Mindfulnista

I’ve been quite enjoying the speculative non-buddhists and their very amusing opinions on the rise of Buddhism in its various forms in the West. One the phrases coined so far is “mindfulnista” which I like very much.

Every person and their dog seems to be sitting on a cushion these days. There are countless courses, books, retreats, audio tracks and even smartphone apps taking people to the wonderful lands of mindful meditation. And there’s a proliferation of teachers too.

So, I thought I’d add my 2c worth of mindfulness teachings to blogland:

1. Find a quiet enough, not too warm, not too cold or draughty spot.

2. Sit comfortably in a way that does not hurt and will not send you to sleep.

3. Close your eyes and breathe naturally.

4. 

5. When you notice yourself thinking, go to step 4.

6. When you notice yourself focusing on a sound or a feeling, go to step 4.

7. When you notice yourself nodding off, open your eyes and keep them open, go to step 4.

8. Do this for 25 minutes, once a day. If you are very keen you could go longer.

There are other techniques out there so shop around but this is the simplest version.

It may help to let go of any expectations as to what sitting around like this is supposed to give you. If you find yourself reading or writing about meditation and its supposed benefits, stop immediately and meditate instead.

The true teachers of Western Buddhism

Having given some thought off and on over the years about this, I have come to the probably belated realisation that this tricky thing called Western Buddhism has been sitting in front of my nose the whole time.

When seeking to find the soul and heart of any tradition, its often best to look to the most popular and beloved teachers. In the west, these are – in no particular order, the following. 

1. Mr Miyagi (from Karate Kid)

2. Yoda (from the Star Wars movies and cartoon franchises)

3. Master Po and Master Kan (from the TV series Kung Fu)

Now, I’m sure there will be a bunch of Western Buddhists (if they see my posts) that might think I am being disrespectful here. But I am not. Most of these stuff they say is really cool and makes complete sense from a dharma perspective. For example, substitute the Dark Side with Samsara and see what you get.

It is from the introductory teachings of these great masters that many in the West have been inspired to explore and in many cases take up Buddhism seriously.

For for those who will scoff at the vehicle, consider the words of Yoda: ”No! No different! Only different in your mind. You must unlearn what you have learned.”

And then he lifts a frickin Y fighter out of the swamp with his Buddhist super-powers. What other master have you seen with your own two eyes do that?

 

An x-buddhist po(l)em(ic)

This is my response to a post in my current favourite buddhist site: speculative non-buddhism. http://speculativenonbuddhism.com/2012/03/01/come-on-x-buddhists-pump-up-the-polemos/

An x-buddhist po(l)em(ic)

Are big thoughts good? are big words good?
If you use big words, does this mean big thoughts?
If you have big thoughts, do you need big words?
Instead of no-self, what about no-words? Or itty-bitty ones anyway.

Actually, not sure what is good.
Like post-inter-subjectivity or permeable-pelatability
I don’t know what they means. But they sounds cool.
Ok, i made them up. That’s ok isnt it?
Isnt everything made up?

Insert fancy po-mo lit-crit word here
about made-upness, inter-connectedness and Marx.
You know you want to.

And if you don’t agree: Foucault!

Pilgrimages

It struck me today that the point of pilgrimages is to create a spiritual happy place one can return to from time to time. I still have strong memories of the Dalai Llama’s temple in McLeod Ganj. Chanting the “om mani padme hum” mantra can often take me right back to festival days I have spent amongst the Tibetan exile community, sipping hot butter tea and eating bread in between long bouts of mantra murmuring. I was happy there. I loved circumambulating the temple and spinning its prayer wheels. I loved watching the old people performing their prostrations. One day, I’ll head back for another visit.

Device addiction

I admit it, I’m addicted to my smartphone.

The impulse to pick it up and check for emails, look through my rss feeds, check out facebook, fact-check some random thing or put a bit more time into a game has pretty much taken over most of my waking life. It’s not too bad at work as I have stuff to do but any free time in between is spent looking at some square inches of LCD.

There has to be much more to life than this – after all seven or so years ago (I was an early adopter), I didn’t have a smartphone.

Just sitting

The last few weeks has brought formal meditation back into focus again. This has been a good thing resulting in me finally starting something I’ve been meaning to for awhile: attending the weekly Monday night sit at Ceres.

The whole outdoor trance festival thing

I wasn’t impressed by Rainbow Serpent this year. I didn’t feel the magic. Actually come to think of it, I probably haven’t felt the magic in some time. Don’t get me wrong, I had a good time – it was a fun party – but that was it. I chalked it down to getting jaded and being tired, having just got back from Vietnam a couple of days before. But I was left thinking that unless something changed, it could be my last Rainbow.

So I decided to go to Maitreya.

Vietnam

I spent most of January in Vietnam. It was my first time there. I will probably never go back although I’ve said that about India and I’m planning my next journey there. Or at least thinking about planning my journey there.

I did have a good enough time in Vietnam however. But I won’t write about the tourist stuff – the food is good blah blah and there are some beautiful bits to it but you can say that about any country.

The most impressive thing about Vietnam is also the reason why I won’t go back: Vietnam is going to be one of the great powers of South East Asia. The mix of competition, innovation, sheer desperation and an unbelievable appetite for work, combined with its young and growing population and proximity to China is going to see this country become richer and more powerful than Malaysia, Thailand and Singapore combined. Only Indonesia, if it ever gets its act together, will rival it. 

This makes for a fantastic economic story but a rather terrible place for a holiday. The pace is frenetic, the cities are crowded and polluted and it feels like every single part of the country is being exploited or developed for some thing. Traditionally, people have planted every piece of arable land however small – this approach has now spread to every conceivable business idea and tourist opportunity.

For the time being, I’m going to stay away. Melbourne has good enough Vietnamese food and I can get its excellent coffee from the shops in Richmond. That’ll do for quite some time.

Grandmother

My grandmother died on Tuesday morning. She was 98 and had been declining for the last three or so years. In the last few months, she had become bedridden and unable to speak. When I saw her three months ago, I was shocked at how much she had deteriorated. She no longer seemed to be there anymore. I knew it was just a matter of time. I hoped for her sake that it would be sooner rather than later. Still, when my father called with the news, I was surprised by how sad I felt.

Occupy Melbourne and the use of public space

Having been quite interested and ambivalent about Occupy Melbourne in the last couple of weeks, a couple of things struck me about the whole “occupying” of public space scenario. It boils down to this:

1. City Square is public space and meant to be used by the public. However, it also needs a guardian so no group can claim it exclusively for their own private use. Also, it needs a coordinator to schedule and timetable when different groups are be able to use the space in a temporary exclusive way. This is common sense and the way we run our public spaces.  The coordinator/guardian of public spaces is a representative of the public, duly elected, and in the case of Melbourne city happens to be the council and the Mayor, Robert Doyle. In his function as the representative of the Melbourne city public, he calls the shots. This is how the system works. If he makes a bad job of it, he gets voted out.

2. Occupy Melbourne, in spite of their claims, do not represent the public in the same way that Robert Doyle does. They are a bunch of people who claim that their grab-bag of issues represents public concerns and are of public interest. Given this and our mostly excellent system of governance, they were able to exercise their right to protest and use City Square for a period of time

3. What right does Robert Doyle have in deciding 6 days and no more? As the Occupy Melbourne people did not apply for a permit to occupy City Square for a set amount of time, someone has to decide when the limit it. He could have consulted more of course but it is, IMO, within his power to set the limit. I generally elect people to lead and make the hard decisions. 6 days IMO is pretty good and is commensurate with other festival or events that take place in the city. (Why do the Occupy Melbourne people need a permit? See point 1)

So, from my perspective, the only thing that is of issue is whether the police exercised undue force in enforcing the law (ie protecting my rights to use City Square without the presence of the Occupy Melbourne people). The discussion around this is healthy and part and parcel of our mostly excellent system of governance. I believe that they could have done things smarter of course. They certainly could have been more sensitive. The ideal police force is un-corrupt, efficient, smart and sensitive. However, given that we live in a less than ideal world, I am happy with a police force that satisfies the first two. Ample warnings were given after all.

4. EDIT: The other thing to also note that the eviction of the people from City Square is often conflated with the stopping of the protest and hence infringing on the rights of the protesters. I think it is important here to distinguish between stopping an illegal method of protest as opposed to stopping an individual’s right to protest. The question here for me is: Is it reasonable for a group of people to permanently or at least indefinitely inhabit a public space as part of a protest? Given that the protest movement has free access to the internet, to private spaces and has the ability and the right to organise other protests in public spaces, I think that it is not reasonable for them to claim a right to monopolise any public spaces indefinitely under the shield of their right to protest.