September in Review

I figured I would highlight some of my discoveries of the last month.

Literature: September’s feature was Thich Nhat Hahn’s Peace is Every Step.  Simple yet practical, this book suggests very basic practices for mindfulness. He recommends practicing smiling and concentrating on your breath in order to bring yourself into the present moment. Although written about 15 years ago, I still find this book to be extremely relevant and helpful. I highly recommend it.

Health: As some of you know already, this month came the revelation and the witch hunt to eliminate everything that contains SLS (sodium lauryl/laureth sulfate).  What is SLS you may ask? It is the foaming agent found in everything from toothpaste, laundry detergents, dish detergents, shampoos, liquid soaps (hand soaps, body wash, bubble baths, etc.), and even some conditioners.  It is a highly toxic chemical that has been proven in over 16,000 studies to cause cancer, skin abrasions, hair loss, and if in too much concentration, death.  Due to the low concentration found in our cosmetic products, it is not the one time usage that is of concern.  It is years of exposure that is the problem since the skin absorbs so much of the chemical over time.

After making this discovery, I took it upon myself to empty out my bathroom of all of the SLS-containing products.  I threw out the majority of them.  After silently weeping over the vast amounts of money that was literally just thrown away, I did some research on what some good products and substitutions might be.  Below are some of the winners:

Earthpaste: This perhaps is the best product that I have come upon yet. While making your own toothpaste is possible with some baking soda, water, and some flavoring oil for taste, I thought Earthpaste was more well thought out, containing essential oils to kill bacteria and using edible clay as a base so that it wouldn’t be harmful if you swallowed some by accident. All of the product reviews from Amazon and several blogs were positive, and I have to say I have not been disappointed.  I will admit that the color is a bit gross (brown), and it takes some getting used to because it doesn’t foam, but it does clean my teeth and mouth so much better.  It feels like I just walked out of the dentist each time.  Also, I have found that my breath is better.  I absolutely recommend this product.

Sulfate-free shampoo: I have a recipe for a sulfate-free shampoo that I will be trying after I’m done with this, but I don’t really have any complaints about this product. I got it at the Heaven and Nature store on Jonestown Road. It doesn’t have a particular name. You can simply ask for the sulfate-free shampoo and you will receive a scentless, paraben and sulfate free, 8 ounce bottle. You can add essential oil (10 drops per oz) if you want a scent or you want something that will clean the scalp of bacteria (tea tree) or help hair growth (rosemary). 

As expressed in past entries, I have been experiencing severe itching, burning, and hair loss for some time and no clue as to where it was coming from. After trying this shampoo, I will say that I have experienced an improvement-less burning/itching and less hair on the comb (although I had a setback last week after using a protein pack that felt like it was going to burn my scalp off...the rest of my protein packs went in the trash). I’m not 100% sold on this particular shampoo (as I said I will be trying a new recipe after I’m done with this), but I think it is definitely an improvement.

Bar soaps: I don’t have a particular recommendation here, but I have been impressed with the more homemade soaps as opposed to Dial/Dove/etc. I used a goat milk soap that I bought from Heaven and Nature and found that it was gentler on my skin and didn’t have any skin irritation as I have experienced from liquid soaps in the past. I definitely recommend switching to bar soaps.

Soap nuts: [Insert sexual joke here] The jury is still out on these. Soap nuts are pretty self explanatory.  They are nuts that have cleaning qualities and you put them in the laundry to wash your clothes. Supposedly they have been used for hundreds of years (cue cheesy sound effects) in other countries.  When you use them, they leave your clothes scentless and you don’t have to use fabric softener in the dryer.  I purchased a sample and tried them last night. I think I liked them. I will say that they have a vinegary smell to them once they get wet, however, once the clothes go through the dryer they don’t have a smell. You can get soap nuts in liquid concentrate and then add a few drops to water, which I think I’m going to try.  I didn’t like throwing the nuts (which were in a drawstring bag) right in with my clothes because I wasn’t certain that they were washing the whole load.  So, jury is still out and I’m open to other options.

I think that’s about all. Til next month!!

No-Self: Re-Examining my Perspective

Lately I have been disconnected and disenfranchised with my Buddhist practice, not because I don’t agree with its fundamentals, but more because of my frustration in what seems to be a lack of growth and commitment. As a result, I decided that I would take a month to refresh myself on what Buddhism exactly is and perhaps figure out where I am leading myself astray.

I have started reading Stepping out of Self-Deception: the Buddha’s Liberating Teaching of No-Self by Rodney Smith. With just three chapters in, I have to admit that I have already found many errors in my own practice. My perception has been all wrong.

In the first chapter of this book, I received my first “Aha!” moment. Smith talks about how we are not possessors of our minds, but rather our minds form “us”. Our minds created how we see ourselves, along with everything else in our lives. As Smith so aptly states, “We exist only because the mind thinks us into creation.” Thus, we cannot see ourselves as separate from our minds. We are whole. When we see both as separate, which we often do, we create a competition and divide between “ourselves” and our minds, which ultimately leads us down a path of suffering.

This idea of separation translates into how we approach our spiritual and everyday lives as well. There is this idea, and I am guilty of this too, that we must compartmentalize our spiritual lives and our secular lives; however if “the call of spiritual practice is to examine and understand what we are” and if we are to truly obtain a Wise View, how can we separate our practice from the way we live our lives and still obtain our spiritual Enlightenment? The answer is simple-we can’t. We have to come to understand that the sacred lies in the Now.

Smith also discusses something that I am admittedly guilty of and I know that several others are too, which is infusing Buddhist items and symbols with sacred meaning. This perception only inhibits us because we only feel spiritual when we interact with these items and practices. As I mentioned in the previous paragraph, Buddhism is not inhabited in any particular experience or item. It is inhabited in our general experience and perspective.

Finally, I think one of the most important things that I have read so far is Smith’s view on meditation, which is most certainly a practice that I have been struggling with. He describes meditation’s purpose as informing us about the true nature of relationships and interconnectedness. When aligned with these principles, we “lose our self-centered perspective, abandon our defenses, and release ourselves into the intimacy and ease at hand. There are no goals or direction, there is nothing for the self to feed upon, and everything is represented equally. The experience itself is sufficient. In meditation the struggle is that we feel less self-fulfilled but more spiritually fulfilled. To the sense-of-self, meditation may become frustrating because there is not and never will be vindication of our efforts. Frustration indicates we are caught in an unwise view.” This is extremely important. I often times create a “goal” out of meditation- what do I want out of it? What am I aiming for? Smith indicates that in itself, there is no goal other than to experience and at some point realize interconnectedness. To get frustrated or to aim for anything else is the sense-of-self (also called the ego self) calling out, which leads us away from the path we are trying to walk.

Each day I struggle with where I am in life and where I want to be, how to get there, etc. (As Smith would say, my sense-of-self is creating a problem and I am operating very much on a horizontal plane as opposed to a vertical one.) Ultimately, I’ve recently come to the resolution to simply live each day as the person that I want to be and to somehow rise above any situation and act in a way that I would be proud. While it sounds good, I realize that in this statement alone, there is an abounding sense-of-self. How do I change that? When I ask that question, I can feel fear well up inside of me as my ego screams, “Are you trying to get rid of me?! You can’t live without me!” It’s undoubtedly a scary thing as I have not known anything else but my interaction and life with my ego self, which is comprised of every decision I have made and every perception that I have. It’s hard to imagine that I would get rid of it. Or would I get rid of it? Perhaps I am making an assumption that shouldn’t be made.

Smith begins this book by talking about how Western Buddhism has forgotten about the Buddha’s ultimate teaching of no-self, instead concentrating on “sacred” items and practices such as meditation and retreats. I tend to agree. Often times when I am explaining to someone what Buddhism actually is, the words can’t seem to come to me. The words “lots of meditation” always seem to come to my mind, which tells me that I have fallen into the same trap that Smith describes. I can say that by reading his book, I find more depth to Buddhism and its meaning—something that I have been desperately looking for (or perhaps have just simply forgotten). The no-self lesson is the ultimate lesson of Buddhism—to escape the damaging perceptions of the ego self, which instigate suffering and pain—which will ultimately lead to the place of Enlightenment and the ability to truly experience awareness and the present.

Book Review: Banker to the Poor

Just a quick blurb... This book is such an inspiration to me. I'm astounded at how thought out Yunus' work is. In an effort to create a real and lasting solution to ending world poverty, Yunus has begun to create an entire market dedicated to social consciousness. His ability to identify the needs of the poorest individuals (or as he likes to call them-the real poor) and families and address them by creating a system specifically dedicated to them is admirable. Critics often argue that Yunus is really just creating a cycle of lending and debt for the poor. I'd agree to some extent, but only if you view his idea as being strictly banking transactions. If you look at the entire system he is creating I'd argue that those of us who are fortunate enough to not qualify for Grameen are caught in our own market's cycle of debt and, in fact, could be even more at the mercy of the market than even the clients of Grameen. At least Yunus has the well-being of his lenders at heart. Who can say that about Bank of America or any other corporate bank these days? Furthermore, is it not true that Yunus is creating a system that enables these families to live better lives? They are now able to eat, be educated, and find a sense of pride they previously lacked. Is this not progress? I would never argue that Grameen is fool-proof and is the only solution to ending poverty. In fact, even Yunus agrees that it is not the only solution. However, I would say that it is an excellent start to a movement and work that quite simply has to be done. I highly recommend this book.

Book Review: The Life of Milarepa

I was assigned (and actually read) this book in a Buddhist class that I took during college. My take on it this time around in comparison to the first time I read it is completely different.

The first time I read this book I thought Milarepa was amazing and the story of his life was simply incredible (some of it quite literally). I thought he was truly the pinnacle of what it meant to be a Buddhist. I mean he meditated consecutively for years of his life in hidden caves in Tibet, starving himself physically, but spiritually feasting off of the enlightening teachings of the Dharma. His death was a spectacle of sorts. The dakinis (Budhhist gods/goddesses) honored him and greeted him as he entered the heavenly realm and all was great. He seemed to truly be the saint that they made him out to be.

This time not so much. As I read the book, I realized how full of himself he was. Milarepa definitely came off extremely arrogant and at times elitist. Furthermore, his drive to meditate and realize the dharma teaching was a result of fear and penance for the evil deeds he had done in his youth. Ultimately, he didn’t want to get sent to purgatory, so out of that fear, he attained “enlightenment”. I find this discouraging because I have been taught that while one may not necessarily dissolve all of one’s fears, one can come to realize them and recognize when they are affecting our decisions, and yes, at times dissolve them. I don’t think Milarepa ever really did this which made me question his level of enlightenment. I suppose as I write this I have to realize that I shouldn’t really be one to judge considering I don’t have any real experience in the matter.

I think another thing that strikes me about this story (as it does the story of the Buddha) is his method of attaining enlightenment. He essentially runs from his life and what he did in order to find himself. I just feel as though if one is going to find enlightenment is it really through running from your life? To me, that’s not being mindful or compassionate at all. However, I do realize that this book is based off of the Tibetan beliefs, which are strongly rooted in the idea that enlightenment can only be attained through isolation and meditation. It is more the Western Buddhism that concentrates on mindfulness in everyday life. Furthermore, this story is dated through hundreds of years and techniques and ideas on how to practice Buddhism has changed since then.

Note- Milarepa’s evil deeds consisted of casting hailstorms and destroying crops in his home village so that his aunt and uncle, who treated him and his mom poorly, would starve. In so doing this, he also made the rest of the town starve.

I think this story is OK to read. I wouldn’t recommend it to someone who is just coming into Buddhism because I think it is a little difficult to absorb. I mean, I found it to be a difficult (and dull) read at times, particularly in the lengthy introduction, and I have been practicing Buddhism for three years now (not like that is any sort of indication as to my level of knowledge). However, I think it is an OK read for someone who is a little more advanced into the practice, perhaps as an inspiration, but more of a history lesson and to give some background and context.

Book Review: In the Time of the Butterflies by Julia Alvarez

This book originally caught my eye because in my senior year of college I took a course on the history of the Dominican Republic and had learned all about Trujillo and his horrible, horrible dictatorship. I also read fiction books similar to this one that combined fact and fiction about the regime and the Trujillo era. Thus, I thought I would read this as a "continuation" of my course.

After reading The Feast of the Goat (a fiction book from my course), my professor at the time had said that almost all of Trujillo fiction books were similar and implied that they were a waste of time to read. I have to admit I partially read this to see if he was right, and I have to say that he was.

This book is about 4 sisters, three of whom were assassinated by Trujillo because they were instrumental in starting a revolution to overthrow the government. Dede was the fourth sister who survived. The other three, Maria Teresa (Mate), Minerva, and Patria were nicknamed Las Mariposas (the butterflies). It gives the tale of their revolution from each of their points of view. It gives a fictional background on how they got involved, what happened while they were imprisoned, and even what happened leading right up to their deaths. It gives you details on their family and their hardships, and it tells a story of Dede's hardships after her sisters' deaths.

The book is divided into four parts. The first three parts have 4 chapters in each, one for each sister. The last part is an epilogue that tells the fictional story of what happened to Dede and the rest of the Maribal family after the deaths of the famous sisters. Each sister has her own way of telling her story which is consistent throughout the book. For example, Maria Teresa's chapters are always laid out in a diary format. The other three, though, are basic prose.

I have to say that this book did suck me in. Even though it was similar to other books I had read about this era, I am still intrigued and baffled by the tales that come out of the Trujillo era, or should I say as a result of the Trujillo era. Even though they are almost always the same--Trujillo sleeps around with young (sometimes underaged) girls, he goes on a killing rampage murdering everyone he thinks will rise up against him, he hires spies to listen in on Dominican citizens in a effort to stop an uprising--they always manage to draw me in. And why wouldn't they?! They have violence, suspense, sex, love-all of the ingredients to make for a juicy novel, even if it is cliche!

Other than being cliche, I thought that the author did a poor job of establishing the setting, especially when it came to Dede. I was never sure really when she was in the "present" or when she was reminiscing. Also the dialogue between the reporter and Dede seemed confusing. I couldn't quite get who was who at first.

I'm not sure I would recommend this book. I mean, I think it was okay, but I don't think I'd have someone go out of their way to read it. The only thing that I can say is that it was an easy enough read that it wouldn't take a lot of time, but for someone who doesn't have much background on the Trujillo era, I'm not sure that they'd be that into it.

Grade: C

Book Review: At Home in the Muddy Water by Ezra Bayda

I just got done reading this book, and I have to say I was really impressed. It took me a couple of weeks to read it not because it was difficult, but because I found that I really just wanted to absorb the material.

After reading Krishnamurti's book, I have to say that this was a great follow up. Bayda provides the reader with a lot of tips on meditation and Zen practice as well as some guidance on what one should be focusing on when practicing. For me, this was really important seeing as how I'm often wondering if "I'm doing it right" or if I'm just going around in circles.

He divides his book into several different parts. In the first part, he lays out "What Practice Is." He introduces it by talking about our ego or the state of being cut off from our awareness of our True Self. He labels this our "substitute life." He talks about how we all have strategies that we use to escape fears that take over our lives. I think one of the most important statements he makes in this part which sums up the purpose of spiritual practice is the following:

"Genuine spiritual practice is never about fixing ourselves, because we're not broken. It's about becoming awake to who we really are, to the vastness of our True Nature, which includes even the parts of ourselves we label as "bad"."

I think one of the most enlightening and assuring points of this part was that he talks about how every person who practices "fails". They get discouraged, confused, often times taking a break or temporarily leaving the practice. He gives suggestions and talks about the different phases of discouragement and how to overcome them. I thought this was particularly reassuring since I often wonder if it is normal for me to have those feelings. He basically says that it is all part of a person's path.

I also really liked how he stressed what clear seeing actually is, and what practicing is actually about, or better yet, he gives you a broad, yet clear indication of what practicing will end up making a person see about themselves.

"Clear seeing is not the same as psychoanalyzing; we're not focusing on the past or trying to figure out why we think or behave as we do. This is an important point. We're simply attempting to observe ourselves as we are. As we begin seeing through our beliefs and strategies, we inevitably find judge and find fault with ourselves. But part of the practice of clear seeing is to observe our mind's tendency to judge and to notice how often we're not even aware of accepting our judgments as truth."

What a statement- we're not even aware of accepting our judgments as truth. This was the part that really drew me in. I think about how often I judge people or things or situations and my mind instantly takes these statements as truths. In fact I even managed to practice with that in mind for a day-watching my judgments and seeing how quickly I treat them as fact. I can tell you it's amazing what you find out about yourself.

In the next part of the book-"Attachment and Ideals"-Bayda starts off by talking about attachments. He describes attachments as the following:

"Attachments are simple beliefs-fantasies, in fact- that have become solidified as "truth" in our mind. They also partake of the energy of desire, which is based on the underlying belief that without some particular person or thing, we can never be free from suffering. Attachment also takes the form of avoidance; we believe we can't be happy as long as a particular person, condition, or object is in our lives."

This chapter on attachments led into the next chapter- addiction. Bayda opens up with the premise that we are all addicted to comfort. He talks about how each of us manipulate our lives, our thoughts, our beliefs to find comfort and avoid pain. He talks about how we are also addicted to our thoughts, our self-judgments, and our identities.

In the third part, Bayda talks about relationships. To me, this was the eye-opener of the book, but there were also points that I have to question.

Bayda starts off with this strong point:

"This is a key point; almost all of our relationship difficulties come from wanting something or someone to be different."

Think about your own relationships and hard times. Why did you have them? Because he/she wasn't giving you something you wanted or felt you needed? Exactly. Bayda argues that we were taught that relationships are supposed to give us something to make us feel better. As a result, we walk into every relationship (romantic, friendships, parental, etc.) with expectations, preferences, requirements. This transitions into the fact that we care for someone as long as they satisfy our needs and make us feel a special way.

He moves on to talk about how we transmit those expectations, "needs", etc. on to the other person, turning them into something they aren't, forcibly involving them in an unspoken pact that they have to meet these expectations. When that person doesn't (not if...when, because it is inevitable), we are exposed to fear and hurt, turning the other person into our enemy.

How do we move past this? How can we experience a relationship without all of these expectations? Bayda proposes that we have to learn to stop blaming others when we find ourselves in the middle of an emotional conflict. This means that we have to realize that all of our emotional distress comes from something we ourselves created. When we start to see this, we start to see our expectations and as we dig deeper, we see that these expectations actually come from our own fears and insecurities such as rejection or feelings of unworthiness.

I think the chapter that I had the hardest time agreeing with was the chapter on trust. Bayda proposes that when we feel as though our sense of trust has been shaken it is once again because our projections and expectations have been rejected. We feel groundlessness and pain. So far, I agree. However, as he moves into this topic he talks about how we need to deal with our projections and expectations and once we do, we will find that trust is almost a null topic because we will come to trust everyone. I suppose my problem with this is where do you draw the line? For example, if a person hits me, is my sense of trust not supposed to be shaken? At what point do I stop eliminating my expectations in a person? I agree that trust is more of a standard and mechanism to bar ourselves from fear, but at the same time, is it not needed so we aren't abused or taken for granted? Just something to think about.

All in all, I really enjoyed this book, and I would highly recommend it to someone who is interested in practicing or is even interested in spirituality. It makes you think and it definitely forces you to look at yourself, your thoughts, feelings, judgments, etc. Great read.

Book Review: Freedom from the Known by Krishnamurti

I just got done reading this book. I wanted to share it with you because frankly I think it was one of the deepest, most challenging, and most open and honest reads I've ever experienced. It is only 124 pages, but the content makes it feel like it is 124,000 pages.

It is a philosophical book. For some that might mean it is particularly dry, but I find that if your attention is lost it is not because of a lack of interest, but more because of a lack of understanding. It truly forces you to question everything you know and the way you live.

Krishnamurti addresses everything in this book-religion, fears, relationships, humility, meditation, love, pleasure, pain, etc. In some ways he comes off as condescending and almost conceited, but the more I think about it, while this could very well be (he is human after all), it could also be because of a lack of understanding of the topic at hand on my part.

I confess that I often find myself pondering the meaning of life (a big question, I know) and what my purpose is. This often transitions into, "How can I live, truly live, appreciate, and savor every single moment that I experience, and further, what do I need to do to get everything out of this life that I desire?" This, basically, is what Krishnamurti seems to address. He gives us a challenge of awareness, which in his view, is the only way in which we can savor each moment and live each moment in a fresh, new way.

Within the first ten pages of the book, Krishnamurti is already telling us to let go of our inclination to be fed beliefs by others, to challenge our way of thinking, going as far as to criticize us over it:

"For centuries we have been spoon-fed by our teachers, by our authorities, by our books, our saints. We say, 'Tell me all about it--what lies beyond the hills and the mountains and the earth?' and we are satisfied with their descriptions, which means that we live on words and our life is shallow and empty. We are second-hand people. We have lived on what we have been told, either guided by our inclinations, our tendencies, or compelled to accept by circumstances and environment. We are the result of all kinds of influences and there is nothing new in us, nothing that we have discovered for ourselves; nothing original, pristine, clear."

He talks about what it means to be free of this authority. He describes it as "dying to everything of yesterday," which leaves your mind fresh and young.

Krishnamurti constantly asks you questions throughout the book. I think one of the most basic and the most important is when he asks if you are aware that you are conditioned. He uses this example:

"Do you know that even when you look at a tree and say, 'That is an oak tree,' or 'that is a banyan tree', the naming of the tree, which is botanical knowledge, has so conditioned your mind that the word comes between you and actually seeing the tree? To come in contact with the tree you have to put your hand on it and the word will not help you to touch it."

I thought this was a really important passage. How can we experience everything as if it were new? For instance, I look at a tree and say, "Oh that's a tree," ignoring every other element, whether it be its blossoms, trunk, or leaves. I'm not living to experience the tree. I'm not seeing the tree. I'm not cherishing the moment with the tree. This is because of my conditioning and knowledge.

Later on in the book, Krishnamurti talks about the topic of "me", and how we are ashamed to say that we are most concerned with ourselves. He says:

"Some of us would say that it is wrong to be primarily interested in ourselves. But what is wrong about it except that we seldom decently, honestly, admit it? If we do, we are rather ashamed of it. So there it is--one is fundamentally interested in oneself, and for various ideological or traditional reasons one thinks it is wrong. But what one thinks is irrelevant. Why introduce the factor of its being wrong? That is an idea, a concept. What is a fact is that one is fundamentally and lastingly interested in oneself.

"You may say that it is more satisfactory to help another than to think about yourself. What is the difference? It is still self concern. If it gives you greater satisfaction to help others, you are concerned about what will give you greater satisfaction."

I think this is really important. I hear it all of the time--people think it is rude or "self centered" to be so...well, self centered. Everyone is self-centered. First and foremost, we are concerned for our own well-being, status, power, health, etc. And as Krishnamurti suggests, why shouldn't we be? It's only natural. I'm not saying to become narcissistic. I'm saying that he's right-we should be willing to admit that we are concerned about our own selves first and foremost and there is nothing wrong with it.

Fear is another topic that is extremely deep in this book. In fact in his view, fear is the reason why we don't live this life with full awareness. He believes that we are afraid to see ourselves as we are, so we identify with other images, comparing ourselves, observing things and dismissing the things that are distasteful to us and accepting the things that aren't. In my opinion, this is the deepest part of the book.

So, in the end, how do we get over our conditioning? How do we go about getting over our fears? Meditation. He describes meditation as the following:

"Meditation demands an astonishingly alert mind, meditation is the understanding of the totality of life in which every form of fragmentation has ceased. Meditation is not control of thought, for when thought is controlled it breeds conflict in the mind, but when you understand the structure and origin of thought, which we have already been into, then thought will not interfere. That very understanding of the structure of thinking is its own discipline which is meditation.

"Meditation is to be aware of every thought and of every feeling, never to say it is right or wrong but just to watch it and move with it. In that watching you begin to understand the whole movement of thought and feeling."

I always felt that meditation was important, but I think the thing that was most profound about this was it brought me back to what meditation is really about. It's about awareness and observation, not controlling or repressing your thoughts, simply watching. It's a difficult task, believe it or not, but I sincerely do believe it's one that is necessary.

In the end I will say that this book was profound and left me with many questions about myself and those around me. I think in the least it set me on a path that could at least prove beneficial to my goal of experiencing the world around me for what it is and getting out of it what I desire.

I highly recommend this book.