"An Apostle for Peace..."

And a Dream Deferred

Image from cloudcottage.org

There’s a group at work trying to award my Sensei the Nobel Prize for Peace for which he was nominated in 1967. I couldn’t be more thrilled!

Anyone who’s read my posts over the years knows that the spiritual teacher I quote more than any other is the Vietnamese Zen Master Thich Nhat Hahn. I think he’s an extraordinary human being, a unique embodiment of peace and tranquility. He also has some of the most venerable company one could hope for: none other than Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

When Dr. King first started doing his landmark civil rights work in the United States, his focus was on racism and poverty. Although his nonviolent philosophy caused him to regard the Vietnam War as an exercise in madness, he had been warned not to take on the anti-war label. Many of his supporters believed that this singular hot-button issue would alienate key supporters and detract from the civil rights struggle. It wasn’t until after King had met Thich Nhat Hahn that he began to see racism, poverty and war as “the three-part scourge of humanity.” When he learned of the suffering of the Vietnamese people, he began to recognize it as inextricably linked to the struggle of people of color in the United States.

Nhat Hahn was a young monk in Vietnam in an area that had been under continual bombardment from the Viet Cong, the South Vietnamese, and the Americans for years. He founded what would come to be known as “engaged Buddhism” in response to this crisis, arguing that it was immoral for monastics to sit in the monastery meditating while people in the nearby villages suffered the effects of almost nonstop aerial bombardment. With a few other courageous monks and nuns, he founded his School of Youth for Social Services and went to where the bombs were falling to relieve the suffering in any way possible. Because he and his fellow monastics insisted that the war was the result of wrong perceptions -- refusing to take sides -- they were hated equally by those warring factions. Nhat Hahn saw friends blown apart by bombs; many of those friends were maimed or killed. He himself narrowly escaped death when a grenade was thrown through his window, bounced off the wall and exploded in an adjacent room. A few Vietnamese Buddhist nuns were so driven to despair and madness by the constant violence that they self-immolated. He knew something needed to be done quickly, and saw a potential strong ally in Dr. King.

In his letter, he told the civil rights leader that his people saw him as a Bodhisattva, a “great, enlightened being.” He wrote of the suffering of the villagers, and pleaded with Dr. King for his help, saying that many of the seeds of the conflict in his homeland originated in the United States. Still, he refused to take sides; he only wanted to stop the violence.

Dr. King met Thich Nhat Hahn, and was so deeply impressed by the man that he nominated him for the Nobel Peace Prize. In his nomination essay, he wrote,

I do not personally know of anyone more worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize than this gentle Buddhist monk from Vietnam. He is an apostle of peace...his ideas, if applied, would build a monument to ecumenism, to world brotherhood, to humanity.

As a result of his outspoken resistance to the war, Thich Nhat Hahn was exiled from his homeland and eventually took up residence in the French countryside. He gradually gathered friends and fellow practitioners and established a community of practice known as Plum Village Mindfulness Practise Centre. In the ensuing decades, the community would train hundreds of monastics and provide retreats for thousands of lay practitioners. In addition to writing extraordinary books such as Living Buddha, Living Christ and Peace Is Every Step, Nhat Hahn has founded a monastic order known as the Order of Interbeing. He has also offered retreats specifically for veterans of the Vietnam War (both Vietnamese and American together) and for Palestinians and Israelis. At these retreats, he helps these people to understand that seeing the other group as the source of all their suffering is a delusion. Rather, he stresses learning to see members of the other group as human beings who also suffer. Ultimately, he says, our suffering is the result of wrong perceptions, a failure of compassion, and a lack of understanding that we are all inextricably linked as human beings. The suffering of one is the suffering of all; the happiness of one is the happiness of all. This fundamental rejection of dualistic thinking lies at the heart of all his philosophy and instruction. It has relieved a great deal of suffering and has helped to thrust the message of mindfulness onto the world stage.

We recently celebrated the birthday of Dr. King. In honor of his legacy and his unfulfilled dream of seeing Thich Nhat Hahn awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, the international group Fellowship of Reconciliation (FOR) has set about trying to make that happen. Nhat Hahn is now 86, and still teaching around the world. I share the group’s vision to honor both Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and “this gentle Buddhist monk from Vietnam” during the latter’s lifetime, and I invite you to join me! Please click here for more information:  http://forusa.org/blogs/for/thich-nhat-hanh-for-nobel-your-nomination-for-for-peace-prize/11761.

The Most Fundamental Attack on Our Essential Integrity

Image from fairobserver.com

And How to Deflect It Nonviolently

It bears repeating, again and again, that human morality and ethics predate all forms of religion and philosophical schools. They are innate characteristics of Homo sapiens; their root can be seen in the reciprocity practiced by other primate species. The often-repeated epithet that we are incapable of behaving ethically without subscribing to a particular belief system should never stand unchallenged. It is the most fundamental and ubiquitous attack on our essential integrity as human beings.

Those of us who are of a secular mindset have to deal with this form of libel on an almost daily basis. The argument that nonbelievers are incapable of ethical behavior was decisively laid to rest by philosophers centuries ago, and is proven false today by the many ethical humanists and atheists today; nevertheless, it persists. Unfortunately, in some segments of contemporary society, such specious judgments are culturally reinforced in a powerful way. Yoga practitioners are hardly immune; the ridiculous view that they somehow open themselves up to “demonic forces" surfaces perennially.

I can't help but wonder if the people stating these views have ever thought them through to their logical conclusions. Essentially, they are saying that without an invigilating celestial entity, the vast majority of human beings in general would behave like sociopaths. Ours is a primate species, the members of which depend on one another for survival. Had we not enforced our innate cultural taboos on behaviors like murder, rape, theft, and perjury, we most likely would have become extinct long ago. Indeed, societies that fail to observe the universal taboos (including incest and cannibalism) do tend to die out in short order.

People who argue this way make us secularists distinctly nervous. In effect, they are telling us that, absent a cosmic “Big Brother” watching over their shoulders, they would act like the Jeffrey Dahlmers of the world.

To find that this is demonstrably false, one need look no further than societies whose majority religions are non-theistic. Think of the Asian societies in which Buddhism and Confucianism were regnant: they did not produce more than their share of sociopaths and psychopaths. One might fall back on the argument that “at least they had some form of religion.” That’s fine as far as it goes, but it ignores other demonstrable facts. Today, some of the countries with the lowest crime rates in the world are also the least religious. Sweden, for instance, has a remarkably low incidence of crime, with homicide rates lower than 0.1 per 100,000 citizens. Yet, according to a 2010 Eurobarometer Poll, fewer than 18% of Swedish citizens believe in a personal god. And in the United States, the states with the highest rates of violent crime, pornography consumption and child abuse are found in what is known as the Bible Belt.

Of course, it would be intellectually dishonest to assert that religiosity or the lack thereof is the sole determinant of violence and crime in a society (coincidence does not necessarily indicate causation). Many other elements come into play: existential security, geopolitical significance to neighboring countries, monetary resources, and income disparity are all powerful determinants of a country’s crime rates. Nonetheless, the specific argument I’m addressing: the notion that without god, Homo homini lupus ("man is wolf to man"), crumbles when one looks at the facts.

There’s another reality of which most yoga and meditation practitioners are no doubt personally aware: those who engage in these practices regularly -- some of whom are religious while others are not -- are some of the most peaceable people on the planet. This should come as no surprise; a practice that encourages introspective awareness, holistic living, and a deep respect for the interconnected nature of all things can't help but have a positive impact on its practitioners.That influence tends to overflow toward other living beings.

I am not inherently hostile toward religion. I consider it an important anthropological and cultural phenomenon that can serve societal cohesion, help people find peace of mind, and encourage them to live according to the universal treat-others-as-you-wish-to-be-treated dictum. Like any other human institution, however, it can go terribly wrong. On any given day, one cannot open a newspaper or watch televised news without discovering that sectarian conflicts -- based largely on religious differences -- are causing slaughter and mayhem around the world. While it’s fortunately true (although counterintuitive) that violence is actually decreasing around the world, the Pew Research Center recently reported that “violence and discrimination against religious groups by governments and rival faiths have reached new highs in all regions of the world except the Americas” (Reuters, January 14, 2014). Something is clearly wrong here.

Mohandas Gandhi famously said that “In reality there are as many religions as there are individuals.” Add the words “and/or philosophies” to that statement, and I wholeheartedly agree. Perhaps it’s time for the question to be altered and inverted: how may human beings live morally and ethically with the global profusion of god-concepts -- and the violence they seem to generate?

Toward a More Humane Society

Image from imperfectspirituality.com

As we say goodbye to 2013, I  know many will join me in hoping to see a wholesale societal shift toward more inclusive, humane, and compassionate living in the coming year. Last year saw more than enough divisiveness, hatred, and violence in our society for many decades.

Our Wiccan friends say that whatever energy you put out comes back to you three-fold. While I haven’t seen evidence to support that claim specifically, I share the sentiment; karma’s fairly reliable. The Hebrew teachers Jesus of Nazareth and Rabbi Hillel both taught their followers that treating other people the way one wished to be treated was the heart of true spirituality. The Buddha said, “Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.” Humanist writer Adam Lee, in his book subtitled Decalogue for the Modern World, wrote the following:

“Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you [is]...the single greatest, simplest, and most important moral axiom humanity has ever invented, one which reappears in the writings of almost every culture and religion throughout history, the one we know as the Golden Rule.”

Clearly, the idea is a universal human one. If you want to get 100% cerebral about it, it just makes sense: members of a hominid species that needs to cooperate to survive need to look out for each other. Competition is inevitable, but cooperation is essential.

I’ve said in other posts that I do a lot of arguing--both online and off--and it’s true. I love dialectic; I deeply enjoy the art of disputation on substantive issues. I also try to do my best (although I sometimes miss the mark) to stick to the issue being debated rather than devolving into ad hominem attacks on my opponent. It really is my hope that any debate “victory” is also an affirmation of civility, reciprocity and compassion. When the topic is one that makes one “think with the blood,” this can be challenging; still, it’s more than worth the effort.

I’d like to suggest that we dedicate our individual practices to the achievement of a more compassionate and humane society. It starts with each of us individually, after all: peace with oneself leads to peace in relationships, in families, in societies...which is the best chance we have for peace in the world. Have a splendid 2014, everyone!

Copyright Ⓒ 2013 by William K. Ferro

All rights reserved