Institutional Structures and Ideology

Mr. Loy,

In the final chapter of your book you discuss Buddhist ideology and different types of political and economic systems. In it, you outright state that you “do not think Buddhism has the answers to these questions” (141). I agree with your logic; there is no secret formula that can get rid of all of society’s dukkha.

For that reason, I have always felt at odd with a certain trend I’ve seen in nearly every religion. A person will take a single phrase from an ancient text and apply it to modern society without thinking about the societal context  surrounding the phrase. Some even go as far as to claim that a text written thousands of years before, for example, corporations existed is saying something very specific and particular about what the United States government should do about big business. Similarly, they ignore the fact that societal values and norms have changed. Often, a text that talks about the proper manner of treating one's slaves is also used to talk about the proper manner of treating current social issues.

I don’t question that the values presented in ancient texts can apply to modern society. Some values- not murdering, for example- are universal values. The questions surrounding them change slightly, but the root question is the same. “Is war okay? Is killing animals and eating them okay?” Details around the debate have changed, but the positions one can take on the issue are nearly the same: "Yes." "It depends." "No."

However, it is quite nice to read a religious book claim that their religion should not be used to support certain governmental or economic systems. I do not believe the Shakyamuni Buddha was an expert on communism, capitalism or democracy as it exists today. I feel that the exact “battle plan” for solving problems in economics or politics cannot be found in any text intended for an ancient audience. It is quite relieving to read that I am not the only one.

-Alexandria D.

The Three Poisons

In "The Three Poisons, Institutionalized" you discuss problems of society.  Living in our modern world, where politics, media, and corporations have such strong social force, how can someone break free of the poisons they create short of ostracizing themselves?  Even if one was able to recognize and understand the source of Dukkha that cultural norms create, it is still impossible to not be influenced by the collective-self.  Is just being aware of the problem enough?
-Michael

Finding Something in Another's Nothing

In the chapter "What’s Wrong with Sex?" you discuss the "myth of romance" created by society and media images which causes us to believe, consciously or unconsciously, that we can become whole once we find that significant other. Do you believe that romance or love between two people can actually exist or is the idea of an unspoken bond between to persons a creation of Hallmark and Disney? The enlightenment you write of should bring one free of this want and desire for fulfillment from another, does this include freedom from the desire of sex? I believe it can be agreed on the desire of sex is biological and I’m glad that you acknowledge that in the chapter, conceding that some of the desire for sex is not merely media created, but conditioned in us since creation. Finally, if one who is enlightened does not feel the need to seek fulfillment from another, would they obtain any joy from sharing a relationship with another person?

Mike W.

Does anybody have the time??

Loy,
In "Money,Sex,War,Karma" you included a chapter entitledTrapped In Time. After reading it, and taking quite an extensive period to digest it, the cogs started turning. You idealize that to fear time is useless, as we are time, and therefore cannot have time. How we can be a part of something that is endless unless we are endless ourselves? With that being said, if there is no 'self', what is the point of differentiating between time, no time, self, no self, nothing, or everything? Is there a point, or are you trying to tell us all that all the time that we put into wondering is only going to lead us to find one of those other nothings? Are we trying to find that nothing so we lose any reason to fear anything? If nothing is nothing to fear, than what should we be afraid of? So many questions. My last question for you, Dr. Loy, is this. What is the difference between us being a part of time, and time being a part of us?

Thanks,
Alex Underhill

Cash Rules Everything Around Me, C.R.E.A.M., Get The Money, Dollar Dollar Bills Y'all

In the March 2010 issue of Shambhala Sun, Judith Simmer-Brown describes romantic love as “the primary symptom of cultural malaise, the central neurosis of Western civilization”. In class we discussed that if romantic love is the primary symptom; what could be the primary cause of this cultural malaise? One thought was our misconceptions about money are the greatest causes of dukkha. My thoughts are when we have a preconceived idea of romantic love, chances are its not going to live up to our expectations. I think this is similar to the point you make about money. Money is typically portrayed in the media as bringing happiness and because our society has this expectation of how money should make us feel, we are confused when money does not make us happy. In my opinion this would make romantic love a cause of the malaise as well. Like money, our definition of romantic love is constructed from our experiences and what others tell us. Do you think love a reality symbol like money, that we use to define ourselves, make a statement to society, instead of genuinely enjoying for how it makes us feel? What do you think the primary causes and symptoms of cultural malaise are?

Cary

Institutionalizing goodwill, generosity, and insight

Dr.Loy, I have wondered since reading the chapter "The three poisons, Institutionalized" how it might be possible to realize a system in which people and corporations alike would aim and prosper through providing more than they benefit. beyond that, how could we feasibly establish a global policy of beneficence and direct companies away from producing delusion? The influence that corporations exert seems too great and integral to out current economy to try to alter them without causing fear of its collapse, and receiving resistance because of this. The way things are, it seems that none of the big players would bite at the idea, and so long as they maintain the current status quo, nothing will be able to change on the large scale. It seems that it would be best to begin change on the individual level, but this causes me to wonder how long it might take for most people, and especially most businesses, to rid themselves of the three poisons. Considering the state of the world, I doubt the human race can properly function or benefit from current methods for much longer, and I am uncertain that the necessary change on the large scale through individuals is enough to alter our course before it ends up being too late to sufficiently mitigate what damage will be done.

-Alex L

Buddhism, I Like You, But I'd Rather We Just Be Friends.

It is extremely unlikely that I will one day pursue true enlightenment and detachment from the world. Honestly, one of my goals in life is to not live outside of craving or hope or even suffering, because I view these as important aspects of life, and I certainly do not intend to miss out on all I can experience through my beautiful emotions, overreactions and imperfections. I couldn't even be a monk if i wanted to! On the whole, there is entirely no motivation for me to seriously pursue much of ANYTHING in the way of Buddhism. I'm not striving for a "Buddhist Revolution" in any way. Despite my lack of determination to ever pursue a path of enlightenment, I still find Buddhist ideals and principles interesting, and at times helpful. However, it seems that in a discussion of Buddhist ideals, the main goal is always reaching enlightenment and realizing the truths of the universe and blah blah blah...it doesn't really seem like this is a one-foot-in-one-foot-out sort of thing, so my question is, if I have no intention of attempting to reach enlightenment in this lifetime, is there really any place in Buddhism for me?

-Halea

Stories vs. Personalities

Dr. Loy states in his chapter about fame, The Great Seduction, that "television, like politics, thrives not on stories or ideas, but on personalities," but is that really true? Yes, as a society, we obsess about celebrities themselves, but the media doesn't really talk about the celebrity himself or herself. It takes a scandal or a story about a celebrity to allow the media to "thrive". No one really cares about Lindsay Lohan until she starts doing drugs and missing court dates. I also do not agree with Loy's statement that television does not thrive on ideas. In politics, particularly during election times, people focus on politicians' beliefs and their ideas about affecting the government. It isn't necessarily the personality people are voting for, but the ideas. So can Dr. Loy say that the media survives off of personalities? I don't think so. I think as a society, we only really care about scandals and stories to entertain us, not the people in general.

-Kate Chambers

hotter than coffee, more addictive too.

     In High School, I had my first girl friend, my first kiss . . . and well so on. To some my relationship was seen as a joke because my girl friend and I had not had sex. Does sex really have to be the measure of legitimacy in an intimate relationship? My judgmental peers told me I had to have sex, and honestly, I kind of wanted to, but there were reasons I didn’t. Looking at the relationships around us, my girl friend and I watched as relationships bloomed and died from sex. Our relationship remained stable and we felt relatively content with our non-sexually-oriented connection. From Loy’s chapter What’s Wrong with Sex, the reason becomes clear why so many of my peers' relationships fell apart.
     Whether we like it or not, most of us cannot help but become sexually aroused. Loy recognizes that sexual desire stems from our biological drive to procreate, “sex is an appetite. We do not use our sexual organs; they use us,” (Loy, 75). Sex is not always as graceful as the media makes us believe; however, the feeling experienced during intercourse seems to encourage such an image. Stepping back from our biological craving, we might notice how strange the activity of intercourse really is. Somewhere along the line, our childhoods adjusted its opinion of physical love from cooties to a desire for sex. I really do not mind the change of disposition toward physical intimacy. However, as Loy says, we have a tanha, or “craving” for sex, and according to the four ennobling truths, this craving acts as a source of dukkha. The cycle for the craving of sex drove most of my single friends up the wall in high school, in some cases giving them bouts of depression. My single friends felt a personal failure in being single, as rejected and unwanted. My friends believed that sex might help fulfill themselves in some way, but even my fellow peers who were sexually active failed to find fulfillment from sex. Loy talks about sex and personal fulfillment noting that we have an “expectation of personal fulfillment whether through romance or sexual intimacy,” (Loy, 75). These expectations of romance caused the depression of my friends and the breakups of my fellow peers. From our environment, we learned to believe that sex is the pinnacle of intimacy and the measure of our fulfillment. However, the truth is that sex is simply a biological urge, an appetite of our collective delusion. 

-Evan

The Western Understanding of Karma and Its Implications

The idea of karma is a Buddhist concept that has long been misunderstood in Western society. The word is tossed around carelessly in everything from books to television shows to movies to pop culture to motivational speakers by those pretending to comprehend what they so casually reference.  Yet the idea is still foreign and undervalued.  The phrase "karma is a bitch" has been used for many years to lash out at the results of one's actions, without truly realizing why the results are what they are.
Westerners believe that karma is a commodity that can be gained by performing good deeds.  However, what must be understood is the intention behind the actions.  Many people do good deeds because they want the good effects that follow.  However, karma dictates that good actions must be performed for the sake of good actions, rather than for personal benefits.  The practice of performing good deeds in hopes of reaping the benefits is similar to what the Catholic Church did in the Middle Ages by allowing people to purchase miracles and favors.
Westerners also blame karma for terrible actions that have been wrought on undeserving groups.  It is a “blame the victims” mentality that leads to unjustified accusations and assumptions.  It is important that Westerners examine and evaluate their knowledge and beliefs of karma. 
There is always a cause and effect; however, when the effect manifests itself varies and may appear upon first examination unrelated to the cause.  Every consequence has a cause and every cause has a reaction.  Karma is about taking responsibility for one’s actions and future.  By changing how one lives in the present, one can dictate how one lives in the future.  This is the root of karma.

Amanda Lee

Wisdom from Bruce

Dr. Loy,

In the Disney film Finding Nemo Bruce the shark wisely realizes that "I am a nice shark, not a mindless eating machine. If I am to change this image, I must first change myself. Fish are friends, not food."
. His main point being that in order to improve sharks as a whole, he had to individually decide to alter his habits, through awareness of his instinctive "mindless"behavior. In the last chapter of your book Money Sex War Karma, you clearly acknowledge that it is imperative to focus on first focusing on individual improvement and adjustment in order to ultimately achieve societal improvement. Three areas, i.e. the three poisons of society: institutionalized greed, ill-will, and delusion that require societal change depend on individual awareness, which one attains through Buddhist practice. I feel that this point is greatly essential when discussing the problems society encounters, and I do not believe that this point is emphasized enough throughout the rest of your book.

Caroline Culig

oh my bad! that last one was mine

-colin mulDoon

Lack attack

Hey Mr/Dr/Professor Loy,

Throughout much of the book-and i guess throughout much of Buddhism too- problems in our modern world are attributed to the fake sense of self we have within, and the huge overall lack that we have (or don't have) deep down at our core. In your chapter about war, you say that war is so attractive and even addictive for us specifically because of that unacknowledged sense of lack. While i would say that war sometimes arises from a few other reasons, (and on some occasions maybe even a justifiable reason) i agree with you for the most part. The chapter goes on to explain that war gives us a meaning "because it provides a reassuring way to understand what is wrong with our lives." While i really am not sure what that sentence means, the next line clearly says that the reason we like war is because it allows us to project our feelings of self lack outwards and onto the enemy. This does make sense to me, but in general, this sense of lack and our attempts at filling up the bottomless pit within seem to be the given reason for all our negative actions. Indeed, you say that our urges to shop, consume, become famous, and make money are all because of this lack. But the explanation of why we like war so much can't be applied to why we like the others. How can things so drastically different, like war and sex, both come from one great feeling of lack ?

What Can We Do?

Dr. Loy,

In your chapter "What Would the Buddha Do?", you mention many crises that we face in our world today. Environmental collapse, poverty, and war are just a few serious issues that I have come to feel both guilty towards and responsible for. I admire your call to readers to address this suffering but am at a loss as to how to do so. You mention that we must not wait to overcome our own suffering before addressing others, which has helped me realize the fact that I frequently make excuses for my lack of action, but where do we go from there? I believe that your main point in the chapter is that our acknowledgement of interdependence is part of the solution. Once we realize our interconnectedness, do you have any concrete suggestions as to how we can use this to create change?

Suzanna Kearns

That poor red nosed flying deer.

In Loy's chapter about "The Great Seduction" he argues that the desire for fame has infiltrated our whole culture, including innocent Christmas carols. Yes Rudolph ended up being famous in the last verse of the song, but was it actual fame he was seeking? I think not. He was ridiculed and mocked for his unusually red nose and just wanted to be accepted and asked to play monopoly. As people, our longing for acceptance is described in my Foundations of Psychology textbook as one of the most powerful human motivations. This is how I view our desire for fame. Being famous, at least for a short period of time, is the ultimate acceptance in the world. Unless you betray or embarrass your fans somehow and earn their hatred. Wanting to be famous is almost a natural desire because we just want to "belong."

Philippa Panayiotou

Perfection: The Western Delusion

By Matt Kelley

We talked in class about Sex and Romance as the fundamental malaise of Western society. I am inclined to say our societal dukkha is caused by something a little more general: the West’s obsession with perfection.
Nichtern called it MegaGuy and MegaGirl, and Loy addressed it in a number of ways, primarily attributing it to the Buddhist root of evil: delusion. Our society strives for perfection, and anything less is unsatisfactory. In the movies and media, celebrities are gorgeous, wealthy and glorified. In the workplace, we can always work harder, faster and more productively. In our places of worship, religions tell us of a perfect place after death, casting a pall over our mortal lives. In the bedroom, our romance should be perfect and sex fantastic. We are conditioned from our youth by our parents to achieve more success than they did, and we are conditioned by our society (the American Dream) to rise from our ranks and become fabulously rich. Our economy is based on always getting more, and our market relies on the fact that we can never have enough. Our armed forces must always be stronger, our children smarter, our GDP higher. Nothing is ever good enough because nothing is ever perfect.
From the times of our ancestors in Greece and Rome, the point of life has been to strive for perfection. This genetic disposition has become deeply ingrained in the mind of the West, and every time we fail to achieve our goal (so, all the time) we are dissatisfied, then disappointed, then saddened and finally, depressed.
Buddhist pragmatism would help to heal this national dukkha. By practicing mindfulness in order to become more aware, we will see that we have been conditioned to achieve the impossible. It’s a very romantic and heroic endeavor that tugs at the heartstrings of all Westerners, but the simple fact of the matter is, while such stories may be enthralling in the movie theatre, they never work out that way in real life. We need to see that our society has brainwashed us so that we will never be satisfied. With that in mind, we need to become more accepting of who we are (instead of who we are not). Living in the moment and being mindful of what is realistic and what is impossibly perfect is the path to the cessation of dukkha.

Elephant in the Room

Your political and ideological stances, Dr. Loy, are very apparent throughout your text--I like the way that you clearly articulate your positions because I think it speaks to the urgency of revolution that you call for. My question, though, is how much your social location as white, male, and heterosexual (I am inferring this from your Wikipedia page, which says you are married--if you do not self-identify as straight, I apologize) effects how you view the Buddhist take on sex and sexuality. Three instances in particular stuck out to me:

1 "Since the 1960s our lifestyles and customs have become very different from those with which patriarchal societies regulated sexual urges--often providing outlets for men while strictly controlling women and procreation." [italics mine]. Are you arguing here that the US is not a patriarchal society? If you are using this blanket statement as a means to contextualize what you're discussing, I can understand that, but the US is a patriarchal society and it does control women and procreation--women still only make 81 cents to a comparable man's dollar, 1 in 4 women will be sexually assaulted during their lifetime, birth control is not always covered by insurance but viagra is, and unsafe or untested methods of birth control are disproportionately used on low-income women and women of color. This list is by no means exhaustive.

2 "This is not to demean the pleasures of sex, or the libidinal freedoms we enjoy today...The liberation of sexual preference means that gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transsexuals can come out of the closet, leading to an important reduction in collective social dukkha." Is the "we" you're referring to straight white males? If so, I agree; if not, I'm just gonna throw out there that the LGBTQ community still cannot marry, receieve healthcare or partner benefits, and can, in some cases, be denied the right to see their partner in the hospital because they are not legally recognized by the law in most states--not to mention the recent suicides that spurred the "It Gets Better" project.

3) The elephant in the room I was referring to--abortion. I do not wish to enter a debate on its morality, but I would like to point out that just because contraception exists, does not mean that "children...have become a matter of choice." Again, the concept of "choice" is very much wrapped up in social location; not only are laws in place that allow pharmacies to deny birth control to women, but there are economic and environmental factors that leave women with no other choice but to choose abortion. "Family caps" are placed on women receiving welfare so that after a certain amount of children, they stop getting aid; health care is still not a human right in this country, and women are unable to afford medical care throughout their pregnancy--and even if she opted for adoption, she can still be held legally accountable if she does not (and cannot) receive adquate prenatal care; finally, women of color disproportionately live in environmentally hazardous locations, so even if they desire a child, it may be too deformed to survive (this has been well documented within Native American communities). I can understand where your stance on abortion stems from, and it is your prerogative to think and write like you do (indeed, it makes for lively discussion), but I think it is disingenuous to not acknowledge that the lived realities of women & reproduction are not black and white, and that our own position on any issue isn't necessarily colored by our own biases and life experience.

--Samantha

Understanding and Altering an Instinct

During the course of our class discussions and discussions with Zen Buddhist monk, Claude AnShin Thomas, the topic of war appeared to be a reoccurring point of dialogue.  In your book Money, Sex, War, Karma:  Notes for a Buddhist Revolution, in the chapter titled “Why We Love War”, you describe the origins of war as “a collective response to our collective problem with lack.”  In order to fulfill this lack that you claim exists within all of us; you argue that we must first understand what truly motivates us to seek war.  By discovering our motivation we will in turn be able to approach the causation with awareness for what it is and ultimately (with much hope) be able to alter it.  However, a question begs to be answered.  If one can become aware of the motivation that is allegedly at the core of each of us, then how can the collective whole, the ones responsible for the collective response, approach the concept of lack together?  In essence, how does one spread awareness of the causation for the motivation of war?  While an awareness of the interdependence that exists may be a pivotal starting point, what further steps can be taken?

"Hatred will not cease by hatred, but by love alone.

This is the ancient law."

Jesse Carlson

Buddhism and Deterring War

Stacia-Fe Gillen

Buddhism and Deterring War

How does Buddhism and Loy’s views reflect/define responsibility in the context of war? On page 91, Loy states that “some are guilty, but all are responsible.” Here, he was addressing the problem of when an individual citizen tries to rationalize innocence. He then states that “our society as a whole is responsible.” But what does this responsibility reflect? How should we address the responsibilities of war? In the global system, we have state, national, and international institutions that address war crimes. But how do we account for individual mentalities, the roots of why we invoke war?
Furthermore, I am looking for a more detailed insight on how to address terrorism. If “terrorism cannot be destroyed militarily because it a tactic,” (91) what are some applications of Buddhism that would lead to dissolving terrorism’s origins? Modern alternative paths include relief work to alleviate poverty, an increase in education, and improving local economic markets. For example, the book Three Cups of Tea (http://www.threecupsoftea.com/about-the-book/). Would these examples properly model Buddhism’s idea of compassion?
And for those conscientious objectors who are not Buddhist, what actions dissuading war (from a Buddhist perspective) would be appropriate? Another approach to preventing war is to pressure states. Would Buddhism/Loy support economic and political sanctions as a replacement for war? Do these cause too much dukkha by denying supplies and liberties? Is there an even better solution to deterring war?

Is Ignorance Bliss?

Throughout the course of David Loy's Money Sex War Karma, we as readers are constantly urged to remove ourselves from mind-made patterns of unconsciousness. In order to reach a sense of presence and mindfulness, we must step outside of our daily routine and observe our own actions/reactions in order to realize that we are essentially sleep-walking through our lives. Particularly in the chapter Consciousness Commodified: The Attention-Defecit Society, it is clear that human beings are becoming increasingly detached from the world around us, mainly due to technology. However, it seems as if our institutionalized delusion serves as a driving force of motivation in our lives. We are constantly being baited by a sense of some better future, where happiness lies. While we are trapped in an unconscious state of mind, atleast our false delusions about the future can successfully get us out of bed in the morning. If we are always striving for something that's unattainable, we will always be attempting to improve our lives in some way. Obviously, this is not the ideal way one should live their life.
Unfortunately, the more conscious I am becoming as a person, the less motivation I have to perform even the simplest of tasks. The more I stop and observe the true nature of the world around me, the more frustrated I become about the systems that rule our lives. I am now able to witness my friends and family falling into negative emotional patterns as well as developing materialistic tendencies. In my own life, I am beginning to realize how the educational system fails to provide me with the necessary skills to acheive happiness, because happiness can only be found within. In our world of institutionalized delusion, we attend school so that we can get a better job, which will eventually lead to a fat paycheck. That money is what is supposed to make us happy. Of course, money will never lead to happiness. So what is the point of following this fruitless path?

Julian Bermingham

The Karma of Food

Desiree Niccoli

Technology is neither good nor bad. It is not neutral either. As a construct of global societies, technology does not choose sides or form opinions. It does not improve some communities and destroy others, but rather it is a tool people use to help and harm. When evaluating technology we should look at the people who are using it, what their intentions are, how it was created, and how it is used. There is a lot of concern about whether genetically engineered food is ethical or not. From the Buddhist perspective, as long as it does not cause dukkha “there is nothing in the five precepts that implies a scientist should not take a gene from one species and transfer it to another one” (Loy 119). But what about cloning? Will that ever be ok?

The current issue with cloning animals is that the offspring produced have severe birth defects and live their shortened life spans suffering from physical complications (ex: Dolly the sheep, http://www.animalresearch.info/en/medical/timeline/Dolly). One day cloning may become a successful science, but from a Buddhist perspective, is the process to get to that point condonable if it is beneficial in the future? Is any science or technology condonable for that matter? Take our understanding of human anatomy as another example. It came from dissecting human bodies, some obtained unethically. A common problem in 19th century England was that medical schools ran out of bodies for its students to dissect. It then became a lucrative business to dig up the graves of the newly dead or murder others in order to sell their bodies to med students and professors. Ignorance is dukkha. Is the pursuit of knowledge also dukkha?

Fame!

I do not know if I fully agree with Loy's ideas of fame. I think that people often confuse fame with love, not that they constantly seek solely fame. An absence of abundant affection 24/7 astounds people when they look at celebrities who are so loved they have stalkers and restraining orders. It is not entirely fair to categorize all those who seek affection as "fame whores". Some just seek to be remembered by one, not be millions. However, there are may people in the world who do seek to only be famous for the sake of being famous. There is no blanket statement.
I thought it was funny how the last two paragraphs defended The Dalai Lama's fame. Naturally, this would have been stated. This is a book about Buddhism; he is the leader of Buddhist. However, I don't think it's fair to say that people who become famous seek to do so. The Chilean miners did not seek to be trapped underground for months. I think they would rather be poor nobodies rather than stranded in a mine shaft. I also agree with Loy that it is more important to be a humanitarian than be famous for being famous. Life is impermanent. There is no real point of trying to hoard money if you are going to die. It is a better investment to help others than let it sit in your bank account.

Molly Soffietti

Katie's Reflection on Fame

Fame is something that, in today’s world, is normal to search for.  With so many “reality” TV shows to help people achieve their dreams of being famous, it shows how important fame has become to us as a society.  I remember seeing a show on TV once that set people up to do extreme dares to see what they would do for the chance to be on television.  Of course, the audience knew that they were already on TV,  but the contestants did not.  It was crazy to see to what extremes people would go to just for a shot at being famous.  Why are we so fixated on this idea of being a celebrity?  I think that David Loy does a great job answering this question in the chapter entitled, “The Great Seduction” of his book, Money Sex War Karma.  Loy says that we look to fame to fill a sense of lack in ourselves.  We feel like being famous will make us feel more important or loved, but in reality, it just causes us more dukkha.  On page 35 he says, “No amount of fame can ever satisfy if it is really something else that I am seeking from it, which it cannot provide.”  Many people seek to be famous to try and feel “loved” by the world, but this is not real love.  The public loves one celebrity one day, then the next day they are called fat on the cover of the latest OK Magazine.  Being a celebrity means putting yourself in the spotlight for everyone to judge you.  Take Lindsay Lohan for example, everyone loved her when she was the cute little red-headed twins in The Parent Trap remake, and they even loved her in the Freaky Friday remake with Jamie Lee Curtis. (She did a lot of remakes..)  She came out with a clothing line, make-up line, and then rehab?  The stress of being famous brought her to a breaking point and she ended up getting into drugs and who knows what else.  Now, she is used as one of the prime examples of tween stars that messed their lives up; and every mistake she makes ends up in one tabloid or another.  Yet, we still have parents that push their children into talent competition after talent competition so their child can be the next big star.  Our society is attracted to the idea of using fame, money, sex, and other things to fill voids that we don’t even have.  They make us feel good for a while, then we need something more.  We are never full because we are looking for the real “food” we need in all the wrong places.  Until we realize this, we will never be able to stop the samsara.  However, there are some people that, I feel, actually make a positive contribution to society with their talents.  So my question is, What is the middle ground when it comes to fame and how can we take steps towards getting there?

Posted by: Katie Shanahan

The Fear of Death in Relation to Buddhist Principles

“If you strip away those psychological and physical processes, it’s like peeling off the layers of an onion. When you get to the end, what’s left? Nothing” (Loy, 18). Money Sex War Karma discusses nothingness as well as no-self, suffering, rebirth, and filling the void.  Through the combination of these topics, I would like to ask for your opinion about human kind’s fear of death. Pondering the fear of death has led me to conclude that people believe the ideology that if one dies, that person is forgotten. In the desire for recognition beyond death, people try to “fill the void” with fame. However, I also feel this is not a complete reason. Your book mentions that there is no self and it states that “the self is dukkha”; other readings, such as Buddhism: A History, relate no-self with the soul, and it being non-existent. Also, Buddhist beliefs circulate around rebirth and samsara instead of religious-based notions of heaven and hell. Taking all factors into account, could the fear of death be caused by man’s unwillingness to accept being “nothing”, having no-self, and the non-existence of heaven (outside of the realm of wanting recognition) or could there be a deeper issue in relation to the fear of death?

Submitted by Ashley Drewry

The World Can Rest at Ease

     I found David R. Loy’s explanation of time in relation to the individual in Chapter Six of Money Sex War Karma to be helpful in deepening my understanding of the interdependence of all things. To even use to the word thing seems out of place since I now know that nothing in reality is separate. “The ultimate truth is realizing the way things really are, that they are not separate from each other and therefore are not really things in the usual sense” (Loy 38). Loy argues that too many of us humans live with the mindset that we are separate from time. Therefore, we allow ourselves to believe that time is something to be grasped, used, and owned. We enter the destructive cycle that we can never have enough time and become fearful of losing that time. Yet, Loy, taking on the Buddhist perspective of time, encourages us by revealing that time and eternity are one. Since everything and everyone are interdependent, it is not possible to separate time from the individual. In fact, Loy argues that the world’s common approach to time as separate from the individual is a delusion. He believes that much of our suffering, if not all, comes from our fear that somehow we are losing our time. Loy ensures us that “nothing has a ‘self-being’ of its own apart from its time” (42).

            Loy’s approach to looking at time in relation to the individual is quite foreign to the way our world, in particular our American society, works. As a result, it took me a while to understand this chapter fully. When I first read it, I was like, “Whoa! Hold up. This is not what I’ve been conditioned to believe”. Yet, Loy has a point. In fact, I think what he has to say is very true. I believe that we live in a world that has lost sight of the truth because we have become distracted by ourselves- our suffering, desires, successes, failures, etc. However, the truth remains, and Loy, in his book Money Sex War Karma has made an attempt to re-reveal the truth to us distracted humans. So, I agree with Loy’s approach to time. If I think of his theory in relation to what I believe as a Roman Catholic, it makes sense. As a Roman Catholic, I believe that God, whom is, was, and always will be, does not work on a time schedule. Since God is eternal, time, as our world uses it, cannot apply to Him. I always imagine myself getting to heaven, seeing Jesus face-to-face, and my life playing out before my eyes. Every moment and detail flashes from start to finish. The “movie of my life” that I have just seen is how God’s “time” operates. God catches every detail of my life, but, in His eyes, nothing falls into specific categories of time. The present and the eternal are one. This Catholic belief relates to Loy’s Buddhist approach to time. In a way, reading this chapter not only brought me back in touch with truth. It brought me back in touch with a concept explored in my own Catholic faith. Thanks, Loy.

            Now that I have been reminded of what is true, what is there to do? Stop the nonsense, and enjoy the moment. That is funny. Easier said than done, I know. See, the problem is that too many of us spend our time worrying about the past and or planning for the future. If our present moment is consumed by worrying, planning, or both, then it is impossible for us to be fully aware of the present. Going along with the cliché, the present is a gift, how many of us actually “open” that gift by allowing ourselves to live in the moment? Loy makes the point that oftentimes the present moment is too uncomfortable for most people to enjoy. Yet, if more of us are aware that we are one with our time, we can live much more at peace. Since time and eternity are one in the same, and I am one with time, I should feel a lot more at ease. No longer shall I worry that I am losing my time because the belief that I am separate from that time is a delusion. I wish things could change that easily. So, I must start with meditation. Meditation deepens our understanding of the mind and brings us into touch with awareness. A disciplined meditation practice is a great starting point. From there, the story of my life unfolds. Now is the moment.

Works Cited

Loy, David R. Money Sex War Karma. Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2008. Print. 

What's Wrong with Sex?

It seems to me that any sexual practice can lead only to dukkha due to sex's dependence on desire and fixation.  For example, sex is initiated by a desire for or fixation on an individual (or individuals for that matter) whom one finds attractive.  This desire and fixation is a means to fall into suffering because nothing inherently exists, and it would be rather silly to fixate on something that does not truly exist, now wouldn't it?  

However, without this kind of desire, it seems like it would be extremely difficult to, well, sustain or even begin any kind of sexual practice.  Furthermore, we humans are biologically programmed to desire and pursue and fixate on sex as a means to continue the species, making it difficult, if not impossible, to avoid.

So my question is:

Is it at all possible to engage in sexual activity without desire or fixation and therefore avoid dukkha?

Nicole Hohman

Some thoughts and questions on the chapter: “Why We Love War”

While I do agree that the modern person is confronted with more distractions which act to hide our underlying sense of lack as compared to the pre-modern. I do not think that this baseline sense of lack is deepened by modernization and the ensuing movement away from religion. Throughout history, both in the pre-modern world and the modern, humans have always found ways of clouding our underlying sense of lack through diversionary means such as playing billiards or the excitement of war. I am reminded of Pascal’s Pensées (17^th century) where he explores the various means in which we mask our underlying wretchedness. If we go back further to the pre-modern 11^th century, Anselm, the Archbishop of Canterbury, was writing of the inadequacies of humans in relation to God. This shows us that even before modern time this similar sense of lack is present, and that our sense of lack is enduring regardless of history or religiosity which suggests that religion alone is not necessarily the answer. Thus I think a secular approach to resolve our lack is as valid as a religious one. Today, many people seek out help via secular approaches which also attempts to explore the roots of the problem of the self such as psychotherapy or mindfulness based stress reduction (MBSR).

Question: So what about the value of secularism?

In Buddhist practice, only those who are fully enlightened are free from any sense of lack. I wonder how many practitioners (religious and secular) have attained this state of complete freedom in their practice, most likely very few. Yet without attainment of this stage, there still exist the seeds of hatred, greed, and delusion in an individual and thus the seeds of war. Further, I do not think it is plausible for everyone to go through extensive psychotherapy or become fully enlightened through MBSR. I am left wondering if our sense of lack is simply a fact of the general human condition and if it will always be present on a large scale.

Questions: Do you think it is possible to resolve our sense of lack on a large scale? Is it necessary that all, as opposed to just a few, are free from a sense of lack in order to find worldwide peace? 

Unrelated to the chapter or even the book, in Buddhist practice, often one is told to “just sit.” Monks are trained to practice without an expectation of what they will experience while practicing mindfulness, and in this way one actually comes to a greater understanding. However, this approach could never hold up in the scientific community which requires researched evidence and findings. 

Questions: How are today’s attempts to scientifically measure the effects of meditation through extensive psychological and biological testing changing our approach to practicing Buddhism meditation in both the secular and religious realms? In what ways does the scientific and secular world clash with Buddhist approaches to meditation and in what ways does it contribute to its development?

-Bennett