Buddha

Lately Ms Ché and I feel like we're coming around full circle in some ways. Buddhism has re-entered our conscious lives. It never really went away, though our lives veered strongly in other directions between the time we started Buddhist practice in the late 1960s and now. Oh my yes.

In the interim we sort of drifted between a Franciscan-ish Catholicism, Native American-ish spirituality, and a kind of strict atheism. God, what God? I know of no God. Etc.

But underneath it all was a core of Buddhist thought and practice dating so far back in our lives that we forgot its origin -- must have been Japanese in our case, Zen, sitting meditation, satori, and semi-enlightenment, flashes, coming, going, dissolving, reconstituting. Very California when you get down to it. Zen masters and other spiritual teachers including Gary Snyder and some of his disciples. This was a long time ago. I feel every moment of the time that has passed. So many years but yet it seems to be only yesterday.

So we live our lives of Adventure, dashing around the country, seeing sights, meeting people, working in a wide variety of environments, living a kind of dream we never quite awaken from. So many aspects of a dream never deferred but always present. Even our retirement to the New Mexico wilderness is part of that ongoing dream. An illusion.

And then the signs... For a time, we were beset with Adventists, Witnesses, and Mormons. I tell you it  was a constant circus parade at our front door. "Come! Join us! God awaits!" The Catholic church down the road, modest and plain, run by Carmelite monks, seemed calm by comparison. Oh they had their issues, one being abortion, that sometimes got them so worked up it was a strange and bewildering environment. If it had been a Franciscan run church, like the Cathedral-Basilica in Santa Fe might have been if history hadn't intervened, maybe, maybe... oh, but they have their issues, too, which I won't go into here, but will just say that their bankruptcy has been driven by many years of priestly abuse of parishioners.

So a household Franciscan observance/altar was set up in a corner of the living room, and we included many Native American elements in it. Well, it seemed only natural. Then we added a Native section that just kept growing, so that now the Franciscan part, while still important, is the lesser of the side-by-side home altars.

St. Francis is not as highly regarded in New Mexico as he is elsewhere, in part because it was the abuse by Franciscan priests that touched off the Pueblo Revolt in 1680. The stories I've heard of what the Franciscans did to the Indians are almost impossible to imagine. Their cruelty was way over the top. To my mind, this wasn't Franciscan at all. Something deep-rooted and thoroughly evil had replaced the compassion and charity and love the Saint had preached.

I'd say in a way, New Mexico -- Spanish and Native alike -- has never forgiven the Franciscans for what happened. As a consequence, St. Francis's presence is minimized though the Santa Fe Cathedral Basilica is dedicated to San Francisco and there is a looming statue of him in a side courtyard. Ave.

In California, it's not that way, so we brought some Franciscan thought with us and we honored the saint in small ways. Of course the Cattery is the main Franciscan observance but let's not get into that right now. (Cats!)

Ms. Ché spent part of last summer at the Naropa Institute (as we still call it, though it is a University now) in Colorado. It is a Buddhist-founded institution, a Rinpoche, I believe, being the inspirational and spiritual founder along with Allen Ginsberg and a number of other creators and writers. Ms. Ché says it's not part of any Buddhist order, but Buddhist practice -- on one's own and in community -- is encouraged in any form of devotion and meditation one chooses.

Well, that brought back many early memories for her, and she said she felt refreshed and alive once she got used to it. Again.

As I say, Buddhist inspiration has never really left us, it just went dormant. For decades.

Time passed, and it was clear Ms. Ché yearned to recreate at home some of that spirit she reconnected with at Naropa, and every now and then a little clue would emerge. Years earlier at the Mabel Dodge Luhan House in Taos, poet Jimmy Santiago Baca asked me, "What is a Bodhisattva?" For heaven's sake. Why would anyone ask me that? But then I realized it was a koan, and stumbled around coming up with a patched together "Devotee/practitioner on the way to Buddha-hood" answer. But it's much more than that. More and other. Both. Never mind.

So while I was cruising around Netflix one day, I stumbled on a 2013 TV series from India, "Buddha". Started watching it and saw promise. We're up to episode 36 now. Siddharth has achieved enlightenment and is starting to spread the word and spirit. He is now "Buddha" -- The Enlightened One. There are 20 some episodes left in the series. We try to see one or maybe two every day. And it has reconnected us with long ago Buddhist inspiration. I think the series was designed to introduce Indians to Buddhist thought and practice that once was prevalent in their land but has mostly been pushed out. I understand it has partially returned among Dalits, but not so much among the higher caste Indians. Perhaps now is the time.

Active Buddhist communities are all over Northern New Mexico and into Colorado, but out here in the wilderness, we might be something of a singularity. It's hard to say. There are many Catholics, a few Native spiritualists, and that plethora of Witnesses, Mormons, and Adventists I mentioned earlier. If there are Buddhists, they keep a low profile.

Maybe some of the cowboys sit in meditation from time to time, though. I wouldn't be surprised.




Michael Stipe, "I am not a Buddhist," but then he is.

Would A President Romney Actually Be Worse Than Another Term of President Obama?

Romney wants so much to serve you

The answer is "Yes." That should be obvious. President Romney would be worse than President Obama in approximately the same way that George W Bush was worse than a President Gore would have been.

Bush's legacy -- if you want to call it that -- will live in infamy while Gore has petered out to near irrelevance in the public mind. Millions were slaughtered or displaced during the Bush era, imperialist aggression was launched, torture instituted as widely known policy (though continually officially denied), civil liberties were sharply curtailed, whole cities suffered ruin and neglect at home and abroad, and so on, all orchestrated, dictated if you will, from the White House. These things were not accidents.

For all his wardrobe and other faults, President Gore is unlikely to have done those things.

As is well known, the terrible things that Bush initiated or expanded during his time in the White House have largely continued under Obama, and Obama has built on the Bush/Cheney structure of rule. Rather than wars of opportunity and aggression, though, Obama prefers stealth Death From Above of "targeted" militants, insurgents, "enemies" of all kinds. He prefers arrests and draconian charges against domestic dissenters and whistleblowers. Civil liberties may be less openly suppressed, but efforts to curb and suppress dissent are no less intense. He prefers to let bygones be bygones with regard to the appalling crimes against humanity of his predecessors in office, and he has much the same attitude toward the banksters who crashed the economy and continue to loot, plunder and pillage with abandon.

It is unlikely that any of those things would change under President Romney. But what would change is this: domestic "order" would be compelled. Revenge is likely to be a paramount motivation for domestic policies. Harm would be no less widespread than it is now, but reward for faith and loyalty would be much greater because there will be more to offer those who are faithful and loyal.

The economic situation for most Americans will not get better; it will stay the same or get demonstrably worse. But there might be a greater sense of "hope" among the suffering masses. Instead of the languid indifference toward their plight as demonstrated time and again by the Obama regime, Romney in office would be constantly talking about the plight of the Lesser People while doing nothing to alleviate it. What would be likely for the poor and unemployed, maybe the homeless and mentally ill as well, is a form of indenture, by which they are provided with some sort of unpaid employment (which they are required to take) in exchange for bare and basic necessities of living, and perhaps forced instruction in thrift and obedience. In other words, don't be surprised if President Romney initiates a whole different order of society for the poor, homeless and mentally ill -- those who "can't make it" -- as opposed to the social order for those who can and do. Make it, that is.

There seems to be a natural point at which the current decline in living standards will begin to mitigate: it's about when 20% lives in poverty, and the 80% remainder feel they have escaped the worst of the Endless Recession. We're not quite there yet, as public employees continue to be shed and the official poverty rate is still slightly under 20%. But once it gets there, which will probably happen no matter who is in office, expect to see the beginnings of economic stabilization for the masses. The economic theory will be that so long as The 80% are doing OK, The Suffering 20% don't matter. They should be Grateful. As long as they're kept in a kind of spare but useful servitude, why should they complain anyway?

They'd be doing something useful for Their Betters. And what would Their Betters be doing under President Romney that they aren't doing now? For one thing, positions of wealth and power would become much more hereditary than they are now, and a true aristocracy of breeding would be instituted and promoted much more widely than we currently see, with Willard as the prime example of the Son following the Father in Power (and Glory if you like).

There would continue to be elections of a sort, but positions would become quasi-officially hereditary in far more cases than now.  That would be unlikely in the extreme to occur under President Obama, though a mostly non-hereditary aristocracy would continue as customary.

Elections would become more farcical, but probably would be taken more seriously, than they are now. Whether there would be so much money dumped into elections would depend on how useful the media chooses to be to the New Settlement Regimes*.

For the money expended in campaigns is almost all fed directly into the maws of media conglomerates, in other words, Plutocracy feeding itself. The economic ideal is for the stronger to exploit the weaker, however, and among Plutocrats and Oligarchs, open exploitation of one another for someone else's profit is not polite. Never mind that the media money is spent to propagandize the masses. Shouldn't they be paying for their own brainwashing? I mean really.

That would mean that campaign money as we've known it would begin to disappear, and taxpayer funded elections might become standard. Of course that couldn't happen until the tax burden is fully shifted off of wealth and onto the middling and poor where it belongs. Taxes, after all, are punishment for failure. Those who do not achieve wealth are ipso facto failures, and only they should be subjected to the compulsion of taxation. Their Betters, on the other hand, will be offered opportunities for voluntary contributions of -- say -- as much as 10% of their income to worthy public causes, or even to the government if they choose.

As now, candidates would still be chosen by Their Betters for the masses to vote for, but the likelihood of insurgent candidates would be reduced to near absence. Elections would be formalities of popular approval for the pre-chosen few.

Eligibility to vote will be further restricted, perhaps only to those who have proved themselves worthy of citizenship and the franchise.

There might be other public rituals besides elections, probably on the pattern of public rallies at stadia and arenas and so forth that will be intended to "build community" and break the strangle-hold of devices and teevee on people's attention and leisure.

While this is a feature Obama might have instituted, given the huge crowds he was drawing during the 2008 campaign and the millions who gathered to freeze in the Mall while he was inaugurated, he quickly set out to disabuse the People that he was there to do anything for them; if anything, Obama policies set out to out Hoover Hoover. Consequently, gathering such enormous crowds now is essentially impossible for him now.

But a Romney Regime would not be holding such rallies for him as such, they would be clearly intended to build a sense of common purpose and community among attendees, more like the patriotic rallies of the past.

Internationally, I suspect that after wiping out Iran -- which seems more and more inevitable at some point, much as the Alexandrian effort to destroy the Persian Empire seems inevitable in hindsight -- all foreign interest will turn to China, or rather turn on China, in an American led effort to cripple and recolonize the Celestial Empire.

Of course this may turn into a long term and ultimately futile campaign which may so debilitate the United States that it... disappears, broken into petty statelets, the remainder partially absorbed by Canada and Mexico.

Don't laugh.

The United States has unfulfilled atonement to make, according to Romney's Mormon Scripture, and further, the Mormon Temple Romney was endowed into -- and in which he is still styled a bishop -- once demanded revenge against the United States for the murder of the Prophet Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum. Of course they disavow any such thing now, and they say they have not included it in Temple Endowment ceremonies since 1927, but the Oath of Vengeance from previous generations was operative when Romney was Endowed at a Temple ceremony in 1966.

Whether or not a President Romney would consciously seek vengeance on the United States on the basis of that oath is something I think only he would know, but the Mormon church has an intrinsic sense of animus toward the United States government for its interference in and persecution of religious practices, some of which, like polygamy, forced Romney's grandfather to settle his polygamous family in exile in Mexico rather than put up with US government interference. This is not ancient history. For many Mormons, and for all I know the Romneys as well, this is very recent.

Despite all the accusations to the contrary, it's clear that Obama is not actively trying to take vengeance on or otherwise destroy the United States as such -- though his policies largely aid the Overclass in destroying the American People's wealth and security, the American People have often been considered expendable in some cause of the Rich whether it be war, empire, or economic peril for the masses. Obviously, Romney's predatory and parasitical capitalist career at Bain is not in any way outside the norm for his class.

There may be something deeper in both men's views of past (or present) slights and persecutions, but if so, it's not obvious. So I wouldn't be focused on the potential for mayhem implicit in the Mormon Oath of Vengeance. It may or may not even be a factor in a Romney presidency.

What we should keep in mind is that this nation has a deeply rooted theocratic underpinning. Its tendency has always been more or less toward theocracy, not toward secularism and pluralism. Thus, an antagonistic theocratic state like Iran would be considered an existential threat -- even though it is not -- because its theocracy competes with America's own. An overtly secular and atheistic state like China (or the former Soviet Union for that matter) is seen as an existential threat -- even though it is not -- because successful secular/atheist societies compete with America's theocratic-tending state.

No matter whether Romney or anyone else in office thinks and acts directly from a position of religious authority, the result is essentially the same because of the nature of the American state, not because of the nature or religious beliefs of the person in office.

Yes, a Romney presidency would be worse that Obama's in the same way George W Bush's presidency was worse than Gore's might have been, yet none of them are particularly good for the People of the United States due to the nature of its founding, its Constitution, and the state itself.

Bad can easily become worse.
-----------------------------------------------------------
*[Forgot my footnote!] "New Settlement Regime" is a term coined to describe the means by which the financial shenanigans of the Highest of the Mighty are rationalized and backstopped by governments. As used by me, however, I'm referring to the New Settlement Regime as the ruling corporatocracy itself, as exemplified by one of its members, Mr. Romney of Bain Capital. In other words, the corporatocracy would be rationalizing and backstopping itself through direct extraction and rule.

Teh Rapture?

Hm.

Judgment Day 5-21-2011: Harold Camping on the... by 21mai2011

Mister Brother Harold Camping, The Man In The Chair, he of vast agedness and Fulsome Biblical Scholarship has repeatedly predicted End Time Are A-Coming. Prepare Ye the Way of the Lord.



But the Rapture never comes.

"Rapture" is in fact non-Biblical and non-Scriptural. It's a funny thing, and I've been puzzled where the concept comes from, because it is not in the Bible and not in the Teachings of the Church through history.

It seems to have arisen some time in the 19th Century, perhaps around 1830, probably somewhere in the United Kingdom, through the agency of a Presbyterian minister by the name of Irving and a delusional Scottish woman by the name of Margaret Macdonald.

The concept rapidly spread throughout the English Speaking World, finding a fertile host in the United States of America, always a welcoming home to batshit insane religious theory and doctrine.

And of course, every bit of the origin of the Rapture Doctrine can be and has been disputed.

The point is that it is not Biblical and it is not part of the historical teaching of the Church or any denomination thereof prior to 1830.

Consequently, we can assume that Rapture Doctrine is heretical on its face and has nothing to do with Christianity or the Return of Christ to judge the quick and the dead, leading to Heaven and/or Hell, with various stops in Purgatory along the way.

It's simply a fantasy.

But one that is a powerful driving force among certain segments of the religiously susceptible population, particularly among those who speak English or are influenced by those who do.

So I wonder if there is something in British culture, lore and legend that can account for the origin and persistence -- and nearly unique belief -- among English speakers.

This is a kind of Exceptionalism that needs further examination, not from a religious standpoint but from the deepest levels of society.

What gives rise to it? And why is it pretty much confined to people who speak English?

Up in Santa Fe

Or "Fanta Se" as it's sometimes referred to.

Yes, well, it is The City Different, and it is 400 years old, so y'all can just sit your bad selfs down and have some cocoa -- with a twist.

Went up to Santa Fe yesterday to do some visiting and check out some sights. The ruined chapel in the pic above, for example, is on Cerro Gordo. I'd heard it was there, but I've never seen it. No wonder. It's at the top of a hill, and unless you're looking hard, you're not going to see it as you're driving the narrow winding street. You better not be looking hard! Tough enough navigating Santa Fe with your eyes on the road!

I've posted before about how New Mexico is dotted with ruins. They are literally everywhere. One day, I'll have to document all the ruins and abandoned structures right around our house -- which was an abandoned ruin when we bought it.

So yesterday, I wanted to find, and did find, this really exquisite ruined chapel on Cerro Gordo. It's up a flight of stone steps from the road, quite a climb really, but sadly, there is a rough barricade posted with No Tresspassing signs before you can actually get to the chapel itself. And beyond that first rough barricade, there is another one in case you didn't get the message the first time. Nevertheless, there were plenty of signs of use -- at least up to the barricades -- by passers-by and perhaps pilgrims, who knows. There's a little shrine down by the road where people have left their offerings -- some of them very interesting, like a clam shell that looks like it's from the Pacific -- and all along the stone steps up to the chapel, people had placed farolitos/luminarias in paper bags weighted with sand. Up by the first barricade, there were dozens of them, so this is really a sacred place, even if you can't get all the way to the chapel. It was clear that just being on the path was holy.

Isn't that something? We often forget holiness even in the simplest things. In New Mexico, though, you can't do that for long. There is a deep and pervasive spiritual presence and belief here, a deep seated religiosity that even the most rigid atheist will -- eventually -- succumb to.

One of the rooms of our house is labeled "The Jesus Room" because it has a nicho filled with religious totems and objects of all kinds where we sometimes light a candle or two and always keep soft illumination on the portraits of saints and madonnas and Jesus Christos assembled there. We also have a Santo case in another room where there are many ceramic sculptures of saints -- and sinners too. We have candles there as well, but so far haven't lit them. Then there is the shelf where we keep the sacred memories of close companions, Betty's ashes, and many tokens of her and that cat Mao who was with us for so very long.

It's what you do here. We've only been to Santuario de Chimayo one time, and it was a very moving experience. It was not full of tourists or pilgrims that day, just a handful of folks come to worship or to inspect the shrine, so we had some time with the priest, Father Roca, who essentially founded the pilgrimage site. He was a remarkable gentleman, as are so many of the priests and religious figures in this region. One well remembers "Death Comes for the Archbishop," Willa Cather's 1927 novel based on Archbishop Lamy's efforts to correct the local version of Catholic devotions. Bless his heart. Well, of course, his chief legacy -- among so many things -- is the Cathedral Basilica of St. Francis in Santa Fe, that very gracious stone church at the head of San Francisco Street that is practically symbolic of the city.

So, I visited the chapel, visited with some folks I haven't seen for a while, and wound up late in the afternoon taking a stroll around the Plaza, the heart of Santa Fe now as it has been for centuries. And centuries. But the Plaza was somewhat sad. It is still the heart of Santa Fe, to be sure, but the surroundings have been kicked hard by the shitty economy. A couple of galleries I looked forward to visiting again were gone altogether. There were too many vacant store-fronts. Those that remained seemed almost dreary and forlorn. The Plaza itself was finely maintained, but around it? Not so much. Even the Plaza Cafe, one of Santa Fe's favorite gustatory destinations for generations, was closed. "For Remodeling" they said. "Remodeling?" Why? I don't know. I don't have an answer. They do what they do. So. I hope it reopens soon, better than ever.

I do like gallery hopping in Santa Fe, but the near absence of them on the Plaza was dispiriting. We have acquired a lot of paintings over the years, and I always love to see what galleries and artists are showing. There are still plenty of galleries in Santa Fe, so it's not like there is any lack of Art, but still... It wasn't the same.

It was as if the heart of the city were gasping for breath.

Or something like that.

Anyway, it was getting late, so I headed back south on that absolutely gorgeous and nearly empty highway to our place, thinking about just how deeply rooted beliefs are here, and how strong the spirit is. It's something very special about New Mexico, something I may have recognized without knowing it when I first encountered this Land of Enchantment decades ago, and part of what has kept me coming back and trying to settle in for so long. I say "trying" because we still haven't broken with California, going back and forth, forth and back.

But I'm perpetually glad to be here.

Wright speak, you listen

The Moyers interview with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright is now online for those who wish to see what the Traitorous Negro America-Hater has to say for himself.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04252008/watch.html

But extended excerpts from his sermons have been posted to the internets for some time now, and while I'm no great "believer" in any religious dogma, and I'm an agnostic on Barack, I find Rev. Wright one of the most engaging and aware and inspirational pastors in the last 20 years.





The character assassination that has been done on him and the nearly total absence of push back until now -- even from Obama -- is a deplorable reflection on the state of American social and religious thought and practice. It doesn't matter whether Teh Media is rotten to the core with decadence and corruption. What matters is that men like Wright not be turned into monsters without a price to pay, and an enormous amount of citizen outrage and renunciation of those who are turning him into a monster.

That's what's been missing. I don't know what it will take for ordinary people, bloggers, religious institutions, media institutions and the so-called "left" in America to defend Wright and people like him, but the current ambivalence toward him and his message is disgraceful.

O-Bama, Hey-Bama, Bama-Bama, O!

Bama-Hay, Bama-O, Ba-ma!

One of the things that's bothered me about the Obama campaign -- which on the whole has pleased me a great deal -- is the growing messianic quality of it. In American politics, any messianic politician is a potential danger to our ruling classes, and one who will be watched very carefully. If he rises too high in messianic fervor, he will be "taken care of." As they say.

I hate to be so cynical, but that has been our history. Again. And again. And again.

Of course, Obama's personal safety has been a concern of many for as long as he has been running for the Presidency. This nation has a long and shameful history of dealing with Uppity Negroes (and Women, but we'll get to that in another post) that everybody knows and nobody wants to talk about. Whether Obama is immune due to his African as opposed to his American Negro heritage, remains to be seen. Up till very recently he's taken more grief for his supposed religious heritage and upbringing and his Muslim name than for his race. Some would call that Progress. I laugh. I laugh to scorn. No, it's a substitution. Because Muslims are the sub-humans du jour, calling him a Muslim is a way to avoid calling him an N-word. At some point, you've got to recognize the equivalence of the slurs. They are the same damb thing.

But I was watching some of the coverage of the Obama campaign in Iowa and New Hampshire and New Jersey, and I was struck by how much Mr. Obama is coming across as a Preacher now, and how passionate his devotees are. They seem to be in a kind of religious ecstacy, and Obama seems to be encouraging their fervent belief -- in him, yes, but in his Message, even more than him. Oh man.

You just know where this is leading, and it's not necessarily a good place. It ought to be a good place. But we've been down this path before. And it frequently doesn't turn out well.

Hillary's "upset" victory in New Hampshire may have put a temporary damper on Obamamania, but I don't expect it (or her, for that matter) to squash his campaign, or in fact affect it in any substantial way. I have the feeling he believes he's got the formula that works, and she's still trying to find one.

Paul Rosenberg has an interesting discussion of the populist appeal of Barack Obama's campaign over at Open Left (h/t bystander), and he posits something I think is true: Obama himself and his policy prescriptions are in a classic Progressive mold, at least to the extent that he makes any specific proposals -- which has long been noted he doesn't much. But Obama's presentation is fully Populist, in the long tradition of American Populism. This is somewhat at variance with Obama's supporter demographic which tends to skew strongly toward the elites. (Reminds me a lot of Dean supporters. I don't think I ever saw such a collection of PhDs, LLDs, MDs, JDs, and other assorted Doctors of This and That, and all kinds of other professionals, concentrated in one campaign in my life. They were, by no means, your Ordinary Joe SixPacks.)

On the other hand, John Edwards, who is running as fully a Populist campaign as one can run these days, doesn't seem to have the personal appeal that Obama does, and so, despite Edwards's policy prescriptions that most closely reflect the needs and aspirations of America's 80%, his campaign seems to be faltering. Media neglect is only part of the problem Edwards faces.

According to some statistics, it is Hillary who is actually attracting the more or less Populist leaning voters. Rosenberg gets into this aspect, too, but it has been heavily mentioned in most of the analysis of the New Hampshire Democratic vote.

But back to my original point: Messianic campaigns tend not to turn out well in America.

Let's hope Obama's is an exception.