Next Dalai Lama

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/dalai-lama-mocks-chinas-interest-in-naming-his-successor/article2416580/

or

http://tinyurl.com/7wxxx6p 


"At 76 years old, the 14th Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, counters Beijing's claims that they have the right to identify his successor with laughter and mocking jest.

"It is quite strange - as non-believers, totally non-believers, atheists - showing interest about reincarnation," the Dalai Lama said in an interview in Ottawa.

"I jokingly tell them: In order to be involved in my reincarnation, firstly, they should accept Buddhism. Or religion. Or Buddhism. Then they should recognize Chairman Mao Zedong's reincarnation. Deng Xiaopeng's reincarnation. Then, they have reason to show some interest about the Dalai Lama's reincarnation. Otherwise, nonsense!"....

Bodhisattvas in an Election Year - Case Seven

Do politicians in this election year follow this adage:


"A good scapegoat is nearly as welcome as a solution to the problem" ?


If so, how should we respond when they do so, when we hear of others that we know doing so?


What to do when we notice that we are doing so?


What are we to make of this report that President Obama's campaign has an enemies list?

"The President Has a List

by Kimberley A. Strassel

Barack Obama attempts to intimidate contributors to Mitt Romney's campaign."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304723304577368280604524916.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

It appears that as of May 10, 2012 this enemies list has had further consequences:

Strassel: Trolling for Dirt on the President's List

First a Romney supporter was named on an Obama campaign website. That was followed by the slimy trolling into a citizen's private life.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304070304577396412560038208.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

A comment from the NY Times, May 7, 2012, seems to reinforce this theme:


Target Practice By THOMAS B. EDSALL 
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/07/target-practice/?ref=opinion

“Right now, before everyone gets to know him, is the time for Obama to push Romney face down in the dirt,” a key Democratic operative working outside the campaign told me last week. “You can’t let Romney go before the voters looking clean.”

 

Do Bodhisattvas have enemies?

Do we have enemies?

 Though there may be someone who sees us as their enemy, do we have enemies? This is a good point to clarify. 

(c) 2012 Elihu Genmyo Smith

• 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

Bodhisattvas in an Election Year - Case Six

When we hear political discourse and disagreement, do we truly see or hear those we disagree with, those who we believe are our opponents? Do we respond to them out of seeing them in terms of both our disagreements and our commonality?

In the Lotus Sutra there is a Bodhisattva who views everyone, including and especially those who oppose, criticize and attack him, as a Buddha-to-be. This is a very useful practice for all of us, and relevant to whatever faith tradition (or no-faith tradition) we resonate with. Can we see others, especially those with whom we have differences, very real differences, as at the same time being a Jesus with whom we have differences, a Muhammad with whom we have differences, as Allah with whom we have differences, as G-d right here before me with whom I, at the very same time, am still having differences?

To put it in non-religious terms, can we see them as a loved one with whom we are having differences, and respond to those differences from both the differences and the love?

The interpenetration of differences and sameness, forms and emptiness, differences with a backside of unity, or unity with a backside of differences, are an important aspect of a "deepening" of being who we truly are. This is difficult for even religious people to grasp since they often hold to their specific tradition, to the differences, and do not see the differences in the midst of the Oneness - to use an overly broad word to generalize about what is really beyond such a word, and yet we must use such a word.

How would responding out of this differences/oneness change the political discourse we are now having?

For instance, the Democratic Party adviser Hillary Rosen who criticized Ann Romney for not being a working woman, that she "never worked a day in her life," despite Romney's being a stay-at-whom mom raising five boys, how would she speak if she saw not just the differences between her ideas and the work that Ann Romney did, but also saw the shared Buddha-nature that they were, the Buddha-to-be of Ann Romney right now? Of course, after the public reaction to the Rosen comment there was retraction from her and her political allies, but my point is that if she really saw the other, the differences, as also the unity, saw the other with affection and connection, then she might not have said what she did in the first place, or at least not in the way she did.

Or those who criticize Obama for his perfidious actions towards allies such as Hosni Mubarak or Israel, or criticize Obama for his duplicity in the statement caught "off-mike" to the Russian President that, "this is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility." If, in the midst of disagreements and criticism of Obama's statements and policies, his critics also saw the Jesus in Obama, how would they speak of their differences? This of course applies to Obama himself, who one former aide says, "is putting the bully into bully pulpit" in his attacks on Romney. If Obama, in the midst of his disagreements with Romney, truly saw the Jesus Romney, the Buddha-to-be Romney, would he speak in the same way? If Romney saw Obama as a Prophet of the Latter Day Saints, how would he articulate differences with him?

So, please, be the Bodhisattva that does not abuse others, that sees all the Buddhas-to-be with whom you have real differences. Then, please respond skillfully and appropriately to these differences.

(c) 2012 Elihu Genmyo Smith

Now Meeting Directly

When we encounter someone, whether an intimate friend or family member, an acquaintance, or even just on the media seeing, hearing a public official, do we see them as they are now? Do we see any preconceptions or beliefs we hold about them, about the so-called past and future, that hinder our ability to hear, to see, and to respond as this is now, as they are now?

To rephrase Dogen from Genjokoan, though the present encounter has its before and after, despite this past and future, the present is independent of them.

To encounter this moment as is, to encounter this meeting together, even to hear and see what is being said and done, and to be able to respond now, it is vital for us to let go of attachment to the blinders and shades that we bring along.

(c) 2012 Elihu Genmyo Smith

Bodhisattvas in an election year - Case Five

The Bodhisattva Precepts include the following 6th Precept, 
I VOW TO ABSTAIN FROM SPEAKING OF THE ERRORS AND FAULTS OF OTHERS 
and 7th Precept,  
I VOW NOT TO ELEVATE MYSELF OR PUT DOWN OTHERS. 


Is it possible to be a candidate in this election year and maintain these precepts? 


Please reflect on this. Please notice what the candidates do, those you like, those you dislike, and those you are neither committed to or against.


And of course, there is the 4th Precept, I VOW TO PRACTICE TELLING THE TRUTH.


Reflecting on candidates is one thing; another thing is to reflect upon our own life practice, and how we maintain or do not maintain these precepts throughout our life, in action, speech and thoughts. 


And when we notice that we are not maintaining these precepts, not maintaining this life that we are, what practice efforts are called for? What practice efforts do we make? And what supports us in this life practice?


(c) 2012 Elihu Genmyo Smith

Two Morality Frontiers - for computers and humans

What is it that makes for morality? Below are two interesting articles sent to me. After reading, please reflect on how this is connected to your day-to-day functioning, if at all:

Artificial Intelligence Pioneer: We Can Build Robots With Morals

By Jason Koebler

Like it or not, we're moving computers closer to autonomy

Judea Pearl, a pioneer in the field of artificial intelligence, won the Association for Computing Machinery's A.M. Turing award earlier this month, considered the highest honor in the computing world.

Pearl developed two branches of calculus that opened the door for modern artificial intelligence, such as the kind found in voice recognition software and self-driving cars....

The calculus Pearl invented propels probabilistic reasoning, which allows computers to establish the best courses of action given uncertainty, such as a bank's perceived risk in loaning money when given an applicant's credit score.

"Before Pearl, most AI systems reasoned with Boolean logic—they understood true or false, but had a hard time with 'maybe,' " Alfred Spector, vice president of research and special initiatives at Google, said of his work.

The other calculus he invented allows computers to determine cause-and-effect relationships.

At 75, Pearl, who is the father of slain Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, is currently working on a branch of calculus that he says will allow computers to consider the moral implications of their decisions.

Artificial intelligence has improved by leaps and bounds over the past few years—what's the greatest hurdle for scientists working on making machines more human like?

There are many hurdles. There's the complexity of being able to generalize, an array of technical problems. But we have an embodiment of intelligence inside these tissues inside our skull. It's proof that intelligence is possible, computer scientists just have to emulate the brain out of silicon. The principles should be the same because we have proof intelligent behavior is possible.

I'm not futuristic, and I won't guess how many years it'll take, but this goal is a driving force that's inspiring for young people. Other disciplines can be pessimistic, but we don't have that in the field of artificial intelligence. Step by step we overcome one problem after the other. We have this vision that miraculous things are feasible and can be emulated in a system that is more understandable than our brain.

What do you think is the most impressive use of artificial intelligence that most people are familiar with?

I think the voice recognition systems that we constantly use, as much as we hate them, are miraculous. They're not flawless, but what we have shows it's feasible and could one day be flawless. There's the chess-playing machine we take for granted. A computer can beat any human chess player. Every success of AI becomes mundane and is removed from AI research. It becomes routine in your job, like a calculator that performs arithmetic, winning in chess—it's no longer intelligence.

So what's next? What are people working on that'll be world changing?

I think there will be computers that acquire free will, that can understand and create jokes. There will be a day when we're able to do it. There will be computers that can send jokes to the New York Times that will be publishable.

I try to avoid watching futuristic movies about super robots, about the limitations of computers that show when the machines will try to take over. They don't interest me.

Do you think those movies scare people off? Are they detrimental to the field?

I think they tickle the creativity and interest of young people in AI research. It's good for public interest, they serve a purpose. For me, I don't have time. I have so many equations to work on.

What are you working on now?

I'm working on a calculus for counterfactuals—sentences that are conditioned on something that didn't happen. If Oswald didn't kill Kennedy, then who did? Sentences like that are the building blocks of scientific and moral behavior. We have a calculus that if you present knowledge about the world, the computer can answer questions of the sort. Had John McCain won the presidency, what would have happened?

Sort of like an alternative reality?

It's kind of like an alternative reality—you have to give the computer the knowledge. The ability to process that knowledge moves the computer closer to autonomy. It allows them to communicate by themselves, to take a responsibility for one's actions, a kind of moral sense of behavior. These are issues that are interesting—we could build a society of robots that are able to communicate with the notion of morals.

....


North Korea’s dehumanizing treatment of its citizens is hiding in plain sight

By Fred Hiatt, Published: March 25

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/north-koreas-dehumanizing-treatment-of-its-citizens-is-hiding-in-plain-sight/2012/03/23/gIQAKE5eaS_story.html 

With President Obama in Korea this week, we will hear a lot about the dangers of North Korea’s nuclear aspirations.

We’re unlikely to be hear about a young man named Shin Dong-hyuk, who was bred, like a farm animal, inside a North Korean prison camp after guards ordered his prisoner-parents to mate. But Shin arguably has as much to teach about Korea’s past and future as about the cycle of negotiation, bluster and broken promises over the nuclear issue.

“Shin was born a slave and raised behind a high-voltage barbed-wire fence.”

So writes Blaine Harden, a former East Asia correspondent for The Post, in a soon-to-be-published account of Shin’s life, “Escape from Camp 14.”

Harden describes a closed world of unimaginable bleakness. We often speak of someone so unfortunate as to grow up “not knowing love.” Shin grew up literally not understanding concepts such as love, trust or kindness. His life consisted of beatings, hunger and labor. His only ethos was to obey guards, snitch on fellow inmates and steal food when he could. At age 14, he watched his mother and older brother executed, a display that elicited in him no pity or regret. He was raised to work until he died, probably around age 40. He knew no contemporaries who had experienced life outside Camp 14.

At 23, Shin escaped and managed, over the course of four years, to make his way through a hungry North Korea — a larger, more chaotic version of Camp 14 — into China and, eventually, the United States. He is, as far as is known, the only person born in the North Korean gulag to escape to freedom.

Improbably, his tale becomes even more gripping after his unprecedented journey, after he realizes that he has been raised as something less than human. He gradually, haltingly — and, so far, with mixed success — sets out to remake himself as a moral, feeling human being.

....

When he watched his teacher beat a six-year-old classmate to death for stealing five grains of corn, Shin says he “didn’t think much about it.”

“I did not know about sympathy or sadness,” he says. “Now that I am out, I am learning to be emotional. I have learned to cry. I feel like I am becoming human.”

But seven years after his escape, Harden writes, Shin does not believe he has reached that goal. “I escaped physically,” he says. “I haven’t escaped psychologically.”

Is "more" war "less" war?

As a follow-up on one of the issues raised in the previous blog, case 4 of Bodhisattvas in an Election Year, and the difficulties that they may pose, the following article was sent to me, which I share below. The article encourages us to reflect on the many facets of this sort of issue, the positions we might hold, and to see what is entailed for those with decision-making authority and power. 


Jonathan Tepperman in The New York Times on intervention in Syria

http://theatlantic.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=ed2d318978b7dc9b30b1f464f&id=c5257c383a&e=0212d1b76b

"Rather than call for full-scale intervention, most who want to aid the Syrian rebels in their fight against Bashar al-Assad have suggested half-measures like arming the rebels or setting up safe havens over the border. 'Partial measures may seem attractive, but they risk turning a small local conflict into a far messier regional war. Strange as it sounds, doing something small may be worse than doing nothing — meaning the West should go in big or stay home,' writes Tepperman. He describes problems with arming the rebels, including their diverse makeup that could lead to a multi-sided civil war. The safe havens could be overrun by enemies or become bases that further fuel a civil war. Instead, Tepperman makes the case that real intervention would make short work of Assad's army and wouldn't alter our relations with Iran."

The article ends with the following:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/09/opinion/the-perils-of-piecemeal-intervention-in-syria.html?ref=opinion

"The Obama administration does not want to hear any of this. It just got out of Iraq and is trying to get out of Afghanistan and stay out of Iran; it has little stomach for yet another war in yet another Muslim country. But let’s not pretend that half-measures are preferable. Choosing policies just because they are cheap, gratifying and politically palatable is rarely a good idea, especially when they could well make matters worse. Those of us unwilling to tolerate more slaughter in Syria must confront the true nature of the military choices facing us.

We must now accept the hard facts and make an honest decision about what standing up for our interests and values will entail. If that means a major armed intervention, we should do it, but with no illusions."