Looking Up an Old Friend

This month I've been attemping this crazy project called National Novel Writing Month (affectionately referred to as NaNoWriMo by participants). By the weekend after Thanksgiving, I had only amassed a word count of 22,207 of the required 50,000 words in order to be counted a winner. My story idea exhausted itself and there was no where else to go with it, but it ignited my love for reading and writing and sent me on a hunt for new reads to devour.

During the process, I looked up an old friend—The Sun Magazine—because I've often been inspired and informed and moved by the stories, articles, poems and personal essays that are printed on its pages. The Sun was introduced to me by my high school creative writing teacher—a thin rail of a guy with long greying hair. He was kind of a hippie (and no, I don't have a problem with hippies... he just stood out in the conservative district where he taught and I attended school)—but he had good taste in literature. He would bring copies into the classroom to show us how "real writers" exercised the craft. He would tell a group of us later while we were working on the school's literary magazine that critiquing high school writing was often an unfulfilling experience. I produced my share of really bad essays, so I suppose I contributed to his pain... But during those classes I understood that writing was very important to me and that one day I hoped to craft my words well. I think he was grateful to those of us who tried because we had respect for language even when we jumbled it badly.

So maybe two weeks ago I was surfing online and found the magazine's recently updated website. As an IT professional, I am in awe of the design work on the site. It really is perfect and flawless. But even if the site was devoid of elegant Cascading Style Sheets, I would still read the content. It doesn't need a nice dress to look good.

Endorsements aside, there is an article out there that I wanted to share. It was written by Stephen T. Butterfield in the March 1988 issue. It is currently published in the Favorites from the Archives section, but I don't know how long it will be available. If you find this post years from now and they've pulled it from the site, this particular article is also published in the third Best of the Sun collection.

Just trust me on this—it is a thought-provoking read.

Sarva Dharma Samabhava

This BuddhismNews.it article is an interesting read. It discusses Ghandi's and Ambedkar's views on Nationalist Muslims. The article begins with a statement by Ghandi:

Scriptures cannot transcend reason and truth. They are intended to purify reason and illuminate truth. Every formula of every religion has, in this age of reason, to submit to the test of reason and universal justice if it is to ask for universal assent. Error can claim no exemption even if it can be supported by the scriptures of the world.

Buddhists would find nothing to disagree with here. Buddha himself suggested that we try the teachings on... that we experiment with thoughts and actions, that we evaluate the results of our thoughts and actions to determine their merit. Everything in Buddhism is subject to the test of reason. Each practitioner is encouraged to be a thorough examiner.

Sarva Dharma Samabhava means equal validity of all religions. This was a concept that Ghandi believed strongly. Ambedkhar dissented. In this post 911/post 77 world, Ambedkhar's words feel somewhat prophetic. Seeking answers to his questions Do the Islamic scriptures pass the tests of reason and universal justice and brotherhood? Do these scriptures allow its adherents to live peacefully with persons professing other faiths? his findings were not in tune with Sarva Dharma Samabhava. He believed:

Islam [is] an exclusive, intolerant and monopolistic religion.

Well, arguably it can be... but we can't count out the non-violent, peace-seeking Muslims who promote Islam as a religion of peace. Despite the violent demonstrations we see that contradict this (unfortunately more frequently as of late) I'm holding out for Sarva Dharma Samabhava. I agree with Ghandi... we can work towards a world where muslims and non-muslims can live in peace with respect and understanding. Perhaps, as we work towards that world, we should also listen to and heed Ambedkar's concerns. I found some truth in what both men were saying.

So, It's a Black Thing? v. 2

The discussion continues. Yesterday, I posted a message in the Black Buddhists Yahoo! group asking bloggers (if they are out there) to let me know about their blogs. I included a link to a past entry, Blogging while Black (and Buddhist). A couple of comments have been posted there regarding the more recent post So, It's a Black Thing?. In fact, Choyin, the author of Black Buddha: A Diversity Perspective, stopped by to share his thoughts. An excerpt:

Let's us be free of the shackles of racial separateness that has so plagued our human love and compassion for one another. We are one, and have always been. To think of one's self as having a lineage stemming from Africa is not a curse; rather it is liberation into a truth that eradicates pigment as a point of difference.

I have not read Choyin's book. Though I can't speak for him with any authority, I think this excerpt points to the intent of his book. If an understanding of anthropology can bring people closer together, causing them to see themselves as more similar than different, I'm all for it. Personally, I think we can connect more to our similarities by looking at our minds and hearts. That belief is one of the reasons why I tltled my blog "Zen Under the Skin." Bodies and their pigments are both similar and different. I think we find more sameness in what's going on under the skin.

So, It's a Black Thing?

Today, I picked up a copy of the Summer 2005 issue of Buddhadharma magazine. Two of the pieces published this month deal in some way with Black Buddhists and diversity in practice centers.

In Legitimate Heirs, Not Invited Guests, Rebecca Walker reviews Choyin Rangdrol's self-published book Black Buddha: A Diversity Perspective. I was familiar with the book, as I am marginally familiar with Choyin Rangdrol. I have skimmed his website, and provide a link to it on the "Resources for Black Buddhists" page on this site. Like Rebecca was before an apparent change of heart, I am somewhat skeptical of Rangdrol's work. In her book review, she states:

When I first read Black Buddha, I was skeptical. I found it too close to Afrocentricity, which itself is an expression of cultural bias. And then there was the fact that I didn't feel alienated from Buddhism, and I had my malas and pashminas to prove it.

I have not read Rangdrol's book. In fact, before reading Rebecca's review I was probably completely closed to the idea of reading it. The book's premise felt like a distraction... a controversy that would not add to my practice. From what I understood, Rangdrol was attempting to set forth an Asa Hilliard-like hypothesis that the founders of Buddhism were as much African as they were Indian or Asian. Browsing his site a couple of years ago, I wondered... Could there be some truth to the hypothesis? I also asked myself... What difference would it make?

I've studied the African diaspora. I also had college courses that delved into the origin of man and explored the academics... the science that suggests that humankind came forth out of Africa. I found it all fascinating. Yet it concerns me when people use these facts as arguments for the "Africanization" (yes, I believe I just made that word up) of all things. I don't agree with the argument that because the human story began in Africa, all things are African. I don't believe it is practical to suggest that African Americans should feel that they are legitimate heirs to the Dharma because the people of India who founded Buddhism may have had some ancestral connection to Africans. The argument seems to assume that Buddha intended the Dharma for people who were just like him, that the legitimate heirs to Buddha's Dharma were people that had to look like him. This is problematic on so many levels. Even the most basic accounts of the life of the Buddha refute these notions.

I'm concerned that people seem to want to transpose Afrocentricity and Buddhism. I'm worried. If the goal of this juxtaposition is to increase diversity in the sangha, I question the wisdom of the approach. We are, all of us in this human realm, legitimate heirs to the Dharma. We don't need to extrapolate anthropological connections to make our connection to the Dharma more real or substantial than it already is. Let's not make Buddhism an African thing, an Asian thing, a thing for middle-class White Americans, a Black thing, or any other thing that does not embrace or celebrate everything.

What does interest me about Rangdrol's book after reading Walker's review is his "personal story of finding liberation through the dharma." Isn't that what the dharma is really about... learning to free ourselves from suffering? Can't we just leave it there? Isn't that enough?