Democrats' Continuing Disgrace

Congressman John Conyers, Chairman of the House Judiary Committee, continues to be the most significant Democratic gatekeeper preventing serious consideration of impeachment. In this he is apparantly doing the bidding of Speaker Pelosi for political points. Impeachment supporters and activists in the group Code Pink along with Cindy Sheehan have even gotten arrested attempting to publicize Conyers' stubborn refusal to allow consideration of impeachment.

Now, Jean Damu and Alona Clifton come to the defense of John Conyers with another unfortunate example of the phenomenon that occurs when people who identify themselves by race and color close ranks to protect themselves against criticism from others who they don't identify with. Demu and Clifton are attacking the legitimate criticism of Conyers' failure to be a profile of couage as "racism." This kind of turning the defense into the offence has now become itself a classic neo-racist tactic. One has to give Damu and Clifton credit for the adroit use of rhetoric to turn a discussion of impeachment in to thier racist attack on the so-called "white left."

In a gutsy demonstration of idiotic logic, Damu and Clifton state that Conyers's should be excused "because he determined the political will did not exist within
Congress to impeach the president." Excuse me!? They then go on to claim what a great congressman Conyers is because every year -- even knowing the political will does not exist within Congress to approve a reparations bill -- Conyers introduces the bill (this year H.R. 40) anyway. If Conyers can introduce a reparations bill every year knowing it will fail, then certainly Conyers can introduce an impeachment bill one time knowing that this is the one and only time it can be introducedwhether it fails or not!

Damu and Clifton even ask "What does impeaching George Bush have to do with ending
the war in Iraq?" Well, if that is not obvious to them, then they have no business writing political commentary at all. Either they are deaf and blind or they are just plain pretenders of ignorance.

Sorry, but not every criticism of an African American is racist and not this one either. And Camu and Cliftons' dumb remarks only prove the speciousness of their racist attack. Turning the valid criticism of Conyers cowardice into a racial issue is just unconscionable.

Every one of Conyers' excuses for why he won't proceed with impeachment are just plain lame and bogus, especially in the face of the public support for impeachment, much less considering that it is just the right thing to do to defend the Constitution whether or not the majority of the House recognize it. Let the majority of Gongress vote against it if that is the legacy of history that they want to leave. Today, however, it is Conyers and the Democratic leadership, especially Speaker Pelosi, who are leaving the legacy of failure to defend the Constitution and ultimately just setting the stage for future presidents to act as Bush has done!

For another critique see

Gregory Wonderwheel

The Democrats'. Disgrace

The President has commuted the sentence of convict Scooter Libby so that Libby won't have to do the prison time he was sentenced to do. The Democrats are crying "Discrace!", but it is the Democrats who bear the responsibility for this most recent discrace.

Since the Democrats have refused to charge Bush with his crimes of starting wars based on lies, why shouldn't the criminal Bush commute the sentence of his convict henchmen? The Democrats have let it be known that Bush can do what he wants and the most they will do is whine about it. So what does he care whether the Democrats conplain? If the Democrats had come into office in January 2007 with a bill of impeachment Bush would never have felt he could interfere with Libby's sentence. It is the Democrats' disgrace that they have let Bush have a free pass and not impeached him. This is what they get for it.

Does anyone really believe the official conspiracy story of 9/11?

Okay, I'm coming out as a 9/11 doubter. Do I know what happened on 9/11? No. But I can say with a deep sense of certainty that the official conspiracy story presented by George Bush and the Republican controlled and whitewashed "9/11 Omission Report" is as phony as the whole "War on Terror"!

I don't feel I need to go on much about the facts that make the whole story fake. But my favorite questions are these.

(1) Why haven't all the closed circuit TV videos from the Pentagon been released? Why was the hole in the Pentagon so small? Why was there no evidence of the wings of a large airliner hitting the face of the building? Where was the plane's debris, including the tail?

(2) What made building WTC 7 fall? Why did the BBC announce the fall of the building before it happened? Why did the leaseholder say he gave the okay "to pull the building"?

(3) What happened to the debris of Flight 93 in Pennsylvania? How could a large airliner disappear into a 15 foot crater leaving no large parts since it has never happened in history before? Why did United Airlines say flight 93 landed in Cleveland and now there is no explanation of what plane really landed there if it was not flight 93? Why did Cheny say Flight 93 was shot down?

(4) Why do the photos of the WTC 1 & 2 wreckage show the characteristic diagonal sliced vertical support beams known to be caused by "shaped charges" used in building demolition?

(5) How did the so-called hijackers know to attack on 9/11 the very same day NORAD was doing a simulation of an attack by planes going into buildings? Why weren't the jets scrambled? What did Cheney mean when he said his orders had not been changed when he was told the planes were 30-, then 20-, then 10-minutes away? Why was Cheney put in charge of the order to shoot down hijacked jets only a couple months before 9/11 when before that it had always been a military decision?

Really, it goes on and on....

Here's a sampler of links to YouTube questions about 9/11.

9/11 - Flight 93 Witness
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPGL9XimWCs

Flight 93 landed in Ohio?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sueAQB3fjqo

9/11 Flight 93 Rare Footage
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZekosYOmXc


9/11 CONSPIRACY - DONALD RUMSFELD SAYS FLIGHT 93 SHOT DOWN
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFuUGEZ39g8

9/11 CONSPIRACY - THE SCRIPTED BBC JUMPS GUN ON BUILDING # 7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oNhbsJ81Q4


BBC REPORTED WTC - 7 COLLAPSED 20 MINUTES BEFORE IT FELL!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqqhX8gkhE0

BBC Reported Building 7 Collapse 20 Minutes Before It Fell
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc

9/11 Coincidences:
Part One
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Odp1FO0Vmuw
Part Two
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7BSt9jhxPQ
Part Three
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pd8B-8Au-Wk
Part Four
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rQ8_Qy0zp8
Part Five
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3JmXQ-z8S4
Part Six
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=em_XyTeNA1g
Part Seven
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ9BofDUXv0
Part Eight
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uNbKJofv3c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JithuVAIb7Y
Part Nine
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHJHAp49Lh8
Part Ten
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZVHsrncd3Y

9/11 Pentagon Strike, Flight 77 did NOT hit the Pentagon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rgyq2H7PpO0

9/11 Pentagon Strike, Flight 77 did NOT hit the Pentagon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rgyq2H7PpO0

9/11 CONSPIRACY: DAMAGE TO THE PENTAGON JUST DOESN'T ADD UP ("Hunt the Boeing")
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArcFnPCuS3k

Maj General Stubblebine Support 911 Conspiracy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUs2KFpbt9I

911 Truth Movement Press Conf - Victim's mother asks questions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oT83IjUV0bQ


You can spend a whole day just viewing 9/11 video at YouTube.

Enjoy. "The Truth Is In Here."

Is “Magic” There in the Heart Sutra?

Well, of course there is magic in the Heart Sutra, in the sense there is magic in a sunset, a mountain stream, bird’s call, a blade of grass, a child’s smile, a dew drop, etc. But does the word “magic” appear in the Heart Sutra, that most pithy of Buddhist scriptures? This question has come up for me because I was recently reciting the Heart Sutra in English with a Zen group using Red Pine’s translation of the Heart Sutra in which he translates the relevant passage describing the Heart Sutra's mantra as: “You should therefore know the great mantra of Prajnaparamita, the mantra of great magic, the unexcelled mantra, the mantra equal to the unequaled, ....” [fn. 1.]

When I read “the mantra of great magic” I cringed. Is the Heart Sutra a mantra of great “magic”? The definition of magic is "1 a : the use of means (as charms or spells) believed to have supernatural power over natural forces b : magic rites or incantations 2 a : an extraordinary power or influence seemingly from a supernatural source b : something that seems to cast a spell : ENCHANTMENT 3 : the art of producing illusions by sleight of hand." [fn. 2]

My connotations to the word “magic” don’t correspond with the meaning and wisdom of the Heart Sutra. As I see it, supernatural powers are not part of the Heart Sutra. And for me, magic, when not taken as a supernatural power, is the third sense of the word as what is done my magicians to fool people. Magic is illusion. The Heart Sutra is not a gospel or mantra of “great illusion.” The Heart Sutra is one of the Prajna Paramita Sutras whose essential purpose is to expose the truth about illusion, about the artificial magic of the wizard behind the curtain, the house builder of the house of illusions, as Buddha says in the Dhammapada, “I see you, oh Housebuilder...” As I see it, to call the Heart Sutra “a mantra of great magic” is just the same as calling Buddha “a great magician.” In Zen parlance this kind of language is quite acceptable as a faux-insult, but should that type of Zen idiom be used in the translation of a Buddhist sutra? I don’t think so.

And in fact, that Zen idiomatic usage is not the sense of the term “magic” that Red Pine is using. He is putting forward the word “magic” as the legitimate translation of the Sanskrit term “vidya”. The Sanskrit for the passage (as translated by Red Pine above) is “tasmaj jnatavyam prajnaparamita mahamantro mahavidyamantro anuttaramantro asamasamamantrah,...” Here are a few translations of the phrase “mahavidyamantro” that Red Pine translates as “the mantra of great magic”: “the Great Wisdom Mantra” (by Zuio H. Inagaki), “the Mantra of great knowledge” (by Georg Feuerstein), “the mantra of great knowledge” (by Thupten Jimpal for the Dalai Lama’s book on the Heart Sutra.), “the mantra of great knowledge” (by Donald S. Lopez, Jr.), “the spell of great knowledge” (by Edward Conze), “great clear charm” (Dr. Michael E. Moriarty), “the mantra of great wisdom” (from Sunrise magazine, December 1996/January 1997 by Theosophical University Press), “the great bright mantra” (by Mu Soeng Sunim).

Thus in the above examples the word vidya is rendered into English as “knowledge” (most frequently), “wisdom,” “clear,” and “bright.” The Chinese translation of the Sanscrit vidya (which is used in the Japanese version of the Heart Sutra) uses the ideograph 明 ming2 (J. myo, Unicode: U+660E) which means, “[1] bright; light; brilliant [2] clear; understandable; [v] clarify; understand; obvious; evident [3] intelligent; clever [4] eyesight; seeing faculty [5] day; daybreak; dawn [6] [v] state; show; assert [7] next (day or year)” [fn. 3.] That is why some translations relying on the character ming will translate the word as “clear,” “light”, “bright,” or “brilliant” which are not found in the Sanskrit meaning of vidya.

Here is the Cologne Digital Sanskrit Lexicon (CDSL) entry [fn. 4] for vidya:

2 vidyA f. knowledge (cf. %{kAla-jAta-v-}) , science , learning , scholarship , philosophy RV. &c. &c. (according to some there are four Vidya1s or sciences , 1. %{trayI} , the triple Veda ; 2. %{AnvIkSikI} , logic and metaphysics ; 3. %{daNDa-nIti} , the science of government ; 4. %{vArttA} , practical arts , such as agriculture , commerce , medicine &c. ; and Manu vii , 43 adds a fifth , viz. %{Atma-vidyA} , knowledge of soul or of spiritual truth ; according to others , Vidya1 has fourteen divisions , viz. the four Vedas , the six Veda1n3gas , the Pura1n2as , the Mi1ma1n6sa1. Nya1ya , and Dharma or law [964,1] ; or with the four Upa-vedas , eighteen divisions ; others reckon 33 and even 64 sciences [= %{kalAs} or arts] ; Knowledge is also personified and identified with Durga1 ; she is even said to have composed prayers and magical formulas) ; any knowledge whether true or false (with Pa1s3upatas) Sarvad. ; a spell , incantation MBh. Ragh. Katha1s. ; magical skill MW. ; a kind of magical pill (which placed in the mouth is supposed to give the power of ascending to heaven) W. ; Premna Spinosa L. ; a mystical N. of the letter %{i} Up. ; a small bell L. (cf. %{vidyAmaNi}). 1.

Here’s the much more concise entry in Capeller's Sanskrit-English Dictionary [fn. 5]:

3 vidyA f. knowledge, learning, a discipline or science, esp. sacred knowledge (threefold) or magic, spell.

So the word vidya primarily means “knowledge” “learning,” etc., with a minor meaning of magic or a magical skill or tool (e.g., spell or pill). The question arises, whether it is legitimate to use the lesser meaning of “magic” when translating vidya in the Heart Sutra, or is using the word English word “magic” simply the equivalent of mistakenly using the word Sanskrit word for “sexual intercourse” in a reverse translation into Sanskrit of the English word “knowledge”? Certainly vidya includes the meaning of “magic” just as the word knowledge includes the meaning of “sexual intercourse,” but is that the correct meaning? Or has Red Pine wrongly used a minor meaning in the exuberance of translation? Certainly when every other translator who has translated from the Sanskrit has used the word “knowledge” (or a variant such as “wisdom”) and where the translator was not interpreting the Chinese version with the character ming2 and using a variation of “bright” or “clear,” there is a strong reason to question Red Pine’s use of the word magic.

Here’s Red Pine’s explanation of his use of the word “magic”:

The word vidya is derived from vid, “to understand,” and includes every kind of mastery from science to practical arts to magic. Among Buddhists, the term vidya is often used as equivalent to the word mantra because it, too, encapsulates a system of mastery, though one that surpasses the ken of ordinary mortals. But vidya is also distinguished from mantra as referring to the mastery of female deities, while mantra refers to that of male deities. Thus, the term mahavidya (great master/magician) has become an appellation for many of India’s most popular goddesses, including Kali, Tara, Durga, Sarasvati, and Lakshmi (cf. Tantric Visions of the Divine Feminine: The Ten Mahavidyas, by David Kinsley, pp. 57-60). The reason for such usage is that mantras (or vidyas) have the power to give birth to a new state of consciousness. Thus, each of these mahavidyas is associated with a particular form of spiritual awareness and only appears when her mantra is chanted, just as a genie only appears when its magic lamp is rubbed. But not all mantras give rise to such deities, only mantras that possess great magic. In this case, the mantra does not give rise to Prajnaparamita but becomes her womb and thus the source of the greatest of all magic, the appearance of a Buddha. [fn. 6]

While it is true that the magical formulas or incantations are known as Vidya, Mantram, or Dharani the question remains whether the use of vidya in the Heart Sutra is referring to such a magical formula or to knowledge.

The CDSL has an entry for “mahavidya” but it too refers first to a “great science” with the secondary meanings of names for female deities or the plural of a class of personifications of the Shakti female energy of Shiva.

1 mahAvidyA f. a great or exalted science MW. ; N. of Lakshmi1 VP. (= %{vizva-rUpo7pA7sanA} Comm.) ; of Durga1 Ma1rkP. ; of a Mantra Cat. ; pl. of a class of personifications of the S3akti or female energy of S3iva (10 in number) RTL. 187 ; %{-dIpa-kalpa} m. %{-prakaraNa} n. %{-prayoga} m. %{-sAra-candro7daya} m. %{-stava} m. %{-stotra} n. N. of wks. ; %{-ye7zvarI} f. N. (perhaps a form of Durga1) Cat.

Well first, is Red Pine correct to equate the term vidya with “mastery” or “magic” rather than “knowledge”? As the CDSL indicates, vidya is used as an inclusive term that includes the branches of learning and knowledge as well as for knowledge in the whole. Thus, there are four, five, 14, 18, 33 or 64 vidyas, depending on how knowledge is categorized or outlined in one’s taxonomy of learning. But there is no indication that the idea of mastery of that knowledge is assumed in vidya. Thus there is no basis for Red Pine’s preference that mahavidya means “great master” or “great magician” when it actually means “great knowledge” or “great science” (cf. science means “having knowledge” and, like vidya, comes from a root meaning “to know”).

If one presumes, like Red Pine does, that “a mantra is like a magic lamp” and “if you rub it correctly, its resident genie will appear.” [ fn. 7]. then one may not be faulted too much for assuming that the use of vidya in the phrase great-vidya-mantra here is referring to magic rather then knowledge. But is that a Buddhist assumption, or is it just the assumption of folk-superstition? The phrase great-vidya-mantra occurs as the second in a series of four phrases designating adjectives for the type of mantra that is the Heart Sutra: (1) mahamantro (great-mantra) (2) mahavidyamantro (great-knowledge-mantra) (3) anuttaramantro (unsurpassed-mantra) and (4) asamasamamantrah (unequaled-equal-mantra). Since mantra is applied in all four instances there is no internal basis to assume that vidya means “magic” rather than “knowledge” since there are no magical connotations to the other three adjectives in the list, “great,” “unsurpassed,” and “unequaled equality.”

Instead, these three adjectives do have direct Buddhist connotations rather than folk-magic connotations. “Great” (maha) is of course the keystone adjective for the branch of Buddhism, the Mahayana, that considers the Heart Sutra to be an essential teaching of the Buddha. “Unsurpassed”(anuttara) is known in the phrase anuttara-samyak-sambodhi that epitomizes the meaning of Buddhism as “unsurpassed complete perfect enlightenment.” The term asamasama meaning “equal to the unequaled,” “unequaled,” or “incomparable” is an adjective familiar in Buddhist usage, because asamasama is one of the titles of the Buddha (“the incomparable One,” “the unique One” or “the One of unequaled rank”) and his incomparable enlightenment, so it fits as an adjective of the incomparable mantra that expresses the essential heart of Buddha’s enlightenment. [Zen Buddhists will see in asamasama, the Sanskrit title of Buddha as “a person of unequaled rank,” the origin of the Chinese phrase “a person of no rank” popularized by Zen master Linji Yixuan (Lin-chi I-hsuan; J. Rinzai Gigen) (d. 867 C.E.).]

So, while the three other adjectives all have direct Buddhist references, is there a basis for mahavidya to be interpreted as “great magic”? Even when mahavidya is considered in Hindu Tantra it is taken as “great wisdoms” or “great knowledges” and not “great magicians” and as such refers to the ten “wisdom” Goddesses not “magical” Goddesses. [fn. 8] All ten forms of the Mahavidyas, whether in her gentle or terrifying aspect, are worshiped as avatars of the universal Mother appearing in the ten directions. So, even without considering the lack of reference to “magic,” there is no basis to ascribe or include this Hindu mythological belief in goddesses, with its anthropomorphic imagery, to the Buddhist usage of mahavidya in a primary Buddhist scripture like the Heart Sutra.

In Buddhist usage vidya refers to knowledge or wisdom and avidya refers to ignorance or unenlightenment. [fn. 9] Vidya-carana-sampanna or “Perfected in Wisdom & Action” (J. Myogyosoku) is another title for the Buddha. In Buddhist tantra practices such as “creation process yoga,” “the meditation leads to a realization that Intelligence (vidya) is spontaneously everywhere, though nowhere localized; that even inanimate matter breathes with potential intelligence —— a Consciousness that is evolving in all energy.” [fn. 10] There is no reference to “magic” here, where vidya is taken in Buddhist tantra to refer to the knowing intelligence of the universe.

The inclusion of folk “magic” into Buddhism by way of calling the Heart Sutra a “mantra of great magic” is inherently suspect as a non-Buddhist interpretation. It is not that the Heart Sutra is illuminated as a tool of magic when it is called a “mantra” but that the form of mantra itself is illuminated by Buddhism as an expression of wisdom by the Heart Sutra being called a mantra of great knowledge. The “great knowledge” that is expressed in the Heart Sutra is not the folk magic of summoning a genie by rubbing a magic lamp, but is the knowledge of awakening to transcendent wisdom (prajnaparamita) expressed in the Heart Sutra as the awareness that “Everything has the aspects of emptiness: not arising not ceasing, not stained not immaculate, not deficient not excessive.”

The mantra of great knowledge that is included at the end of the Heart Sutra is “TADYATHA OM GATE GATE PARAGATE PARASAMGATE BODHI SVAHA” To view Buddhist use of this mantra as a magical tool to conjure up the appearance of a Buddha is to go backward in the evolution of religious understanding that the Heart Sutra embodies. Mantras are not infrequently appended to Mahayana sutras. The Indian commentator Prasastrasena explains why the mantra is called mahavidya: “Because it naturally understands and clears away all the signs of external objects, it is the mantra of great knowledge.” [fn. 11]

The eleventh century Indian commentator Vajrapani, known as a master of the Tantric practice of mahamudra, wrote in his commentary on the Heart Sutra, “The mantra of the perfection of wisdom is not a mantra for pacification, increase, power, or wrath. What is it? By merely understanding the meaning of this mantra, the mind is freed.” [fn. 12]

The practice of deity yoga that Red Pine advocates in his book is a form of the tantric Mantra Vehicle and is not considered part of the practice of the Perfection Vehicle (paramitayana) of the prajnaparamita sutras. [fn. 13] Advocates of Mantra Vehicle usually consider it to be superior to the Perfection Vehicle, and perhaps vice versa. I, for one, consider the idea that the mantra is a magical incantation to be practiced like the rubbing of a magic lamp, as Red Pine says, to be a non-Buddhist intrusion into the Buddha Dharma. From point of view of One Vehicle (Ekayana) Buddhism the image of a magic lamp can be an expedient means of communicating to non-Buddhists or Buddhists of immature understanding and encouraging them to engage with the Dharma through the hope of magical conjurations of the supernatural power and appearances of Buddha, but the literalization of such supernatural powers as magically derived, while it may be the way of Vajrayana, is not the Zen way of the One Vehicle.

As Zen ancestor Linji said, even the supernatural powers of deities are karmic and dependent. “They are not the six supernatural powers the Buddha possessed: entering the realm of forms without being deluded by forms; entering the realm of hearing without being deluded by sounds; of smelling without being deluded by smells; of taste without being deluded by tastes; of touch without being deluded by touch; and of mental configurations without being deluded by mental configurations. Therefore the six fields of form, sound, smell, taste, touch, and mental configurations are all formless; they cannot bind the man of true independence. Though the Five Skandhas are leaky by nature, yet mastering them they become your supernatural powers here on earth..” [fn. 14] This is the direct Dharma of the Heart Sutra’s perfection of wisdom, and has nothing to do with rubbing magic lamps or magical incantations of deities, including the anthropomorphic conception of prajnaparamita as the mother of Buddhas.


Footnotes:

[fn. 1] The Heart Sutra, The Womb of Buddhas; Translation and Commentary by Red Pine; 2004; Shoemaker & Hoard, Washington D.C.; page 3.

[fn. 2] Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary at http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/magic


[fn.3] http://www.chineselanguage.org/cgi-bin/view.php?query=660E&encoding=text&mode=&lang=en&beijing=pinyin&canton=jyutping&meixian=pinjim&sound=0&fields=bushou,mandarin,english
http://www.chineselanguage.org/cgi-bin/view.php

[fn. 4] http://webapps.uni-koeln.de/tamil/ Using the Dictionary menu set to Cologne Digital Sanskrit Lexicon and entering “vidya” in the “Word in Primary Language“

[fn. 5] http://webapps.uni-koeln.de/tamil/ Using the Dictionary menu set to Capeller's Sanskrit-English Dictionary and entering “vidya” in the “Word in Primary Language“

[fn. 6] The Heart Sutra, The Womb of Buddhas; page 148.

[fn. 7] The Heart Sutra, The Womb of Buddhas; page 147.

[fn. 8] See, for example, the Wikipedia entry on Mahavidya at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahavidya and the entry at the Rudra Centre website at http://www.rudraksha-ratna.com/mahavidyas.html

[fn. 9] A Dictionary of Chinese Buddhist Terms by William Edward Soothill and Lewis Hodous.

[fn. 10] From the website of the Dharma Fellowship of His Holiness the Gyalwa Karmapa http://www.dharmafellowship.org/library/essays/way-of-the-yogi.htm

[fn. 11] The Heart Sutra Explained by Donald S. Lopez, Jr.; 1988; State University of New York Press; page 109. According to Lopez nothing is known about Prasastrasena other than his moderate length commentary on the Heart Sutra.

[fn. 12] The Heart Sutra Explained; page 112.

[fn. 13] The Heart Sutra Explained; page 113.

[fn. 14] The Zen Teaching of Rinzai translated by Irmgard Schloegl; 1976; Shambala Publications,Berkeley CA; pp. 39-40.

“At World’s End” Really Means Something

The third installment of The Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End set in the mythic world of piracy is actually a great film about today's world, the war on terrorism, and the clash of mythologies currently going on throughout humanity. At World's End is a declaration in film art every bit as relevant today as Friedrich Nietzsche's "God is Dead" was over a century ago. In fact, At World's End in its heart is the continuation of that same discussion about the slow end of that old world God mythology and the yet to be born new mythology of the post-modern post-materialist world.

Yet, many of today's reviewers are beyond their film depths as they can only wade into the shallow waters with such comments as, "incoherent," "storytelling mishmash," "without logic," "disorienting," and "unfathomable." Even reviewers like Staci Layne Wilson from About.com who, to her credit, recognize the film is "really more about the end of an era" don't seem to know which era. By in large the reviewers fail entirely to see that At World's End succeeds, and does so wonderfully, in presenting the disorienting incoherence of today's world by the film's great coherence and orientation within the symbolic language of art.

I’m amazed at the entire industry of film critics who almost entirely review films as if they don’t mean anything. Being in the generation where I could be the younger brother of Bob Dylan or Keith Richards, I suppose there is some ability to see the reason for it. I recall those comedic media interviews with Dylan when he was drowned in the projections of an age, and he was barraged by questions about what his songs meant. He would volley with the reporters like Rosencrantz to their Gilderstern returning questions with questions and quips, or he’d just flatly deny that his songs meant anything at all, “They’re just songs, man.”

One understands that the artist is not always in the best position to perceive their own muse or what it is saying. Many artists are like trance mediums channeling their art through creative genius they themselves don’t know how to describe. Thus questions about what a piece of art means can be embarrassing because the artist him/herself doesn’t know what it means any more than anybody else. After the work is created, the artist can stand as much in awe of the work as anyone. In order to avoid the embarrassment of frank talk about the art when the artist’s ego doesn’t really have the answer to “what is the meaning/” many artists merely mumble incoherent dodges, such as that unique form of the “artist’s self-statement” in which the artist uses a vernacular so arcane and arty that it is just another smoke screen, but one that sounds like they are somehow explaining their work.

Then of course there are artists, like Andy Warhol, who deliberately played hide and seek with their meaning, being moved by a muse of a different sort. These artists are not channeling the muse, there are possessed by it and it becomes embedded in their own identity as they identify with it. But they too then have to play with the world of meaning otherwise they become mere fabricators rather than artists. Though their meaning is clear to them, as deep or as shallow as it is, if they just said it plainly the muse’s work would lose its charm and glamour in the world.

But whether or not the artist knows the meaning of the art, the muse does; and it is for the experiencer of the art to see, listen to, and touch the muse communicating through the art itself in order to discover its meaning. In this sense art speaks for itself.

But to look at film reviews today one would be hard to find a critic willing to step up to the plate and try to hit the ball of meaning in a film. There are infinite comments on the technical aspects of film, on the lighting, the directing, the acting, the amount of sex and violence, and even whether the plot turns are “understandable,” but none of that has to do with the meaning of the film. Films present the pantheon of our archetypal psychological foundations and are the living mythology of our times. It is because the living mythology stirs up the mind that many prefer to stick with the dead mythology to be found in old books and doctrines. But the life of films is the same life that our ancestors 20,000 years ago experienced sitting in the darkness of the cave around the campfire watching the light play with the dancing shadows on the screens of our minds.

Films have meaning, and it is the singular task of the film reviewer to open the discussion of that meaning in the social context. Reviewers do a disservice to their art when they think that they can or should allow the art viewer to look for meaning, or not, as they wish, as a private affair. Especially with film because of its impact in society and the enormous resources and revenues that it generates, film demonstrates its mythic hold on the awareness of a people and their society. To simply advise about the level of violence or sex in a film, to remark that the plot was hard to follow, to say that the acting was exceptionally good, to applaud innovative directing, all these are secondary values to discerning the essential meaning of a film by asking what is this film saying? Why does it exist at this time and place in our society? What is this mythology telling us about ourselves?

Virtually every film critic working today fails at this central purpose of film criticism. They function as mere fan reviews stating whether they liked a movie or not. Just reaching for technical reasons to like or not like a film doesn’t change the core quality of the review as nothing more than a film fan comment. Many fans do better at that type of review. To say that they earn their money by providing parents with enough information to know whether their children are old enough to see a film is a compete abdication of the central purpose of film reviewer: to help the viewer discover the meaning of the art, discover what the muse is saying. If the reviewer remains just a fan, enthralled by the glamour of what is portrayed on the silver screen, or mesmerized by the flickering shadows, then the reviewer has taken on the reviewer’s role whose purpose is to bring out the fecundity of film, but remains a eunuch in the attempt. By this form of self-castration the film reviewer has lost touch both with themselves and with the living muse in the film.

The Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End is a perfect example of this phenomenon. Many if not most reviewers gave the film’s first two installments above average marks, but they did so for the acting, the action, the cinematography, the special effects, the costumes, etc., not for the meaning. Of course, it was a trilogy, so one can’t blame them for not comprehending the meaning at first, but they may be faulted for not discussing where the meaning was going, for not indicating what initial portents of a fuller meaning were to be found. Of course I haven’t seem them all, but of the reviews I have seen not a one could not see past the “eye candy.”

Yet when the third installment, At World’s End, arrived, reviewers still didn’t get the meaning. Reviewer Richard Roeper is a good example. He comments, “If Errol Flynn or Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. Could see the ridiculously entertaining action sequences they’d drop their swords in amazement. The sets, the costumes, the stunts, the special effects are beyond what anyone could have dreamed about during the golden age of the pirate movie.” He goes on to add that he found this to be the funniest film of the trilogy, but he also found it to be a “long, convoluted and intermittently inexplicable pirate epic. But it’s definitely worth seeing for the jaw dropping action, the doses of irreverent humor, and of course for the star power.” Roeper gives not a word to the meaning of the film.

The guest reviewer on Ebert & Roeper that night was David Edelstein, film critic for New York Magazine, who is even worse. Edelstein gives it a thumbs down saying “all those people from those old movies would go, ‘Oh my god, these people can’t tell a story.’ Now of course I understood it all....NOT!” Edelstein admits that neither he nor his 9 year old knew what was going on. By this admission Edelstein shows he has no business critiquing films other than on the basis of childish fan commentary.

The collection of reviewer comments at Rotten Tomatoes shows the complete lack of the reviewers’ recognition of meaning. Rob Vaux of Flipside Magazine dares to say “Betrayal, unfortunately, is the most apt word for At World's End. Betrayal of purpose, and of promise, and of the grand, glorious finale that everyone wanted so dearly to see.” However, it is Mr. Vaux who betrays his profession by being illiterate in the language of imagery.

Peter Travers of Rolling Stone is another reviewer who is lost to meaning and blames it on the movie maker’s “incoherence” instead of on his own inability to search for meaning and understand the language of mythology and image. Travers goes so far at to say “Producer Jerry Bruckheimer does deserve a shout out: It takes a kind of genius to sucker audiences into repeatedly buying the same party tricks.” Travers review is a proverbial demonstration of the deaf and blind claiming there is nothing to see or hear.

Roeper agrees with Edelstein (and Travers) that the film “is kind of a mess” and there were times that he had “no idea why some of these people who now seemed to be good guys, and they used to be bad guys, or which evil British India Trading soldier guy is a good guy or a bad guy, but I mean really, if you’re going to the Pirates Trilogy for story, that’s insane. It’s all about the action and the excitement and the relationship. And I think on those counts it delivers.”

In my view it is Roeper who is ignorant if not "insane" to be going to movies for their visceral entertainment only. He is more of a ghost than any of the characters in the Pirates trilogy. Both Roeper and Edelstein completely miss the coherent story within, as well as the meaning of, At World’s End. A fan interview on the Jimmy Kimmel Live show got closer to the truth of this film by asking, “What is going on with all these gang banger pirates being made into the funny good guys?”

At World’s End portrays today’s reality in a meaningful way. It does so in two ways, in a horizontal dimension of social political reality and in a vertical dimension of the psychological and spiritual realities. Horizontally, it is essentially about the phony war on terrorism and the current environment that the attitude towards “terrorism” creates and reflects. It is probably because no one today looks at meaning in films that this film was able to be made and to get made by the Disney Corporation. The “bad guys”.in this film are the transnational corporations protected by the Imperial power. The “good guys” are the people fighting the corporation called pirates or terrorists, and the independents who fall in with them. That Roeper and Edelstein had trouble following who was a “good guy” or a “bad guy” at any particular moment is not a negative, it is merely an accurate reflection of the machinations that go on in real life, for example, when one year Osama bin Laden is the USA protege against a common foe and the next year he becomes evil incarnate.

At World’s End is a film that depicts today’s politics which are clearly at wit’s end when one looks at them with an eye to following any threads of integrity among the political players of today. The Bush administration is accurately portrayed through Lord Beckett’s deceit and use of torture. The opening scene of people being marched to the gallows should have been the tip off that something mythological is going on here. Yet, when a boy is hanged, some moralistic reviewers were repulsed and couldn’t sustain any interest in the film thereafter. But moral indignation of the killing of that boy is exactly the point of the film’s muse. Rather than be repulsed at the film makers for putting the scene into the reel story, a reviewer needs to ask why are we not repulsed by such child killings in real life, where we easily accept the killing of children once we label them “terrorists” or “killers”? Such is the hypocrisy of reviewers who are blind to the living meaning of film.

Mary Ann Johanson, the flick filosopher, is one of the few film reviewers who actually perceives the horizontal dimension saying, "It’s Guantanamo Bay in the Caribbean as At World’s End opens." Johanson also recognizes that the Great Mickey Trading Company, Disney, has "cast itself as villain." Ironically, Disney gets the last laugh of taking millions to the bank with a film that portrays it as the bad guy. Fortunately for Disney, since most reviewers are so adverse to meaning, most film reviews havn't mentioned this aspect with anything approaching the insight of Johanson. But I suspect that this view of corporations is clear to many more of the audiences (if not the reviewers) than Disney would prefer.

The vertical dimension needs to be seen and appreciated as well. Today we hear about the war on terrorism as a “clash of civilizations”, yet Joseph Campbell was more accurate in stating that the clash is about the current mythologies that have become outdated attempting to prevent the emergence of a new mythology as much as their clash with each other. We are at the world's end and the world that is ending is the dominance of the current mythology. The mythologies of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam warring with each other in the Middle East are all three faces of a patriarchal Father War God who had conquered the power of the matriarchal nature Goddess of the geographical areas of their conquest. The fundamentalists of these religions seek the abortion of the birth of a new pluralistic mythology as much as they are in conflict with each other. This confusion is also accurately portrayed in the film by the shifting allegiances between all the parties trying to get an advantage for themselves. It is unfortunate that the meaning of this realistic degree of shifting complexity goes unnoticed and actually is used against the film by reviewers like Roeper and Edelstein.

At World’s End shows this underlying conflict between the Corporate Imperial power and the Pirates’ power (as well as the conflicts between the Pirates themselves) and the independents represented by Will Turner and Elizabeth Swan, all as being within the larger context of the current mythology that has succeeded because of the repression of an even older mythology has been captured and kept trapped in human form by today’s Father-God mythology. At World’s End doesn’t say let’s continue to worship the Father-God and His ways which leads to this corporate greed. At World’s End says in order to find our way in this new world and way of things, it is time to release the female Goddess from her entrapment in human form. This is the essential meaning of the film.

It is not that people should return to Goddess worship, but that, in order for a new balance to be gained and for a new mythology to be discovered, the older mythology must be reclaimed and released back into our nature. In other words, to find the new mythology of the new world, we have to recognize all the archetypal forces within our mind and heart and not keep one archetype in bondage and service to another. This fixation of the archetypes in patriarchal moralism is a core component of fascism in whatever guise it takes, the dictatorship of Transnational Corporatism or the factional petty powers of Piracy (e.g., Christians, Jews, and Muslims).

The other dimension of archetypal fixation in the film is the capture of Davy Jones’s heart which puts him and his ship The Flying Dutchman under the control of the Imperial Corporation. This is an interesting point. This shows how materialism (the East India Co.) gains control of the spiritual life, by the corruption of the spiritual life when the spiritual life betrays itself and acts to entrap the feminine. Calypso, the sea Goddess, was captured because of the betrayal by Davy Jones who had at one time been her lover (i.e., devotee) when Jones told the Pirate Lords how to trap her in human form. This portrays how spirituality (including Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) has trapped the feminine archetypes in their mundane forms and elevated only the Father to chief spiritual status, but it is this process of entrapment of the feminine by these forms of spirituality that leads to the entrapment of spirituality itself by materialism.

Every so often a film comes along that uses the language of mythology to reflect accurately upon the social, psychological, and mythological issues of the day. The muse speaking through At World’s End has done just this. It is an important film series that, contrary to Roeper, does tell the story of our time. Going to the cinema for the action, the excitement, and the relationships as Roeper and most reviewers do only trivializes film and the life portrayed in film. Whether or not one sees the meaning of At World’s End as I have described it, and there is much more to the films imagery than I have discussed here, the important point for awareness and our society is that we ask what is the meaning of the film, and come to some consummation about that in our own minds. To simply say that art, and films in particular, have no meaning is to demean art and turn it into mere decoration. That is turning live art into ghost art. Bringing the life back into art by appreciation of its living mythology is going to the world’s end and rescuing Jack Sparrow from Davy Jones’ locker. And what a wonderful adventure that is.

Viewing Nanquan's White Ox Through the Three Jewels

I have a view of life that sees the Three Jewels (Triratna) of Buddhism, i.e., Buddha (Awakening), Dharma (the Way of Awakening), and Sangha (companions in the Way of Awakening), as the three sides to the One Mind Jewel that make the prism of consciousness function in both blending the white light and distinguishing the "10,000" colors of the rainbow.

In this view, the Three Jewels are inherent in the structure and functioning of our One Mind such that every appearance of this fundamental trinity is a reflection of the Three Jewels. Buddha-Dharma-Sangha are thus seen from other angles as God-Holy Spirit-Son, Energy-Light Speed-Mass (E=mc2), etc.

If we look at our experience and each apparent event-item of our experience, we can understand them at each of the three levels of the Three Jewels. That is, we can take the Buddha view, the Dharma view, or the Sangha view to understand every event-item of our perception and consciousness. Simply stated, the Buddha view is complete unification without discrimination, sometimes called absolute "purity" or "emptiness." This view is the understanding that is not a dualistic understanding so it is sometimes called non-understanding, not-knowing, or prajna, i.e., non-dual wisdom.

The Dharma view is the view of things (dharmas) from the point of view of the Buddha Dharma teachings and awareness. It is understanding that uses words and concepts to untie the dependence on words and concepts. As Zen is often claimed to be against the Buddha's Sutras, I emphasize the Dharma view in analyzing Zen koans in order to show that the so-called enigmatic or illogical sayings of the Zen masters are entirely consistent with the Mahayana Sutras and to show the great subtly of appreciation the Zen masters have for the sutras.

The Sangha view is both the commonplace view of ordinary people and the sublimely ordinary view, depending on the level of one's awareness of the Buddha and Dharma reaching the Sangha level. Each of the Three Jewels may be viewed through the lens of each of the other Three Jewels which, when cross-referenced graphically, makes a window with nine panes for primary kinds of understanding. Thus viewing the Three Jewels from the Sangha view is to see Buddha as Gotama Sakyamuni the person, to see Dharma as Sakyamuni's teaching in the Sutras, and to see Sangha as the followers or believers in Sakyamuni Buddha and his teachings. To see the Three Jewels from the Buddha view is to see Buddha as the One Mind (i.e., non-dual Mind), the Dharma as the Radiance of the One Mind, and Sangha as the Manifestation of the Radiance of the One Mind. From this point of view (i.e., the Buddha view of Sangha) all things intone the Dharma because all things are the manifestation of the radiance of the Dharma.

But this essay is not about the Three Jewels,per se; it is about looking at koans through the prism of the Three Jewels.

Koans are themes of reflection considered in meditation. People, especially the uninitiated and uninformed, often say that the Zen koans are enigmatic riddles that defy logic and because they don't really mean any thing are meant to drive the logical mind to distraction. Well, that isn't exactly true. While the logical mind may be driven to distraction, that does not mean the koans are meaningless, are riddles, or are merely puzzles.

(Note on my use of the word Zen. I use Zen as a general English term for the meditation practice and the stream of Buddhism that focuses on the meditation practices derived from the Ekayana (One Vehicle) school of Buddhism originating in India and brought to China by Bodhidharma. When referring to the tradition of Zen within a particular culture, time, and place, I will use terms like "Japanese Zen" or "Chinese Chan" to indicate the narrowing of the focus.)

The koan is a direct presentation of the Three Jewels in action in the lives of the people who are presented in the koans. The koans are not intended to be riddles; they are expressions of direct realization of the One Vehicle of the One Mind as occurred in a particular interaction or teaching of one of the Zen masters. Sometimes they are examples taken from a Buddhist Sutra or a folk tale that is seen by the Zen teacher as a particularly good example to consider as a theme of reflection to see through to direct realization.

I was having an Internet discussion with a companion on the Way and presented my view on this Three Jewels analysis of koans, and he asked:

Nansen instructed the assembly and said, "All the Buddhas of the three worlds do not know that there is. Only the cats and oxen know that there is."
(Book of Serenity 69)

What questions and what levels do you see in that case? How do you apply the Three Jewels here?

As I looked at the koan in Thomas Cleary's translation of the Book of Serenity (vrey similar to the one above), something disturbed me about it. When I considered how it presented the Dharma, it seemed very obscure and illfitting. Why "cats and oxen," or as Cleary translates it, "cats and cows"? So I decided to look at the Chinese and attempt my own translation of the case.

From the Record of Composure (從容録 Cong2rong2 Lu4, Ts'ung-jung lu; J. Shoyoroku; E. a.k.a. Book of Serenity, Book of Equanimity)

第六十九則南泉白牯
Item 69. Nanquan's White Ox

舉。南泉示眾云。三世諸佛不知有(只為知有) 狸奴白牯卻知有 (只為不知有)。
Raised: Nanquan taught the assembly saying, "All Buddhas of the three worlds do not know existence. [1] The fox, the servant, and the white ox, however, do know existence. [2]"

[The critical retorts by Wansong that are inserted in the main text in parentheses are put here for easier reading of the text:]
[1] (Simply acting, they know existence)
[2] (Simply acting, they do not know existence.)

When I did this translation the Dharma understanding fell into place, because it became obvious that Cleary had left out of his translation several very crucial points for comprehending the depth of Nanquan's koan.

First, it is not the word "cats" that is used by Nanquan; the character is 狸, which means, "fox", "raccoon dog", "badger" or "wildcat." Thus the impression of domestic cats is wrong and misleading; it is the wild fox or badger or wildcat that is meant, i.e., something untamed and dangerous. Second, there are three types of beings who "do know existence, " but Cleary only mentions two and leaves out the middle person of the three: "the servant." It is by seeing the three types of beings that we become aware that Nanquan is talking about the three types of knowing (Jnana). Third, Cleary has merely the plural "cows" which leaves out the essential adjective 白 for "white" which plays an important Dharma role in both the title and the koan; it is a white ox, not any other kind or color of ox. The whiteness too, clarifies that Nanquan is talking about the three Jnanas.

Additionally it may be noted for the understanding of the reader, the character 知, here translated as "know", could just as validly be translated as "understand", "recognize", or "be aware of." And the character 有, translated here as "existence", is the same character as the "have" of the koan Zhaozhou's Dog ("Does a dog also have Buddha Nature or not?"), and may also be translated as "being," "having," or "possessing." It is a term of art in Buddhist metaphysics that is used in conjunction with the character無 (C. wu; J. mu, E. no, not, without, etc.) to indicate the polarity of being and non-being, form and emptiness. So valid alternative sentences could be:

"All Buddhas of the three worlds do not understand being."
"All Buddhas of the three worlds are not aware of possession."
"All Buddhas of the three worlds do not recognize having." Etc.

But it seems obvious to me that the wider meanings of "existence" or "being" are intended and not the narrower meanings of "to have" or "to possess."

All koans present a case of polarity-in-action that, like life itself, presents a trap for our dualistic thinking. In the most general sense, the duality trap of subject-object is present in every koan since we bring that to the table, as it is inherent in the structure of the language and in mental configurations of the consciousness from which language arises. Here in this case 69, the two key terms are "to know" (知) and "to exist" (有), so the primary polarities raised by this koan for the theme of reflection are knowing<>not knowing and existence<>non-existence (有-無). Freedom in the midst of these polarities, i.e., not being caught on the horns of the duality, is the liberation offered by koan practice.

Now let's view the koan through the Three Jewels as the three levels of understanding corresponding to the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha.

The Buddha level of understanding is the level of non-dual "purity", emptiness, or absolute non-differentiation. It means to be completely one or unified with the koan. Here it means to realize the absolute unity of knowing and not knowing, of existence and non-existence. This is the open secret of koan work, because simply declaring the unity in language is insufficient. One must realize or manifest the undifferentiated unity with one's whole body and mind to have Buddha understanding.

Because of this direct realization of understanding, not much can be said directly about the Buddha understanding without appearing to fall into duality as language is built around duality. That is why the Zen responses that present non-duality in the language format usually appear so terse and strange to those used to dualistic language contexts.

The Dharma level of understanding is the correspondence of the koan with the Buddha Dharma. Here, the koan presents the treasury of the Dharma in a manner that is consistent with the Sutras. As I said above, Zen is sometimes accused of being against the Sutras as it has used the slogan, "Not established by characters or letters" to describe itself. What this means is that, in the context of some schools of Buddhism that claimed they were established on one or more Sutras, Zen is established by direct realization of the One Mind, not be any doctrine or teaching that is found in the words or letters of a written or spoken Sutra.

But the slogan should not be taken to mean that Zen doesn't know the meaning of the Sutras. On the contrary, the koans and statements of the Zen masters all present the Buddha's teaching as found in the Sutras in a direct form and format. Part of the reason that I advocate the Three Jewels analysis is to demonstrate that the Buddha Dharma as taught in the Sutras is to be found in the Zen koans, and in each and every one of them. This koan of Nanquan's White Ox, for example, has direct linkage to both the Lankavatara Sutra and the Lotus of the True Law Sutra.

In the Lankavatara Sutra, Buddha says:

"The triple world is no more than discrimination, there is no external world of objects; it is owing to discrimination that the multitudinousness of things appears, which, however is not understood by the ignorant. In various sutras discrimination is the subject of discourse, it is on account of ideas and names, for apart from naming no meaning is attainable."

And also, "[The nature of enlightenment] is not something that is subject to discrimination and hence perceptible, nor is it for that reason to be understood as non-existent; it is the very nature of things as they are. Non-being goes along with being, and being goes along with non-being; when non-being is not knowable, being too is not to be discriminated. Those who cling to words only, not comprehending the egolessness of an ego, are drowned in dualism; they destroy themselves, they destroy the ignorant."
(All translations of the Lankavatara are by D.T. Suzuki)

Here we see Nanquan's direct Zen teaching as previously presented in Sutra format. Nanquan's "All Buddhas of the three worlds do not know existence" has the same meaning as the Lankavatara's "The triple world is no more than discrimination." As the Buddhas of the triple world are free from discrimination, that is, they do not "know" or "recognize" existence (being, having, etc.) in a discriminating manner, nor do they understand it as non-existent (non-being, not having, etc.), because that too would be discrimination. This "not knowing" of the Buddhas is because "apart from naming no meaning is attainable."

In his short critical retorts (評唱 pingchang) embedded in the koan text, Wansong presents counterbalancing comments to remove any appearance of duality in Nanquan's statements. Wansong's comments are presenting the meaning of the teaching in the Lankavatara that says, "Non-being goes along with being, and being goes along with non-being." When Nanquan says, "All Buddhas of the three worlds do not know existence," Wansong completes truth that not-knowing goes along with knowing, and vice versa, by adding "Simply acting, they know existence" to the first sentence and adding the converse phrase to the following sentence.

(The phrase "simply acting" may also be translated using the less common usage of "just because", but I prefer to use "acting" because the character 為 (wei) is the same as found in the term wu-wei, or non-acting, which is well known in Zen and Taoist literature.)

What about that strange list of three beings who know existence? The fox, the servant, and the white ox, know existence because they are not "Buddhas" in the transcendent sense. All three live in discrimination and therefore know existence (being, having, possessing) in their living. But the manner of their living in discrimination differs dramatically.

The fox is the wild or naïve nature of everyone, the untamed and wild spirit of each of us before we embark on the road to spiritual training. The fox is the person who uses logical and dualistic thinking to deal with life and calls this type of thinking being "natural." The Lankavatara calls these fox people "the philosophers and the ignorant."

The servant is the spiritual practitioner who is in servitude carrying the yoke of practice, and thus no longer free in the sense of being wild like a fox or badger. In the Buddhist context the servant is a practitioner of one of the three vehicles whose training and discipline is given in service to the Three Jewels. The servant is either a disciple who is learning as a hearer of the teaching (sravaka), or a person of self-absorbed awareness
(pratyekabuddha). Again, from the Lankavatara, here is a good description of the two types of "servant(s)" within the Buddhist context:

The Blessed One replied: "Because there is no teaching whereby the Sravakas and Pratyekabuddhas can realise Nirvana by themselves, I do not speak of the one vehicle. Thus, Mahamati, the Sravakas and Pratyekabuddhas are disciplined, segregated, and trained in meditation according to the discourse of the Tathagata, whereby they are led to emancipation and not by themselves.
Further, Mahamati, as they have not yet destroyed the habit-energy (memory) of karma and the hindrance of knowledge, all the Sravakas and Pratyekabuddhas are unable to realise the egolessness of things and have not attained the inconceivable transformation-death, I preach to the Sravakas [and Pratyekabuddhas] the triple vehicle and not the one vehicle."

The animal-spirited fox and the human-spirited servant are presented along side the white ox. In this context the importance of the ox being white becomes apparent. The white ox is the realized Bodhisattva who, as stated in both the Lankavatara and Lotus Sutras, has transcended the three vehicles and realized the One Buddha Vehicle.

In the Parables chapter of the Lotus Sutra, Buddha tells the parable of the father calling to his children who are playing in a burning house. He promises to them three types of carts, goat-carts, deer-carts, and ox-carts to catch their curiosity. When they come out of the house and ask where are the three carts, the father gives them only the one type of cart.

"Shariputra, at that time the rich man gave to each of his sons a large carriage of uniform size and quality. The carriages were tall and spacious and adorned with numerous jewels. A railing ran all around them and bells hung from all four sides. A canopy was stretched over the top, which was also decorated with an assortment of precious jewels. Ropes of jewels twined around, a fringe of flowers hung down, and layers of cushions were spread inside, on which were placed vermilion pillows. Each carriage was drawn by a white ox, pure and clean in hide, handsome in form and of great strength, capable of pulling the carriage smoothly and properly at a pace fast as the wind."

This is why the koan is titled "Nanquan's White Ox" and not "Nanquan's Fox and Ox." or "Nanquan's Cows." Nanquan's White Ox is pointing to the "white bullock cart" of the Lotus Sutra, but it does so in the direct manner of Zen: Nanquan points to the white ox itself rather than to the cart.

The point of the white ox "knowing existence" along with the fox and servant is that the realized Bodhisattva of the One Vehicle enters the world open handed to work with and along side all beings (foxes and servants) in the field of existence. But while the fox and the servant are still limited by their dualistic views of the world, the white ox is free to roam the world (as a Buddha field) eating anywhere.

This is clarified in the longer critical retort commentary to the koan, when Wansong relates the following statement by Nanquan,

"Since I, Old Teacher Wang, was young, I have raised a single head of water buffalo. When I decided to pasture it toward the east side of the mountain stream, it did not avoid eating the water plants of another country; and also to pasture west of the mountain stream it did not avoid eating the water plants of another country. Thus, now it doesn't avoid going along with discrimination to receive a little (alt. to enjoy a little), after all, it is not noticeable (alt. able to be seen/able to see?)."

This is Nanquan's white ox knowing existence (i.e., formerly led east of the stream and west of the stream, now going long with discrimination) without any trace (i.e., color) of "Buddha" left on it. As the Lankavatara states, "the Tathagata's Prajna is spotless because of its being in accord with Mind-only." This "spotless" nature of the ox (i.e., the Tathagata's prajna) is presented here by the adjective "white," which character, 白, can also mean "clear" or "pure" and when "clear" it is the ox that eats "without being seen at all."

Nanquan is asking us directly, when knowing existence, what type of knowing are we going to realize, fox, servant, or white ox? Here once again, is how the Lankavatara summarizes these three types of knowing (Jnana) represented by the fox (worldly), the servant (super-worldly), and the white ox (transcendental).

"There are three kinds of Jnana—worldly, super-worldly, and transcendental. Now, worldly knowledge belongs to the philosophers and to the ignorant and simple-minded who are attached to the dualistic views of being and non-being. Super-worldly knowledge belongs to all the Sravakas and Pratyekabuddhas who are attached to the notions of individuality and generality. Transcendental knowledge which is free from the dualism of being and non-being, belongs to the Bodhisattvas and takes its rise when they thoroughly examine things of imagelessness, see into the state of no-birth and no-annihilation, and realise egolessness at the stage of Tathagatahood."

Thus Nanquan's apparently simple two sentences in a koan present the deep Dharma meaning of both the Lankavatara and the Lotus of the True Law Sutras.

Lastly, the Sangha understanding is the level of understanding of the practical, prosaic, and plain meaning. In one sense it is the "community" or conventional usage and meaning, but in another sense it is the most profound meaning of the Three Jewels when it is connected to the other two Jewels, because it is the culmination of the Buddha and Dharma activity made manifest in existence as Sangha activity. In the Zen sense or perspective, the Sangha understanding is what is transformed by realization. Then Sangha is the direct expression of realization as known by the phrases "chopping wood and carrying water," "having a cup of tea," "the nose is vertical, the eyes are horizontal," etc.

Sangha understanding combines the meaning of the Buddha and Dharma levels within the direct practice, as Nanquan says, "going along with discrimination to enjoy a little." To be the white ox is to manifest the Sangha understanding as a colorless bodhisattva in the profound harmony of the Dharma and Buddha understandings. To be the white ox itself is to not be caught by the horns of the polarity, since one wears the horns as one's one nature. But also, it should be remembered, that to be a fox or a servant is also manifesting the Sangha understanding of the koan, just in a limited way without the Dharma and Buddha understandings merged.

In other words, now and here, fingers are typing, click, clack, click, clack. Not knowing existence, the fingers and keys are one and the typing goes along without thought of discrimination. Knowing existence the fingers type the keys without being seen yet the thoughts emerge in the electronic field manifesting as little bits anywhere possible. ("Hey, don't forget to spell check" "Yes, yes!")

I'm afraid that this discussion of understanding will only cause grief and mislead people. These weak words are not to be taken as the "answers" to a koan. I merely hope that, by finding that there is a point of view that sees the Treasury of the True Eye of the Buddha Dharma as coherently and cogently presented in the very fabric of the koans, the koan practice will become known to people as something accessible and not simply as a strange or impossible to comprehend riddle of nonsense words.

May all beings be well,
Gassho,
Gregory

D.T. Suzuki's translation of the Lankavatara Sutra is online at http://lirs.ru/do/lanka_eng/lanka-nondiacritical.htm

The Chinese characters for Nanquan's White Ox are from the website of the Chinese Buddhist Electronic Text Association's (CBETA) Chinese Electronic Tripitaka V1.30, Normalized Version at http://www.cbeta.org/result/normal/T48/2004_005.htm

The Best With the Least

Isn't it a basic truth in politics that those with the best things to say have the least money to say it with? Congressman Dennis Kucinich of Ohio and former Sen. Mike Gravel of Alaska are clearly the front runners in content and appear to have the least amount of campaign funding to share their views.

After the Democratic presidential candidate debate in Orangeburg, South Carolina, Gravel made a comment that spoke to a basic fault line in political funding. Meeting the press directly after the debate, Gravel said he regretted that debate moderator Brian Williams had not asked about hedge funds.

“Every one of those people except Kucinich is taking hedge fund money. Hedge fund money is the manipulation of the economy overseas and nobody knows anything about it…. If the world economy tanks, it’s going to be because of the hedge funds.”

The deeply perverting impact of political fund raising is highlighted in Gravel's remarks.

DEBATE RUMINATIONS:

The presidential debate was revealing in many ways. First of all it revealed the bias towards the so-called "front runners" who have the giant campaign war chests. The format was definitely targeted to the candidates with not all candidates being asked the same questions. Therefore certain "presidential" questions, like "What would you do if two American cities were attacked by terrorists on the same day?", were only asked of Obama, Clinton, and Edwards, as if they were the only ones capable of answering that question.

Still, even with the biased questioning process, the candidates did reveal themselves.

Our hero Dennis Kucinich ably presented the reality check of the debate. Though former Senator Gravel was energetic and refreshingly feisty and mostly there with the right points, none of the other candidates, even Gravel, would dare to support Kucinich's call for the impeachment of Vice-President Cheney. This showed that only Kucinich is in touch with the American people and the other candidates are still without the moral courage to do the right thing. By refusing to indicate that Cheney should be held accountable Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Biden, Dodd, Gravel, and Richardson all show their contempt for holding elected official responsible for lying to the American public to start an illegal war.

Clinton was asked if she agreed with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's comment that the war is lost, and typical of Clinton, she dodged the question and didn't say whether she agreed or not, whether the war is lost or not. Gravel had the courage to say clearly and correctly, "This war was lost the day that George Bush invaded Iraq on a fraudulent basis."

Clinton said, again, that if she knew then what she knows now she would have voted differently, and Kucinich said that is no excuse because all the information was available then to everyone, and that is why he voted against the war. He said,

"If you made the wrong choice, we're here auditioning to be President of the United States, people have to see who had the judgement and the wisdom not to go to war in the first place. ... This isn't American Idol here, we're choosing a President and we have to look at the audition that occurred in 2003... and my colleagues here made the wrong decision."

This is the point that makes the most sense in deciding my choice. Edwards is to be congratulated for saying he is sorry for his mistaken vote, but Clinton won't even say her vote was a mistake. Only Kucinich can say he has consistently voted against the war and funding it and had ability to correctly analyze the situation and vote accordingly.

Gravel, of course hasn't been in the Senate in the last 10 years or so, and he should get full credit for pointing to Clinton, Obama, Edwards, and Biden for saying that nukes are on the table against Iran. Gravel said that was an immoral position.

Edwards says he does live a "privileged and blessed lifestyle" but we should remember his humble roots because he remembers them. This highlights a problem with Edwards' in that he equates his privilege with being blessed. Being privileged does not mean one is blessed. To see wealth and privilege as signs of being blessed is a core problem with most religious belief systems.

Kucinich said he wants to remove war as an instrument of policy. This is the fundamental problem that the "front runners" won't address as a systemic problem arising from the military-industrial complex because they are beholding to that war-money-making machine.

The "debate" mostly was not an actual debate in the sense of addressing each other's positions except for a few brief exciting moments such as when Gravel pointed to the candidates who immorally threaten the use of nuclear weapons against Iran by using codes phrases like "no option is off the table". But still, there is a lot information provided in the forum provided by MSNBC. No one can be a responisible voter without doing the homework of comparing the candidates.

Kucinich alluded to the biggest problem in elections, which is that too many voters approach them like a vote for American Idol and actually pick a candidate based on how he or she dresses or how attractive the person is, or they vote for the one they think has "the best chance of winning." If people really voted for the candidate that they thought expressed the greatest convergence with their own views, then I think Kucinich would have a real chance.

A Low for Charlie Rose

On April 26, 2007, Charlie Rose interviewed General David Petraeus. I have seen some pretty bad interviews by Charlie Rose, but the interview with General Petraeus was the worst in recent memory. The fawning obsequiousness that Rose showed to this Washington-Pentagon mouthpiece who would say anything to get his paycheck was an example of the worst kind of Washington inside the beltway back slapping that passes for journalism. That Rose would not ask a single challenging question nor would he do anything but accept the pablum being offered was so sad to see.

This interview ranks with Dan Rather saying that he would march to any directions the President gave him at the beginning of the war. This is a perfect example of the belly-up cowardice of the major media passed on the presidential propaganda leading up to the war on Iraq without so much as a whisper of doubt. Rose shows he has not learned a single lesson from the four years of war on Iraq.

Charlie Rose clearly was setting up the General with puff questions and made it obvious that Rose accepts 100% the baloney that the Bush administration is saying through their mouthpiece General Petraeus. Charlie Rose should read on the air the short excerpts from the 1933 speech of Major General Smedley D. Butler who wrote a longer version in pamphlet form "War is a Racket". That would do more to inform the American People than ten hours of General Petraeus.

In contrast to Rose's providing a platform for the president's propaganda, the recent program of Bill Moyers Journal titled "Buying the War" on the cheer leading by the media leading up to the war is the story of the journalists like Charlie Rose who aide and abet the lying criminal activity of this villainous president.

The War IS Lost

Harry Reid, US Senate majority leader, is right: the War in Iraq is lost.

"This war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week."

He's late in coming to the realization, but in this case, better late than never. Also the War in Afghanistan is lost. And based on its flawed conception from the beginning, Bush's whole phony "War on Terrorism" was lost from day one.

Bush's inchoate wars on the world are so bizarre that they can only be grasped under the category of truth is stranger than fiction.

Today's example of the lost war in Iraq is the BBC story Bombs hit Baghdad police station

Two car bombs have exploded at a police station in the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, killing at least 12 people and wounding about 82 others, police say.
The attack took place in the southern, mainly Shia neighbourhood of Bayaa.

The first bomber sped through a checkpoint before exploding his car in front of the station, the other detonated his car at the checkpoint.

So much for Bush's "surge" strategy which is all public relations and no reality check. Yet Bush has the continuing unmitigated insanity to state in the face of the facts that his surge is "meeting expectations". Whose, expectations? It must be the private expectations of his perverted fantasy world, because it is not the expectations he has voiced to the American people that are being met.

There is no basis to believe that the surge strategy of adding 30,000 troops to a lost war is going to turn it into victory. The surge of bombings is winning.

An average of 80-90 Americans die each month. And US personnel have just had their tours extended by another three months.

But, as it has always been since the 2003 invasion, it is the Iraqis who suffer most.

No-one knows the exact figures, but at the end of another week of unspeakable, random carnage, hundreds more Iraqi families are grieving.

There is just no way that a US "surge" of any amount of troops, even 300,000, can "win" this war. Why? Because even if 500,000 troops are inserted into the invasion and occupation of Iraq, it will never defeat the spirit of the people of Iraq for self determination. The most that can ever be accomplished by Bush's war of occupation is to turn Iraq into a prison nation under lock down.

In fact this is exactly the US strategy, as it is building the first prison wall around the Sunni enclave of Adhamiya:

US troops in the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, are building a wall around the Sunni district of Adhamiya, which is surrounded by Shia communities.
The 5km (three-mile) concrete wall is part of a strategy to "break the cycle of sectarian violence", a US military spokesman said.

At least two more walls are on the drawing board demonstrating only that the twisted imaginations of the Bush administration know no bounds.

Why the surge won't work is clearly evidenced in the occupation scenario. The police who must have the support of a sufficient number of Iraqis to be credible simple cannot establish the requisite level of credibility while they are tied to the hip of an invading and occupying army. As the story about bombs hitting the police station clearly describes:

Police stations are often targeted by insurgents who say officers are betraying the country by working alongside government and US-led forces.

The only way to take away the rationale for attacking the police is to remove the US forces from the equation.

This is not occupied Japan with an Emperor who can maintain continuity and cohesion for the people during the rebuilding process. This is not Germany, divided and occupied by four conquering armies and totally devastated and shocked by its own attack on the rest of the world with a population feeling the guilt of its hubris and defeat.

Iraqis did not attack the world. They didn't attack anyone. They have not one iota of a national sense of defeat caused by their own military adventurism that would provide the mitigating factor to accept the humiliation from the presence of an occupying army. There is no point at this stage in discussing what the US might have done to make a transition possible. The US didn't protect the government structure or the public infrastructure and, instead, allowed wide spread looting of every public facility except the Oil Ministry, including hospitals and museums. Under that scenario after May 2003 the US has had no subsequent ability to appear credible by continuing the occupation.

Today, the only realistic and moral plan is to withdraw immediately and leave the Iraqis to be allowed to settle their own affairs. The war against Hussein was won quickly, but on the other hand, by a complete lack of planning and foresight, the war of occupation against the Iraqi people was lost quickly. This war is still lost. Now we owe the Iraqis reparation funds. We do not owe them an occupying army that only prevents reconstruction and reconciliation.

ADDENDUM 4/27/07
Last night I watched "Afghanistan: The Other War" from Frontline/World, and this story clearly demonstrates why the war in Afghanistan is as lost as the war in Iraq. The program is centered about a NATO unit attempting to make friends with a local village. Everything that could go wrong goes wrong. It is a completely updated demonstration of the old army slang SNAFU ("situation normal, all f**ked up").

A Canadian NATO unit comes to the Afghan village Elbak and makes wants to "win the hearts and minds" of the people. They promise to fix 12 generators used for pumping water. Well they couldn't find or buy the parts, such as spark plugs, anywhere and only end up fixing two. Then they set up a medical treatment day and announce it in the area only to have to close the clinic early with people standing in line wating for their children to see the doctors because, as they announce, they have run out of medications.

Then a US Special Forces unit comes into the area without consulting with the NATO unit and pick up a villager as a suspected Taliban. The villages vouch for the man to the Canadian NATO unit that is there to "make friends" and ask them to get the man released, but the NATO sergeant says she has no authority with the US unit. This of course highlights the complete absurdity of having two separate commands in the same area and demonstrates the fundamental inability of the war makers to understand how to "win" a war of occupation against indigenous resistance fighters. Failing any reasonable ability to "win" they have already lost.

Another more fundamental and completely misunderstood element of the war is that the NATO unit came to the village with the goal of working with the village so the people there would "be on our side" in the war. Words fail to describe the compete idiocy of the premise. From Alexander the Great to Ghengis Khan to NATO, thousands of years of history tell the tale of a people who have watched invading armies pass through. These people are smart enough to be "on the side" of the current invading army, whether they are NATO, US Special Forces, or the Taliban. The moronic notion that fixing some generators and giving a day of medical care (even if they were successful, which they weren't) will cause a people "choose a side" is so completely beyond any historical reality check that one wonders how these people waging war were able to travel the thousands of miles to get there in the first place.

Then to top it all off, after several weeks of setting up a temporary fort outside the village, the NATO unit is told to withdraw and go elsewhere completely taking down Camp Martello as if it was never there. The narrator laments the fact that this is now going to leave the village wide open and defenseless to Taliban retaliation for having cooperated with the invading army. One of the military people says what a shame it is that the villages "brought this on themselves" completely transferring the responsibility for their impending doom to the villagers who had no say in the NATO forces coming in the first place and no say in their departure.

The war in Afghanistan is as lost as the war in Iraq because the war makers are completely clueless about what it is that they are doing there and have no workable or reasonable plan for their presence.

Letter to Senator Barak Obama on Israel

Israel is the issue.
March 10, 2007

Dear Senator Obama,

I'm am very concerned about the reports of your recent speech before AIPAC of Chicago. According to the Jewish Daily Forward, you stated,

“We should all be concerned about the agreement negotiated among Palestinians in Mecca last month. The reports of this agreement suggest that Hamas, Fatah and independent ministers would sit in a government together, under a Hamas prime minister, without any recognition of Israel, without a renunciation of violence, and with only an ambiguous promise to ‘respect’ previous agreements…. We must tell the Palestinians this is not good enough.”

Contrary to your statement, there is nothing wrong with the agreement reached in Mecca. The Palestinian people must be given the recognition and sovereignty equal to the people of Israel. If Israel won't allow the Palestinians to be allowed to elect their own government then Israel does not have a right to exist!

There is no basis to recognize the legitimacy of Israel as long as it continues its illegitimate apartheid occupation of Palestine in the West Bank and Gaza.

I understand the very difficult situation you are in having to deal with American Jewish organizations regarding Israel, however, if you choose to placate them as your method of dealing with them then I have no interest in voting for you. I will only vote for a candidate who will stand up to the Israel lobby with the truth and facts as they exist.

Did you tell AIPAC that the occupation of the West Bank is illegal? That it is apartheid? That peace in Israel and Palestine will come when Israel acknowledges the right of the Palestinian people to exist as a state?

You see, neither the USA nor Israel have the right to tell the Palestinian people who they can elect to govern them, otherwise the democracy you offer them is just a sham, AND EVERYBODY KNOWS IT TO BE A SHAM when Hamas is treated with such prejudice!

You were clear enough to oppose the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and the invasion and occupation of the Palestinian people in the West Bank and Gaza should be opposed for many of the same reasons, including that the occupation violates international law.

Israel is a state with the unique history of being created by United Nations approval. Every day that Israel continues to occupy the West Bank and Gaza in violation of UN resolutions, to militarily control the territories, to surround them and prevent travel and business to freely pass their boundaries, to terrorize their citizens, then Israel is indeed forfeiting its right to exist under it UN birthright.

Gregory Wonderwheel