March 2001 Guide

---

108 Bows Ceremony

This month the 108 Bows ceremony, led by Sr. Hanasi Abhaya Karuna, will
begin at 9:30 and end at 10:30, comprised of the Daily Chants at 9:30,
followed by the ceremony honoring the 88 known Buddhas of different time
periods.

Refuge given to prisoners

On Sunday, February 18, Ven. Karuna Dharma led the IBMC monks, Ven.
Shanti, Rev. Sakya Bodhi, Rev. Kusala and Rev. Vajra, in giving refuge to 20
incarcerated men, who had been studying with Ven. Karuna for the past year.
She had offered to give refuge to the 300 men who were receiving the Monthly
Guide. Eight-five responded that they were interested and Ven. Karuna sent
them Zen Philosophy, Zen Practice by Ven. Dr. Thich Thien-An and Taking
Refuge by Bhikkhu Thanissaro along with questions for them to answer. Over
the past year they sent her answers, which she then responded to. Of the 85
who expressed interest, 20 successfully finished the course. Their reward
was to take refuge via a telephone conference call. They were each sent a
certificate with their new Buddhist name, a wrist mala (prayer beads), a
religious medal of the Buddha and a golden colored rakasu, just as IBMC
members do when they take refuge after a weekend retreat.

One Day Retreat/Seminar

Rev. Kusala Ratna Karuna (Thich Tam Thien) is offering a one day
retreat/seminar on Saturday, March 10, on the topic of the Four Noble
Truths. The seminar will consist of talks & discussion, alternated with
periods of sitting. Fee for the seminar is $30 ($20 for full members; $10
for residents) and includes a delicious vegetarian lunch. Please inform the
office at (213) 384-0850 or Rev. Kusala directly at (213) 384-1290 by March
6 if you intend to attend the seminar.

Rev. Tri Ratna Priya Retired

If you have been to IBMC recently, I am sure that you noticed the absence of
someone important to the Center. Rev. TriRatna Priya (Thich Tam-Tue) has
retired. He had decided that when he reached 76, he would retire from
activities at the Center. So, since his birthday, January 1, he has been
absent. We will miss his encouraging talks and his role on our Board of
Directors. He, however, remains active at restoring Buddhist antiquities.

IBMC may lose Thien-An House

At the time of publishing of this Guide, February 11, the Los Angeles
Unified School District notified us of the possibility that they may take
Thien-An house, along with all properties on the west side of New Hampshire
and the east side of Berendo Street, between San Marino Street and James M.
Wood Blvd by eminent domain to build a new elementary school in order to
meet the need of 150 new schools by year 2005. We had been notified of this
possibility six weeks earlier, but the plan was dropped when the Ambassador
Hotel site became available. Now the school district is back to its original
plan. If it goes through as expected, IBMC will lose its apartment building
where the Abbess and the Sri Lankan monks live, along with its library room.
The public meeting to voice concerns is scheduled for Tuesday, February 20.
We will keep you up to date on what is happening regarding this issue in the
coming Monthly Guides.

Letters from Prisoners

I would like again to share with you a few letters which I have received
from inmates, which illustrate how important our work with prisoners is. We
send every Guide to them first class as required. It costs nearly $100 every
month for the postage. (We send two Guides every other month to cut costs.
Our first package costs $1.13 to send by book rate 6 months’ Guides and the
two books Zen Buddhism:Awareness in Action and Buddhist Concepts by American
Disciples. If you would like to help with the cost of our prison project, we
would appreciate it. Also, if you would like to correspond with a prisoner,
call me at 213 382-9972 and I will provide you with an address of an inmate.

Dearest Teacher:

I look forward to the Refuge Ceremony, Dear Abbess, but unfortunately the
prison will not allow me to use the phone to do so. Although I would like to
participate with the others, it is not a big deal. Either way, I value your
refuge and I am grateful for the time and patience with me. I have learned
so much and even though I have much time before I become fully enlight-ened
(perhaps lifetimes!)I know that the Dharma Sakyamini Buddha pointed us
towards is the only path for me to tread.

Dear teacher, I’m sure you have come across a “few” prisoners who have
half-heartedly tried to tread the Dharma under your generous guidance. While
I am sincere in my practice, some-times I feel I am a burden to you and
others. I know I feel this way because some mean-spirited people made me
feel this way in the past and for some reason I cling to it. Often, I find
myself too eager to please those that could care less, and not eager enough
to please those whose care is genuine. What am I trying to say? Perhaps I’m
needy. Ha! No, seriously I find it easy to discard material objects from my
life, but the emotional “blockage” is more difficult. It could be that I am
not trying enough or maybe I’m trying too hard. Either way I can only
attempt to progress. I could also be making a great deal out of nothing.
Alas, I am sure my rambling makes no sense.

I am enclosing the chaplain’s answer to my request to take refuge over the
phone. He did not respond to your question of whether we may receive the
prayer beads and the rakasu, but I have sent another request to him about
it. Perhaps you can ask him about it as well? I know for a fact that Muslims
may receive prayer rugs and prayer beads, so I assume that it is only fair
for Buddhists to receive non-security items as well. I don’t believe there
will be a problem, but I will pursue it to the highest official of the
prison system and the court system as well if the items are denied.

My family can rarely help me financially, so I began running games of chance
in order to make a little money. I even won one game myself and made $3.00.
I am sending you $2 in stamps to help you with postage. It’s not much, but I
vowed to myself that I would help you when I could It would have been $3,
but $1 consisted of a ramen soup and four mini bars of soap. . .

Since early November I have been on the approved vegetarian diet. In place
of the meat course I receive two servings of beans. I also receive all other
vegetables on the regular tray, plus a double portion of bread (4 instead of
2). It is very satisfying to respect the animal beings by not eating them. I
wouldn’t want someone to kill me for food!

Well, Abbess, I will conclude this letter. I look forward to your evaluation
of my answers and to the Refuge ceremony. Thank you for your generosity of
guiding me along the path to enlightenment. I am honored to be your student.

In Honor of the Three Jewels,
Signature

Dear Sir:

Please keep my name and address on your mailing list.for your 2001 Monthly
Guide. I enjoy your Guide very much. I share it with other inmates here at
the prison. They enjoy reading it too. I wish to thank you for your concern
and time.

Signature

Dear Ven. Dr. Karuna Dharma:

I am writing to request that my name be retained on the IBMC mailing list. I
very much enjoy receiving the Monthly Guide. As a prisoner, it is my primary
source of news about the Buddhist community to which I am affiliated.

Secondly, I understand Rev. Abhaya Karuna of the Angulimala Program for
Prison Monastics has duscussed my situation with you. I have been a part of
the Angulimala family for about four years now. I’ve been a student of
Buddhadharma since 1968 and took refuge originally in 1969. Rev. Abhaya very
kindly gave me refuge again in 1999. I may be released early but for now I
am looking at a 11/11/03 release date. There is an attorney who believes I
was unjustly treated and is seeking my imminent release. I understand Rev.
Abhaya spoke to you about me when he was there for Grand Ordination.

My goal upon release is to study, take monastic vows, and then establish an
urban Dharma center. The State of Indiana has offered me a grant to do this
based on my work at the Branchville facility where I act as “resident
teacher”. (Sensei is what the men have begun calling me.) I would like to
do this as an ordained monk. I would like to take novitiate vows now, even
while incarcerated. This is a “monastic” environment. I have read where
other prisoners have taken vows and took final vows when released.

The social work I envision is one in which a Dharma Center could serve as a
place of healing the wounds of the suffering, the abused, the addictive and
marginalized. I am an educated man and act as a counselor and teacher here
among other prisoners and through correspondance. In the communuity I can
extend my role to act as a go-between for those unable, afraid, or some
other reason unwilling to avail themselves of community resources. It is my
feeling that we ought to educate others by classroom, and as importantly, by
example. I am about to turn 51 and have spent over 15 years in prison now. I
would like to serve others and repay with kindness what I took out of
greed.. . .

Because of my close association with Rev. Abhaya Karuna and Vietnamese
background (It was in Hue I was to take refuge and Danang where I discovered
Dharma) I feel connection to IBMC. I would now request you to consider me as
a candidate for novitiate vows/ordination.

Sincerely,

Ananda


March Events

Sunday Talks

3/4 Why Do We Suffer?
11am Rev. Kusala Ratna Karuna

3/11 What Are the Klesas?
11am Ven. Havanpola Shanti

3/18 Zen and the Art of Dishwashing
11am Bro. Ksanti Karuna

3/25 What Is Our Destiny?
11am Ven. Dr. Karuba Dharma

Classes at IBMC

Mon History of Zen
6:30 Rev. Vajra Karuna, Ananda Hall

Tues Diamond Sutra, Hui Neng Platform Sutra
7:00 Ven. Dr. Karuna Dharma, library

Wed Applied Buddhism
7:00 Rev. Kusalsa Ratna Karuna, Zendo

6:30 Basic Buddhism
Dr. Siri Warnisuriya, College office

Fri Certificate in Buddhist Studies
6:30 Dr. Siri Warnisurya, college office

Special Events

3/4 108 Bows Ceremony

3/10 Retreat/Seminar onBasic Buddhism
Rev. Kusala Ratna Karuna


Meditation times

Tuesday, Thursday, Friday 7-8 am

Mon, Thurs, Sun evenings from 6-9 pm, led by Rev. Sakya Bodhi

Wed evening: 7-9 pm, led by Rev. Kusala
Fri evening: 7:30-9 pm, led by Rev. Kusala


IBMC web page is found at:
InternationalBuddhistMeditationCtr.org
You can email us at:
IBMC@InternationalBuddhistMeditationCtr.
Rev. Karuna’s email address is: Karunadh@earthlink.net
Karuna’s web page is: www. home.earthlink.net/~karunadh.
Rev. Kusala’s email: Kusala@kusala.org
Rev. Kusala’s web page: www.kusala.org
Rev. Shanti’s email: Hshanti@earthlink.net
Rev. Prabuddhi’s is: Prabuddhi@yahoo.com
Rev. Vajra’s email: Madmonk88@aol.com
Bro. Sunya’s email: Sunya2@Earthlink.net
Bro. Ksanti and Bro.Sraddha’s email: VictorTom@AOL.com

Zen and God, part I

by Rev. Vajra Karuna, Thich Tam-Thi
given at IBMC as a talk on February 4, 2001

This is going to be a two part talk, the second part of which will be given
next time I talk. The talk today will attempt to explain some of the
difficulties that Zen has, or at least should have, with the concept of
God, especially as found in the Western or Judeo-Christian tradition, but
also to some degree as found in Buddhism. Part two, on the other hand, will
deal with the possibility that Zen can accept the term God and even
constructively use it, although in a very non-Western sense.

Before beginning my critique of the God concept I want to make it perfectly
clear that in suggesting that there are some real logic problems with the
standard Western concept of God this in no way suggests that my Zen
religious views are any more logical. I am of the opinion that all religions
are based on the absurd. I do not think what is attributed to the Buddha is
anything less absurd that what is attributed to Moses, Jesus, Mohammed or
any other religious figure.

In examining the western God concept I am simply pointing out why that
particular absurdity works less for me then the absurdity called Zen. As
long as we all recognize that one religion is no less rational than another
religion then every religion can be of benefit to mankind. It is only when
we begin to think that ours maybe a little bit more rational than someone
else’s that religion becomes potentially dangerous. When the next step
occurs and we truly believe that our religion is the absolute truth then
religion has become a malevolent disease that murders people.

To avoid any suggestion, therefore, that this critique of the God concept is
nothing more than Christian bashing, I will point out that many of the
criticism that can be applied to that concept can also be applied to some
basic Buddhist God-substitute concepts.

A year or so ago I gave a talk here titled Is there God in Buddhism? In that
talk I challanged the often made statement that Buddhism denies the
existence of God. I pointed out that the accuracy of that statement depended
entirely upon the definition that was being used for God. For example, if
the minimal definition for God is the supreme source of value in existence
then even the early Buddhist nirvana could qualify as God. But, on a
practical basis, such a minimal definition does not seem to do adequate
justice to the term God. Every tradition that acknowledges God appears to
require that He, She or It serves to directly make life in and of itself
good or worthwhile. The early Buddhist view of life as essentially
dissatisfying, and that tradition’s goal of seeking to escape from this
dissatisfaction, leaves no real place for an aspect of a God that validates
life itself. While Hinduism shares with Indian Buddhism, as a whole, a
fairly negative view of life, both it and Mahayana Buddhism envision the
ultimate reality of Brahman and the Dharmakaya as having the characteristic
of love (prema) and compassion (karuna) respectively. Not withstanding
certain differences, this is very similar to the Western concept of God as
love (agape). This aspect of God gives life meaning despite the suffering in
it. There are, of course, certain problems with either love or compassion
being deified, but I will come back to this later on.

In Western religion the term God is defined exclusively as a supreme being
who is the creator and ruler of the universe, as well as the judge and
savior of human-kind. This very political definition of God Zen must be
critical of in no uncertain terms. For Zen any kind of western monotheistic
personalism at best appears to make God a cosmological redundancy, while at
worst a pitifully immoral sadistic ego maniacal real-estate broker. In
either cases, for Zen this God is a logical contradiction.

In order to help understand what Zen means by viewing the western God in
these negative terms I will now amplify on each one of those terms.

Zen, like most forms of Buddhism, does not recognize the concept of a
personal,or even impersonal, creator of the universe. In its very earliest
period, Buddhism avoided making statements about the origin of existence,
viewing it as an unanswerable question, and therefore it was a waste of time
and effort to even bother with thinking about it. Thus when it came to the
issue of a universal creator earliest Buddhism was technically agnostic.
This official stand, however, did not prevent Buddhist philosophers from
pointing out that after any statement that God created the universe the
logical question was who created God? The Western answer is no one; God has
always existed. The Buddhist response is “so why do you need God as a
creator? Why not just say that the universe has always existed? Why add
God to the eternity of existence?” This only makes for a redundancy.

In early Buddhism the idea of a personal creator was closely connected to
the belief in determinism or fatalism, which meant that the notion of God as
a creator was rejected on moral grounds. The moral “God as the creator”
has always been the greatest theological problem in Western religion. Some
of the greatest theological minds have wrestled with and agonized over the
conundrum “If God is all good, all powerful and all knowing, even able to
see into the future, why did He create a world full of so much suffering and
evil?”

While various attempts to answer this question, without com-promising God’s
moral nature and authority, have been made over the centuries, no completely
satisfactory answer has ever been given. Western religion generally tries
to respond to the problem by calling it an unanswerable religious mystery.
Most forms of Buddhism, including Zen, have taken the less accommodating
attitude that this kind of God is amoral or worst immoral.

In all fairness to Western religion it should be noted that Buddhism has a
similar problem with its inability to explain the ultimate origin of karmic
individuality, its delusion of selfhood, and the evils that result from
this. Thus as far as a first cause is concerned, especially with its regards
to the origin of evil, both traditions share a similar logical problem.

The next crtical question concerning personal monotheism involves the issue
of worship. In all religions that have God or gods, the divine entity not
only expects, but demands, to be worshipped. Traditionally Buddhism has
never denied the right of its followers to believe in and pray to any folk
divinities that the people believed in prior to becoming Buddhists. But it
has taken the position that such gods or spirits are at best unenlightened
beings that have certain supernatural powers. Furthermore, while
acknowledging that such deities, in exchange for being worshipped, might
provide material benefits, Buddhism denies that such divinities, themselves
being unenlightened, have any power to aid in the task of spiritual
enlightenment. In other words these beings are little more than powerful
egos, just as subject to eventual birth and death as are human beings. In
fact, the only difference between these heavenly egos and the humans who
worship them are that the gods possess supernatural powers. For any beings
subject to birth and death the egocentric desire to be worshipped is hardly
an unexpected phenomenon. But when it comes to a being who is said to be all
powerful and eternal the question to ask is why he would need, much less
demand, to be worshipped. Why should God be so maniacally egocentric as to
threaten that we pathetically mortal beings will be sent to endless
suffering in hell if we do not sing His praises night and day. Is not such a
being truly pitiful? What is more is not His ability and willingness to
carry out His threat a sadistic use of His power.

Also, since we are on the subject of divine sadism, there is a considerable
uneasiness in all Buddhist tradition with the idea that as payment for
mankind’s moral transgressions God required a divine human sacrifice in the
form of Jesus. This is especially incom-prehensible to Buddhists if we go
back to our earlier point of questioning whether it was not God himself who
was, at least partially, responsible for evil in the world.

This brings us to the image of a God who is into real-estate. There is no
reason why some inferior local god would play real-estate broker and parcel
out pieces o fproperty to one favored group of people over another. But it
is not reasonable to expect that a so-called all-loving Father of all
humanity would play such favors. This question, of course, becomes crucial
when we are lead to believe that this Father should have had the foresight
to know that His children would eventually murder each other over such
real-estate.

There are a number of other aspects on which Buddhists have criticized
Western religion, especially Christianity. Among these are the teaching
about Original sin; the resurrection of the dead; and the concept that God’s
nature is one of transcendental love. I have specifically left these issues
to the last because I believe that any traditional Buddhist who uses them
exclusively to challenge Christianity is a hypocrite. This is because it can
be easily demonstrated that the standard Buddhist teaching about karma in
many ways is a version of original sin. Both serve to convince people that
they are personally responsible for the misery in their own lives, and both
have historically served to keep the poor and the oppressed poor and
oppressed, and the rich and the powerful rich and powerful. Also, in the
absence of any God who is the giver and enforcer of moral laws, karma
serves as a substitute for that function of God. Buddhists, no less than
Christian, want to feel that the universe cares about them. The belief in
the rewarding and punishing aspect of God or of karma equally serve to
satisfy this want.

The Buddhist concept of an after-life is just as much dependent on people’s
feelings of guilt, disappointment, desire for revenge, as well as society’s
attempt at social control, as is its Christian counterpart. So there is no
logical evidence that the Buddhist teaching about rebirth is more founded on
reality than is the Christian one about the resurrection of the dead. Both
are accepted solely on the basis of faith. Faith means the will to believe
in the absence of logical, much less concrete, proof and this, of course,
is one reason for seeing both religious traditions as founded on the absurd.

Actually, from a purely canonical perspective, the Christian view has a
slight advantage over the Buddhist one. The New Testament is very consistent
in its statements with regards to support for a resurrection view. The early
Buddhist canon, on the other hand, has numerous contradictory statements on
the subject of rebirth which threaten to undermines its position on that
subject. Much of this ambiguity in the canon is due to the problem of the
Buddhist teaching that there is no soul and yet there is rebirth. Since no
completely satisfactory answer has ever been given to this problem
Buddhism’s response to the issue, like so many Christian responses, has
generally been to calling it an unanswerable religious mystery.

Finally, I wish to return to the subject of the deification of love or
compassion. To characterize the divine as love or compassion is merely to
personify abstract nouns. This may give great comfort to those who believe
in the transcendental reality of such nouns, but the fact is that this is
little more than a hold-over from primitive religious thinking; after all
many ancient religions have deified abstract nouns. There are the gods of
truth, of wisdom, of war, of peace, of justice, of medicine, of music and
art, and of every sort of trade. If either Chirstianity or Mahayana Buddhism
claimed that love or compassion were God, this might merely mean that they
regard this human emotion as of the highest value. But to claim a
transcendental source for these is to anthropomorphize the universe, which
to all available evidence shows no interest in whether we exist or not.
Thus, any religions in the modern age which hold on to such concepts seems
to open themselves up to the criticism of being somewhat childish.

I wish to close this critique at the point at which I stated it, namely with
the statement that I am of the opinion that all religions are based on the
absurd. No proof can be given for the truthfulness of any religion;
therefore, to believe in any one of them is illogical, or absurd. But human
life itself is an absurdity and the only way we have of keeping our sanity
is to trust in some absurdity.

Anitya

by Ven. Dr. Karuna Dharma

Anicca (Pali), (anitya, Skt.), impermanence, underlies all Buddhist thought
and practice and is the foundation of Buddhist under-standing of reality.

For many centuries most Western people had thought that the universe was a
permanent thing, put into place by a Creator God, with the earth at its
center. They reasoned that such a complex system could not come into
existence except through the creation of a superior intelligence. They named
that superior intelligence God and declared his permanence. They believed
that humankind reflected the image of God and contained also an immortal
essence, which they termed soul. So, while things around them might change,
they reasoned, at least they were assured of permanence, an eternal
existence after death if they lived in accordance with God's will.

In India twenty-five centuries ago, Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha,
proclaimed that there is no permanence anywhere. In his enlightenment
experience he witnessed the arising and disappearing of entire universe
systems. He saw very clearly that all things are impermanent, that they
arise, mature and pass away. He recognized that all things are comprised of
conditioned states and that there is no permanent essence to anything. He
also realized that the arising and disappearing of states of existence
occurred because of various conditions. Should any condition change, the
object changed or disappeared.

Even those things which appear to be permanent and unchanging also are in a
constant state of change. The mountains appear to be permanent and
unchanging, but their very existence is the result of tectonic forces
within the crust and mantle of the earth. Volcanoes, inactive for many
centuries come alive and new ones pop into existence. Earthquakes build
mountain ranges. Ocean becomes land and land becomes ocean. These changes
never cease. All matter itself is alive with constant change. Its very
nature is a mass of constantly moving energy. Rocks may appear to be inert
objects, but in actuality, their very structure is one of constant movement.

The Buddha taught that all conditioned things are impermanent and constantly
changing and that they have no permanent essence. He explained that while we
may think of ourselves as single objects of existence, in fact humans are
made up of a collection of five conditioned, impermanent states: body
(rupa), sense contacts and sensations (vedana), perceptions and conceptions
(samjna), volitional actions and karmic tendencies (samskaras) and basic
consciousness (vijñana). These collections (skandhas) of things are the true
nature of the person and they are constantly changing. The body grows old,
becomes ill and dies. Sense contacts lead to perception and conception and
these are constantly changing. Our karmic activities never cease and
underlying all these is the basal consciousness, which at death also
disappears with all of the other samskaras.

The Buddha explained that we should not become too attached to our bodies
and their sensual experiences and thoughts that arise from them, because the
attachment to our bodies and to life causes us great dukkha, suffering and
misery. Sense contact brings us sense experiences which we then term as
desirable or undesirable. From this judgment arises the desire to
re-experience similar sensual experiences, which lead directly to
attachment. This attachment then leads to a great thirst or craving for the
experience. Soon we are entrapped in the need to continuesuch experiences,
for we feel we need or want them. But all experience is very momentary.
Hardly have we grasped onto one, when it disappears and a new attraction
grabs our minds. Soon we are enmeshed in a great, complex web of desire, all
of which is very transitory, and thus unsatisfactory.

The Buddha stated that for us to become free from the constant round of
rebirth and suffering, we would need to realize the changing nature of
things in its true perspective, so that we could free ourselves from the
need for certain experiences, attachment to self and to the illusion of
permanence.

One of the major causes of dukkha is our puny attempts to make impermanent
things permanent. We want to amass and hold on to things which please our
ego concepts. We strive to hold on to youth, to wealth, to fame, to romance.
All of these experiences are fleeting. They arise, mature and disintegrate.
It is not change itself which causes the greatest pain, it is our resistance
to this change that causes the real dukkha. The Buddha again and again
explained: "Impermanent indeed are all conditioned things; they are of the
nature of arising and passing away. Having come into being, they cease to
exist. Hence their pacification is tranquility."

He urged his disciples to truly understand the ultimate nature of all
things, that is their impermanence. He had his disciples meditate upon the
disintegration of things, including their own bodies, in order to try to
break their inordinate clinging to objects of all kinds: physical, vocal or
mental.

Once the individual truly sees that things cannot be grasped for more than a
few moments, then these unhealthy attachments and aversions can be given up
and the practitioner can be freed from the enslavement he has produced for
himself.