, we store our experiences for later reference if needed.

Out of every adversity is an equal or greater opportunity.  It is up to us to see through the fog of negative thinking.  It is hard not to think negatively about a harmful experience.  It is that self generated negative thinking we need to abandon.  Another’s harm is only momentary, self inflected negative emotions can last a life time.  Live happy, live with compassion, live with maximum enjoyment, share with others, all these things will override the unhappy.  It is not as important what people do to us, as it is what we do to ourselves that counts.  Because it may effect how we treat others.  Be a duck, let water roll off your back.  When you learn to do that, the water will return to its source eventually.  And that is how karma works, and quacks.

/\ David Xi-Ken Shi

Leave a comment

Filed under David Xi-Ken Astor

Karma: Where The Ideal Meets The Real

By: David Xi-Ken Astor, Sensei

Karma is one of those terms that is in popular use, but interesting enough, not by many individuals that know anything about what it really is.   Most of the time when I encounter the term it is not how I have come to understand it’s meaning at all.  Karma is also know as the law of cause and effect.  As a Buddhist principle, it is know as Dependent Origination, or Relational Origination, or Co-dependent Origination.  So as you see, karma is know by many names.   Buddhism does not own the term.  What is most unusual, is that karma is not unusual at all.  It fact, it is in most moments evident when we know how to look at the world around us.  Karma is seen in action, and also what is behind action.  Karma is not linear, but is multi-directional.  In fact, it might be helpful to consider karma as circular.   When we think about interconnectiveness, we should think that karma effects all points of a single connection, and possibly throughout the net of connections.  When you come to think about it, when we turn on a light, switch on our computers, or turn the ignition key in the car, we demonstrate the karmic consequences of these actions.

Everything in the material world acts in accordance with this law.  Nothing is caused by chance.  Nothing.  This is also the case with our minds.  Every thought we have, every word we say, every intentional action we take, creates a cause.  Over time these causes ripen to become effects.  Time being a relative term.  Our thoughts emerge as words; the words we use can manifest into actions; these actions develop into habits; and our habits hardens into character.  We should watch our thoughts and their results with great care, and let it arise for the compassionate concern for self and others.   Remember the adage: “As we think, so we become.” Continue reading

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Can Metaphysics Stand With Contemporary Science & Technology?

By: David Xi-Ken Astor, Sensei

When we contemplate the tremendous gains science and technological capabilities have given modern man, a capacity to reach beyond the limitations our planet has imposed on the pre-technological age, it might be said that science may be challenging the long held and deeply entrenched notion of the nature of “creation” which has always been based on metaphysical thought, theology, and the development of cultural myths.    That nature being a belief in a “creator-god”.   Once what seemed to be a mystery relative to how the Universe came to be and functioned, may now be explained by our understanding from the study of physics, astronomy, biology, and earth-sciences as well as other academic disciplines.   A good example of impermanence and how change comes to effect the human thought process by the way.  It is still important that we understand that a scientific view of the universe is yet another point of view.

In the 21st century we are not even close to overcoming the universal mysteries, even if it were possible considering the limitations of the human species.  Yet, many are convinced that a good chance exists that science will ultimately resolve enough of the puzzle of the unknown that it would leave very little ground for a god as we have come to define it.  We only need to look at how modern science has narrowed the sphere of influence that religious institutions have enjoyed over the centuries in setting “universal-standards” of how the universe is.    I include some Buddhist tradition’s ancient beliefs that still survive into the modern age.  As we learn more about how science is informing us of how the Universe is, there is little need to look outside of it’s boundaries for spiritual direction.  I personally find the more I understand how science is giving us a better picture of universal realities, my spiritual life is strengthened and my interests in metaphysical explanations is declining.  In fact, I am more suspicious than ever of supernatural experience.  But the big question that all of this engenders is, “can the sciences explain everything?”  Can science and spirituality sit side by side in harmony?

Even as I sit and write this, there are individuals in our government leadership that very recently have disavowed what science is “teaching”, like the big-bang theory or what we can learn from quantum physics, and offer their belief that the earth was only created 9,000 years ago.  They place their worldview on documentation written in the early period of the dark ages.  Then there are theologians and religious leaders that try to reconcile scientific discovery and theory to conform to existing religious text and argue that events like the big-bang if true must have been initiated by a god, or at least an unmoved-mover.  My own thought is that even the big-bang theory will be resolved in ways beyond current science’s ability to understand.  The Buddha always took a pragmatic approach on these issues by just saying it is unknowable and not important in resolving human suffering and how we can contribute to our own positive self-flourishing.  Yet it is interesting that some of the core Buddhist principles associated with Dependent (Relational) Origination comes close to reflect the understanding of quantum theory. Continue reading

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Vows and Duty: Guiding Principles For A Buddhist Monk

David Xi-Ken Astor, Sensei

I generally avoid making a distinction between a lay practice and the refined-life-practice of a Buddhist monk in a public discussion.  While the roles within a Buddhist community and the Sangha leadership may have different aspects and responsibilities, the depth and wisdom between a lay and monastic practice can be much the same depending on individual commitment and capacity for understanding.  From a Western point of view, many contemporary Buddhist teachers avoid defining a Sangha as only a community of monks/nuns, but take a pluralistic position that is inclusive.   This is a useful and productive attitude that recognizes the values imbedded in the principles of our interdependence and interconnectedness.

However, there is an aspect to a life dedicated to the Bodhisattva ideal that is undertaken when one takes formal vows and commits themselves to living as monks, either as temple-monks or itinerant-monks.  The intentional action to submit to a monastic life of purpose is unique and enhances an individual practice beyond a specific defined role.   It is this unique motivation and life that I would like to present today.  I address my thoughts to those individuals that have taken, or are in training to take, the step of professing monastic vows.  Although many of the lessons here can be adopted into a lay practice as well.

First and foremost, becoming a monk (I wish to use the term to include both men and women) is not to adopt a different type of practice from a lay one.  A Buddhist practice, is a Buddhist practice.  Wearing monk robes does not change that.  What makes a difference is “how we are” as we live within the monastic tradition.  Of course having the time to devote to a dedicated practice without some of the worldly distractions is an additional element for a monastic life.  So, the question that arises is, “What makes one a monastic?”   The Christian tradition has a nice answer to this question that revolves around a “special calling and religious vocation.”  We Buddhist generally don’t use these phrases to explain why one comes to understand their desire to become a monk.  Make no mistake though, Buddhist monasticism is a vocation, as it is a human experience reflecting the spiritual dimension, answering a deeper self-awareness that even for me is hard to define.  When we are moved to step onto the monastic path, we must understand just what it is we are committing ourselves to.  “Why” is not as critical as “what” in this case.  So the question expands to, “WHAT makes one a monastic, and WHAT is required of us?”   The answers to these questions are critical to one’s understanding of how their life will change, and how the monastic-practice sets priorities and challenges, as we monks engage our everyday Buddhist practice.

As Buddhism moved West and encountered a culture familiar with monastic traditions (Christian), some assumptions on what a Buddhist monk was were taken for granted.  We Westerners saw robes, ritual, temple buildings, chanting, and deep spiritual characteristics of the few Buddhist monks we came in connect with, that reinforced the idea of “monkness”.   But the difference between Christian and Buddhist monastic practices were not obvious to the casual observer.  It has taken a few decades for the Buddhist monastic structure to find roots in the West, and attract Western men and women to the Buddhist monastic life. Continue reading

Leave a comment

Filed under David Xi-Ken Astor

Karma Is Empty Until It Is Given Value

By: David Xi-Ken Astor, Sensei

I have been thinking a lot recently about karma and how we can learn through our Buddhist practice if it is possible to drive our own karma, or at least, what are we going to do about it.  There is no point in pretending that karma has now become problematic for Western contemporary Buddhism.  If we are honest with ourselves, most of us are not sure how to understand it.  This is something I have become aware of in my own teaching and through group discussions.  Karma has always been an essential element of the core Buddhist principle of mutual-causality, but we may not know how literally it should be understood using today’s language .  Karma is often taken as an impersonal “moral law” of the universe, with a precise calculus of cause and effect comparable I suppose to Newton’s laws of physics.  This understanding, however, can lead to a server case of “cognitive dissonance” for modern Buddhists, since the physical causality that modern science has discovered about the world seems to allow for no such mechanism.

Then again, some important Buddhist teachings make more sense to us today than they did to people living at the time of the Buddha.  What Buddhism has to say about “no-self”, for example, is consistent with what modern psychology has discovered about how the ego and self-nature is constructed.   In some aspects Buddhism can fit quite nicely into contemporary ways of understanding.  But not traditional views of karma.  Of course, this by itself does not disprove anything.  It does, however, encourage us to think more deeply about karma.

There are at least two other problems with the ways that karma has traditionally been understood.  One of them is its unfortunate implications for many Eastern-centric traditional Buddhist cultures, where a split has developed between how the Sangha is defined.  In most of the East, and in many Western Centers as well, the Sangha is considered divided between the monastic community and the laity.  Although the Pali Canon makes it quite clear that laypeople too can achieve an awakening, the main spiritual responsibility of lay Buddhists as popularly understood in the East,  is not to follow a life of purposeful isolation behind walls themselves but to support the monastic’s that do, and by doing so gain merit.  By accumulating merit they hope to attain a favorable rebirth, which for some offers the opportunity to become monks next time around.   From my way of thinking, this approach makes Buddhism into a form of spiritual materialism, because Buddhist teachings are being used to gain material rewards.  The result is that many Sangha’s and their supporters are locked into a co-dependent relationship where it is difficult for either partner to change. Continue reading

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Spirituality In The Modern Age: A Buddhist Perspective

By: David Xi-Ken Astor, Sensei

Buddhism is one of the oldest spiritual traditions who’s foundational teaching stresses the importance of experiencing aspects of man’s behavior that promotes human flourishing.  Yet, a large portion of Buddhist thought encompasses the philosophical and psychological nature of man and may be lacking in direct and useful language of what “spiritual” means when we strip it of the mystical and metaphysical.  It is way to easy to find Buddhist practices that touch on the mystical, or even magical components in the legacy teachings as they have been handed down from the medieval mindset.  This is to be expected, but does not make it any easier to find contemporary language that expresses the “spiritual” in agnostic existential terms.  There are aspects to Buddhism that many find attractive, especially those that promote harmony in how we live our life among others in engaged activities, and the importance placed on meditation practice.  Buddhism also fits nicely in our modern age that promotes the pragmatic and pluralistic view that supports the notion that we never accept anything on the authority of others alone, but on what we can eventually understand from our own verifiable experiences.  Without this direct experience our practice is one of blind faith.

This attitude toward reality is inherent in modern thinking.  Buddhism does not require anyone to believe anything that they can not rationally understand.  Buddhism is not a faith-based religion for those with a serious study practice.  Individuals should only hold as reliable what they can confirm through experience.  Siddhartha spoke often about the danger of holding opinions with such strong and unyielding force that they could not be subject to change, as this can become another form of attachment.  Buddhism is not an otherworldly practice but remains grounded in universal realities.  Thus the importance Buddhists places on living in the moment and not expecting the future to be neatly defined, as things never happen the same way twice.  All this we know after just a short time in Buddhist study and practice, especially if you are guided by a teacher.  Buddhism is very practical and provides a discipline for the body-mind that has the potential to awaken us to how we are, and how the universe is wonderfully mutually interconnected.  It does not just say “have compassion for others”, but shows us how living a life aware of our place in our world is a path away from unsatisfactoriness.  This is because it is practical and not ideal.  A Buddhist practice is found at the intersection where the ideal meets the real.

None of this, however, effectively defines what the “spiritual” component is unless you want to define all Buddhism to be a spiritual practice.   One can do this of course, but that does not work for me.  Buddhism has three basic dimension: the philosophical, the psychological, and the spiritual.  We take this approach as it helps in breaking up the teaching characteristics associated in Buddhist literature.  But it is proved difficult when we are left with trying to achieve what could be considered a comprehensive definition of the spiritual.   It is both a dilemma and a paradox, especially when most of us can come up with a definition of some sort.  When we really try to nail it down, however, we come to realize the complexity of the task.

The term spirituality has had a long and diverse history, especially in the Christian traditions.  In many ways, this is a part of the problem as many try to associate the Christian spiritual thought and struggle to bring them into their Buddhist practice.  From a Buddhist point of view, spirituality can be  defined as the “human quest for personal meaning and mutually understanding of the relationships we have with others, the environment, and the universal.”  As Buddhists we avoid language suggesting mention of a god, or concerns associated with the non-mutual causal nature of creation.  This leads us away from the Christian notion of the spiritual, but does not act as a clear understanding either.  It is just a definition that sounds good.  It is also interesting that the core existential phrase “existence before essence” can be used to support either a Christian interpretation of creation (Creator), as can an agnostic or atheist universal view.  The challenge is in the interpretation of the word “existence”. Continue reading

1 Comment

Filed under David Xi-Ken Astor

Considerations On Taking Refuge: But Refuge In What?

By:  David Xi-Ken Astor, Sensei

In all Buddhist traditions taking refuge in the Three Jewels (Buddha, Dharma, Sangha) is the first step in becoming a Buddhist.  But what does “taking refuge” really mean?  The Webster’s University Dictionary defines ‘refuge’ to mean: something to which one may turn for help, relief, or escape.  OK, I can understand this when I consider the Dharma, and even the Sangha, but how am I to consider taking refuge in someone that is dead?  After all, the Buddha was Siddhartha Gotama, a man that lived, taught, awakened to Universal reality,  and flourished 2500 years ago.  Just what am I taking refuge in?  Is the Buddha still alive somehow?

The challenge for any Buddhist teacher when presenting Buddhism to new students is to avoid unconsciously creating an insurmountable barrier between the Buddha as reflected in Siddhartha’s legacy teachings that point to the dharma, and an abstract metaphysical persona of an idealized Buddha as reflected in the iconography created from the mind of man.  When we look at the various Buddhist traditional schools practices today, it sometimes is hard to see the man that lived in India with a large following of both lay and monastic disciples, growing up a Hindu with a life of privilege with a young wife and child,  giving practical lesson on how to live a life full of meaning and wonder for the world around them, begging for food and shelter as he did, that died after a long life in his 80’s leaving behind a foundational philosophy and worldview that is as relevant today as it was 25 centuries ago.  In his place we often find in legacy as well as contemporary language a semi-divine being who is visualized as bearing numerous extraordinary physical characteristics, and whose life is described in fantastic mythical imagery.  The essentially human element of the Buddha is dissolved in an impressive, but humanely unobtainable, idealized state of being.  Considering this abstract image, the man slowly fades away and dies.  And something altogether different emerges.

Most people who study Buddhism are familiar with the awakened teachings of Siddhartha; the teachings of the Four Noble Truths, the doctrine of not-self, the principles of interdependence and Dependent Origination for example.  Fewer people are also aware that Siddhartha spoke often and with  a compelling argument on a wide range of social and economic issues of his day that impacted governments, politics, and the difficulties involved in seeking social justice, as well as on personal relationships.  That his teachings extends so dynamically into “right action” indicates that the Buddha’s wisdom can be appreciated not just in monasteries but also on the streets and in our homes in the 21st century.  As we navigate the moral and ethical dilemmas of modern life, the Buddha’s teaching can provide a way to see our way home.  Stepping onto the Buddhist path can transform that navigation into something wondrous.  For you see, we are given a change to see the life of the Buddha, as our own. Continue reading

Leave a comment

Filed under David Xi-Ken Astor

Developing The Art Of Questioning

By: David Xi-Ken Astor, Sensei 

I often speak about the pragmatic and existential importance of validating the information we are learning through direct experience.  In that way we come to really “know” something, which is about gaining knowledge.  Now I would like to expand on that by sharing with you some of my thoughts on journeying through the unknown, and using the skill of questioning.  For you see, questioning is an element of the art of practice.  If we do not question our experiences as they unfold though the various situations we find ourselves in, there will be very little change in our worldview, and without change we are just treading water.  And when that happens in the middle of the ocean, given enough time, we will tire and drown, or the sharks will find us.  The same is also true in our practice.  Questioning is mental action that when done skillfully will lead to awakened moments.   All Buddhist teachers encourage questioning, because without questions, we have no idea where you are in your training and understanding of Buddhist thought and doctrine.  Questioning is a sign of an active mind, silence is another form of emptiness.  That can be either good, or not, depending on the wisdom of the act of silence.  In a training situation, silence is always unexpected.

As we progress along our life’s journey, it’s difficult to avoid encountering some of the perplexing challenges we humans have confronted again and again.  Many of these experiences are related to the big questions that have always confounded the human mind for centuries.   This was the driving force that propelled Siddhartha on his quest for universal understanding over 2500 years ago.  The big questions are still the same as they were for the Buddha, Socrates, Plato,  Aristotle, Aquinas, Kant, Mills, and all other philosophers both Western and Eastern.  These are human questions, no matter what side of the world you stand on.

These big questions our serious ones.  Yet, popular cultural views of some want to focus on cracking the enigmas like the Da Vinci code.  But thank goodness, we also have others that have devoted their lives in bringing into reality the genetic codes that might lead to finding cures for disease.    And what about us?  We can work on breaking through our personal identity codes and develop even stronger characters, with integrity, ethics, and social values.   We can work on breaking through the barriers of other enigmas of our everyday life.  In every moment we work for our own liberation. Continue reading

Leave a comment

Filed under David Xi-Ken Astor