For many years, I was hired by many yoga teacher trainers to teach Indian/Yoga History and Philosophy, but it very early became obvious that most of the students had no experience in thinking philosophically. I was not one to lean into heavy philosophical jargon, but to face adult students of yoga who did not understand, for instance, the difference between “monism” and “dualism” and the implications of believing one or the other, or what was meant by theodicy, by what is meant by "absolute" and "relative" in philosophical context, or that the most common forms of ethical theory were virtue, deontology, and consequentialism and how that related to Yogic and Buddhist ethics soon made it evident that I had to first teach some of these philosophical concepts before even touching on the differences between Classical Yoga and Vedanta, and what it means to say that Buddhism and Jainism are heterodox schools of thought. Along with this, I found the need to impart some basic critical thinking concepts like the most common informal logical fallacies and the abuse of heuristics that can derail clear thinking. It became clear to me that most people don’t think about what they think they think. They often base their ideas on emotion, and do not follow what their thinking really leads to or is based upon. We all have a metaphysics, but most of us do not hold our metaphysics consciously, and as the philosopher Eugene Fontinell often noted, “unconscious metaphysics are dangerous metaphysics.” Julian Baggini and Jeremy Stangroom, in their book, Do You Think What You Think You Think You Think? show that what people say they believe is actually  often at odds with what they truly believe and that most of us are quite inconsistent in our beliefs and in our thinking about our beliefs.

Susan Neiman understands this. As she begins her “Conclusion”: “This is a philosophical book, though it’s not only meant for philosophers….” She tells us that “I have chosen to focus on ideas. The woke call to decolonize thinking reflects the belief that we will not survive the multiple crises we’ve created unless we change the way we think about them. I agree that we desperately need fundamental changes in thinking, but I’ve urged another direction. For, as I’ve argued, the woke themselves have been colonized by a row of ideologies that properly belong to the right.”

And that is just what I’ve been arguing for several years now. So many of my well-intentioned, liberal friends don’t seem to understand the ideas that undergird the ‘woke’ project and how anti-progressive they in fact are, and how they lead to regressive policies, primarily because they haven’t ever thought about the ideas behind the 'woke project.' And ideas shape the reality we live. As Neiman shows, the same ideas based upon postmodern relativism undergirding the “woke” have been used by the right to create the “post truth” world of “alternative facts” that has led to the extreme polarization we now face in American society.

Now, she knows just referring to the “woke” is going to cause a reactivity that includes  a refusal to even think about what this book is about. So, she begins this short, eminently readable tract by situating herself as not “liberal” because she lives in a country where “liberal” often means neoliberal libertarianism. She, like me, is a LEFTIST, happy to be called a socialist. What distinguishes liberal from left is the view that “along with political rights that guarantee freedoms to speak, worship, travel, and vote as we choose, we also have claims to social rights….” Now, both liberals and conservatives in America call these social rights “benefits”, “entitlements”, the “social safety net” or “nanny state.” Such terms make clear these leftist social rights like fair labor practices, free accessible education and health care, and decent affordable housing are more matters of charity than justice.

And as Thomas Piketty has argued, it is quite possible to move toward a participatory socialism by changing legal, fiscal, and social systems by doing something as simple as raising tax rates that would still amount to less than the tax rates in the US after World War II that saw our greatest economic growth along with the growth of the middle class. The identity conflicts that now permeate what passes for our political discourse “are fueled by the disillusionment with the very ideas of a just economy and social justice."

So, what’s Neiman’s point? She tells us up front in her “Introduction” that what concerns her most “are the ways in which contemporary voices considered to be leftist have abandoned the philosophical ideas that are central to any left-wing standpoint: a commitment to universalism over tribalism, a firm distinction between justice and power, and a belief in the possibility of progress.” And all of these fundamental ideas are connected. Neiman speaks for me when she writes that in response to so many on the left who have felt betrayed by what’s called “the woke left, or the far left, or the radical left” she is “unwilling to cede the word ‘left’ or accept the binary suggestion that those who aren’t woke must be reactionary.” Instead, she spends the bulk of her book showing how many of today’s self-identified left have in fact abandoned core ideas any leftist should hold.

AND, this project of hers – and why I’ve written this piece – is that while the current authoritarianism of the right, with its Christian Nationalism and Fascist tendencies is more dangerous, those who identify as progressives have deprived themselves of the very ideas we need if we hope to resist the growing lurch to the right!

“Woke” is a hotly contested term, and it moved from a pretty positive descriptor and term of praise to a term of abuse and eventually the right in this country took it on as a term of attack against anyone standing against racism! A similar thing happened with the term “identity politics” but her point is that the right alone is not to blame for this inversion. Neither identity nor woke politics was used with the nuance they demanded. They became divisive, creating an alienation that the right than took to advantage. Perhaps the worst example is found in “woke capitalism” which hijacks demands for diversity in order to bolster the bottom line.

Neiman asks, “Can woke be defined? And she responds: "It begins with concern for marginalized persons, and ends by reducing each to the prism of her marginalization. The idea of intersectionality might have emphasized the ways in which all of us have more than one identity. Instead, it led to focus on those parts of identities that are most marginalized, and multiplies them into a forest of trauma.” Woke emphasizes the ways marginalized groups have been denied justice, but by focusing on inequalities of power, the concept of justice is often left behind. And in demanding nations and peoples face up to criminal histories, they often conclude that all history is criminal and deny the real progress that has been made historically."

And confusion among well-meaning liberals arises from the fact that the woke movement expresses traditional left-wing emotional commitments such as empathy for the marginalized and indignation at the plight of the oppressed, but they are derailed by theoretical assumptions coming from postmodernism and critical theory that undermine them. Neiman boils it down to a challenging question: Which do you find more essential: the accidents we are born with, or the principles we consider and hold? Traditionally it was the right that focused on the first and the left that emphasized the second." But when a major US liberal female politician heralds the election of Italy’s first female prime minister as a “break with the past” we have to wonder which past? How can any principled person on the left herald the election of a fascist just because she's a woman, especially given Italy’s past history of fascism?! The theories underlying the woke undermine their empathetic emotions and liberating intentions. And because the history of those theories (ideas) is not well understood by liberals who think woke is progressive they give the woke a pass. Yet, some of the authors of those ideas were outright Nazis! We’re talking Carl Schmitt and Martin Heidegger.

The nationalists of the right recognize no deep connections and few if any obligations to anyone outside their own tribe. Traditional leftism begins with the idea of universalism epitomized by international solidarity. The opposite of universalism is the identitarianism that reduces the myriad factors of any individual’s identity down to gender and race/ethnicity. And yet, any clear-headed assessment will show you that the life of a black person such as Barack Obama is dramatically different compared to the life of a poor black man in Alabama or perhaps more obviously as in the example Neiman uses between the life of a black person in America and one born and raised in Nigeria (see Chimamanda Ngozi Adiche’s Americanah). And even identifying someone as “Nigerian” only has significance outside the country since Nigeria is a land of peoples divided by more than 500 languages and fraught histories. Neiman asks, “Can you identify someone as gay without mentioning whether he lives in Tehran or Toledo?”

Benjamin Zachariah wrote: “Once upon a time, essentializing people was considered offensive, somewhat stupid, anti-liberal, anti-progressive, but now this is only so when it is done by other people. Self-essentializing and self-stereotyping are not only allowed but considered empowering.”  Think of this the next time you hear someone introduce their argument for or against something with the phrase, “Speaking as a……” Also, what is it but essentializing when so-called ‘anti-racists’ like Robin DiAngelo and Ibram X Kendi talk about “white fragility”? It’s offensive, stupid, anti-liberal, and anti-progressive, leading to greater tribalism and divisiveness. She quotes Todd Gitlin’s Letters to a Young Activist: “…identity politics is interest-group politics. It aims to change the distribution of benefits, not the rules under which distribution takes place.” A better example of this than of Kendi’s idea that “the only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination” can hardly be found. Neiman pointedly writes that those who think such woke identitarianism is progressive should perhaps consider that one of the more successful examples of identity politics, “complete with the appeal to past victimhood” is the Jewish nationalism of right-wing politicians like Binyamin Netanyahu. As an aside, she shows how the hypervalorization of victimization ends up preventing real progress, an argument detailed by John McWhorter in Losing the Race: Self Sabotage in Black America.

There is so much of value in this short book of less than 150 pages! Some points made are quite thought-provoking as found in her argument against “allyship.” In a discussion of the Black Lives Movement, she says that it started with a universalist character, with a breadth and diversity among those demanding an end to violence against black people. But it soon turned away from such universalism, with the idea that it was a movement on behalf of common ideals explicitly rejected by many of its leaders, who "allowed" for the participation of “white allies.” Neiman writes: “I am not an ally. Convictions play a minor role in alliances, which is why they are often very short. If my self-interest happens to align with yours, for a moment, we could form an alliance. The United States and the Soviet Union were allies until the Nazi regime was defeated. When the US decided its interests lay in recruiting former Nazis to defeat communism, the Soviet Union turned from ally to enemy.” She notes that it was no alliance, but a commitment to universal justice that led to millions of white people around the world shouting “Black Lives Matter”. To divide members of a movement into allies and others undermines the bases of deep solidarity and destroys what standing left means.”

As an indictment of the poor education most of us receive in the US, when I speak of “Enlightenment Values” such as universalism, I mostly get blank stares and questions about what I mean! Worse still, there are others who cynically reject these values and ideals because we haven’t fully lived up to them. This is a perfect example of the good being an enemy of the perfect, otherwise known as the “Nirvana Fallacy.” And one of the more nonsensical arguments I’ve heard from the so-called woke progressives is that Enlightenment Values are themselves “Eurocentric” and “Colonialist” which is 180-degrees from the truth. Neiman reminds us “The Enlightenment was pathbreaking in rejecting Eurocentrism and for urging Europeans to examine themselves from the perspective of the rest of the world.” Indeed, most often, “the point of examining non-European cultures was to point out the defects of European ones” and this at a time when such ideas could have cost the Enlightenment writers and thinkers of such ideas their lives!

To hear some of the “woke” you’d think Europe invented colonialism, as if stronger nations didn’t colonize weaker ones from time immemorial. We’re talking Greeks, Romans, Chinese, Assyrians, Aztecs, Malians, Mughals etc. Such colonialism was never really even questioned until the Enlightenment! Here is an excerpt from Kant’s criticism of colonialism: “Compare the inhospitable actions of the civilized and especially of the commercial states of our part of the world…. America, the lands inhabited by the Negro, the Spice Islands, the Cape, etc, were at the time of their discovery considered by these civilized intruders as lands without owners, for they counted the inhabitants as nothing…. They oppress the natives… spread famine…and the whole litany of evils which afflict mankind. China and Japan, who have had experience with such guests, have wisely refused them entry.” Kant rarely used the word “evil” but he’s clear here in the evil nature of colonialism.

Diderot was even more fervent in his criticism, arguing that indigenous peoples threatened by European colonizers had every right, reason, and justice on their side if they “simply killed the invaders like the wild beasts those intruders resembled.”
Enlightenment thinkers didn’t simply point out the cruelty of colonialism, they deconstructed the thinking of those who justified the theft of indigenous lands and resources (which often tended to be theological). This is why it's so important to address and question the thinking behind policy.

Neiman eviscerates the incoherence of much of the ideas behind the woke. Influenced by postmodernism, those who see themselves as radically progressive reject reason itself as a “white European concept” and yet use reason in their argumentation. How else could you argue a point? Audre Lorde was wrong: sometimes you do indeed need to use the master’s tools to dismantle the master’s house and reason is one of those tools we need in order to do so. Yet, there are those who identify reason as oppression!

In her chapter on “Justice and Power” she critiques the cynicism, nihilism, and incoherence of Foucault. His obsession with everything being a power relationship leads him to assert “peace would then be a form of war, and the state a means of waging it.” Neiman punctures such inanity: “An introductory course in logic could have prevented some confusion. From the fact that some moral claims are hidden claims to power, you cannot conclude that every claim to act for the common good is a lie.” This, of course, is the argument of Chomsky in his debate with Foucault, who he called "the most amoral person I've ever met." As Neiman writes: “Anyone who denies the moral distinction between innocence and guilt denies the possibility of moral distinctions at all.” 

Perhaps the biggest irony of the woke “progressives” is how anti-progressive such thinking actually is! She writes about this in her chapter, “Progress and Doom.” Traditionally, there was no bigger distinction between he left and the right than in the idea that progress is possible. It is simply not an idea found in traditional conservative thought which viewed history either as circular or as a devolution from some past golden age! The “better world” can only be thought of as being found in the afterlife. But to stand on the left is to believe that people can work together to make real and significant improvements in the real conditions of their own and others’ lives. Here again, Foucault was as reactionary as any conservative thinker.

Nieman gives several examples of real progress that has been made that is ignored or simply discounted by woke leaders by looking at Foucault’s Discipline and Punish, which gives a dramatic example of punishment in the 17th century. She begins by pointing out how Foucault fudges the distinction between normative and descriptive claims, which is common among those who identify as ‘critical thinkers.’ He writes in such a way that he attempts to make his readers feel that judging something as better or worse is intellectually crude. So, while he never claims that bringing back drawing-and-quartering would be better, he does say that the object of 18th century prison reform was not punish less but to punish better. He simply doesn't give a moment’s thought to the real human prisoners who were spared such torture! It is progress that we’ve gone from public torture as entertainment (“Bring the whole family to the Drawing-And-Quartering this afternoon!) to questioning the ethics of capital punishment. And it is the progressive foundation of Enlightenment values that motivates those of us who are capital punishment abolitionists.

More recently, the writers of Critical Race Theory: An Introduction discount the outlawing of segregation in the early 60s. Nieman points out that most events have multiple causes and “it’s particularly true in cases of progress.” She writes that segregation was outlawed because many Americans, including members of the Kennedy administration, were morally outraged by the sight of white policemen attacking black children with dogs and firehoses. As Delgado and Stefanic point out, the Kennedy’s also knew that the Soviet Union was watching the same things on television and were using it to attack American claims of its moral superiority. Without the context of the cold war, segregation would most likely have lasted even longer. Knowing this may certainly temper any admiration we may have for the Kennedy brothers’ moral outrage, but unless you were prone to the Nirvana Fallacy, it wouldn’t be totally undermined entirely but this is exactly what those promulgators of CRT suggest! The historical evidence shows it was real, and even if it weren’t how much does it matter what moved them to act? Blacks living after are in a better situation than before under the Jim Crow laws. And so-called progressives who deny this, and act like racism is as bad or even worse now, undermine the hope in progress needed for any actual activism to succeed.

To assert that racism is part of the DNA of America forestalls the hope needed to make real progress but that’s exactly the argument of Nikole Hannah-Jone’s 1619 Project! Hope isn’t optimism but it sure isn’t pessimism nor cynicism. And as Kant argued, we cannot act morally – and I would add, progressively – without hope.

Now, of course I know that “woke/progressive” activists seek solidarity, justice, and progress. Neiman shows, however, that “the theories they embrace subvert their own goals. Without universalism there is no argument against racism, merely a bunch of tribes jockeying for power.” And if that is what politics comes to, there’s no way to maintain a robust understanding of justice, without which, we cannot coherently work for progress. Thinking, like truth, matters.

Denialism is not the same as skepticism.  Deep emotional investment and attachment to values, ideology, and/or identity are the three major obstacles to real critical thinking and scientific skepticism. 

There is an irony in the many who have fallen for pseudoscience and conspiracy theories asserting that they are “critical thinkers” and encouraging “doing your own research” when they use terribly flawed logic, bogus evidence for their claims, poor information sources, and ideological arguments to bolster their claims. It is more accurate to call such people deniers rather than skeptics.
 
There is a fairly common misunderstanding of what critical thinking is: it is not a list of “approved ideas and beliefs”, nor does it come naturally to human animals. In fact, critical thinking involves the cultivation of a skill set that goes against our intuitions and naïve assumptions. Critical thinking is a process of using reason, logic, and deep inquiry to wade through spurious claims, the metacognitive understanding of potential problems with perception, innumeracy, biases, lies, and bullshit.
 
The lack of critical thinking among Americans is not new, but the internet has magnified the issue and made it much more dangerous leading to a proliferation of conspiracy beliefs, racial polarization surging on social media and in society, and the spread of medical quackery. As Guy Harrison writes about the crucial lack of critical thinking throughout the Covid-19 pandemic (“How to Repair the American Mind: Solving America’s Cognitive Crisis” Skeptical Inquierer, May/June 2021) “Those who thought well were less likely to tumble into the rabbit holes of thinking QAnon is true, COVID-19 is a hoax, 5G towers help spread the virus, racism is scientific, hydroxychloroquine cures COVID-19, demon sperm is a problem, tracking devices are in vaccines, there is mass election fraud etc…. Millions of Americans now seem hypnotized by dishonest news sources, medical quackery claims, social media manipulation, and preposterous conspiracy beliefs.” And as Harrison points out, every minute wasted on such bad thinking is another minute lost to possible social and political progress for all.

Though the founders of this country were motivated by the values of the Liberal Enlightenment, there has always been a streak of anti-intellectualism running through American culture, supported by the religious faith-oriented valuation of belief over thinking: for the most part, America is a nation of believers and not thinkers. If it weren’t for the fact that the majority of Americans are not taught critical thinking there would not be such a vast pool of unprepared minds vulnerable to bogus beliefs. It is important to understand that this is not a matter of intelligence. In fact, those most intelligent but unlearned in critical thinking skills are adept at rationalization, using their mental sharpness to bolster their nonsensical beliefs. It’s bad thinking, not no thinking that is the issue here.
 
Consider that according to a NPR/IPOS poll, only 47% of Americans say QAnon’s core claims are false and 37% say they are “unsure”. Think about that figure! With 37% unsure of the claims made by the QAnon cesspool, it means millions of Americans are on the fence about whether Tom Hanks and Beyoncé are working to traffic child sex-slaves around the world!

Those who have completely fallen into committing to absurd beliefs are most likely beyond correction. What is needed is a full-on commitment to teaching critical thinking to all students in age-appropriate ways from Kindergarten up. As it is now, even most college students do not receive any such training unless they take specific critical thinking courses, most often offered through philosophy departments. Good, critical thinking can prevent bad thinking, and reason and skepticism can be taught from a relatively young age. This is not some indoctrination of some body of knowledge or ideology but a training of skills for thinking itself.

What might such an education look like? There would be – again – age appropriate instruction in how to ask the right questions when presented with any claim; an exposure to common formal and informal logical fallacies and how they show up in everyday experiences; how to spot reliable (or relatively reliable) sources; the metacognitive understanding of the many ways the brain has evolved that can lead to bad thinking such as the propensity to see patterns even when they are not there; how perception itself is constructed; how and why memory is unreliable and unstable; and how unconscious and subconscious influences can affect our conscious processing.

No one can monopolize critical thinking, and if we started teaching our children from an early age, there would be no taint of “elitism” attached to the process of critical thinking. Simply put, critical thinking is a living “toolbox” of skills that should be made available to everyone. It is the commitment to doing the difficult work of remaining neuropsychologically humble while trying to figure out what to accept and what to disregard based upon reason more than emotion, and on analysis rather then gut feelings, intuition, trust, authority, celebrity, and tradition. It also means – and this is perhaps the most challenging – the willingness to reevaluate conclusions and beliefs or positions and changing one’s mind when new evidence becomes available. It is the conscious decision to choose to follow the evidence even when it goes counter to your cherished beliefs, values, and identities. As much research has shown, those who are most attached to values, ideologies, and identities are “knowledge resistant” and refuse to accept evidence that counters and refutes their beliefs. With scientific skepticism and critical thinking, we accept that the best we can have is provisional and not absolute metaphysical certainty. We move toward holding positions based upon what we know we know, remaining humble that there are things we know we don't know and things we don't even know we don't know. But positions are not mere "beliefs" in that we can change our positions with new, reliable, overwhelming evidence!
 
We cannot outlaw the promulgation of nonsense nor the propensity for believing it. We cannot make our brains work in such a way as to become more accurate when it comes to perceiving and calculating reality. The human brain has evolved for survival, not accuracy, but what worked for our survival in our prehistoric past now, ironically, poses an existential threat to our survival. We must teach our children the skills necessary to parse truth and reality from the delusions and frauds that they will undoubtedly face. To oppose the early teaching of critical thinking is to oppose reason and reality. As Thomas Paine wrote: “It is error only, and not truth, that shirks from inquiry.”

Recently, I had the opportunity to have a conversation with J Brown for which I owe him much gratitude as it has helped me see where I could have been clearer in my writing, specifically in my piece entitled “Religious But Not Spiritual.” The first point to be made is that I did call this “as close to a personal manifesto as anything I’ve written” because what I wrote about was my worldview, my metaphysics and self-identification. It is not inherently a criticism of those who identify as “spiritual but not religious” though there is a sub-group of those who do so identify that I question. From my perspective, J’s reaction shows that there are some strong emotions around this issue so I am very grateful that in discussing my piece with J, I see there is more I can elucidate that may help clear any potential mis-reading.
 
First, I think there can be no honest denying that the term “spiritual” has at least something to do with the term and concept spirit. The first definition you find, and the way the word “spirit” has been used historically relates to:

​As a naturalist, I do not believe there is any such “nonphysical part of a person” that is “separate from the body” and I reject the belief that any such part “continues to exist after the body dies.” And it is obvious to me that the “seat of emotions and character” are in the body, most specifically in the brain.
 
And the term “spirituality” has as its first most common definition:

​As I do not believe in any such “spirit” or “soul” “opposed to material or physical things” spirituality so defined is irrelevant to my life and practice.
 
And finally, the term “spiritualism” is defined as:

IN PHILOSOPHY:
the doctrine that the spirit exists as distinct from matter, or that spirit is the only reality.

​As is obvious by now, not believing in any kind of spirits or souls, I don't believe anyone is really ​communicating with dead folk.

To be absolutely clear, I have heard many who claim to be “spiritual but not religious” espouse such belief in a soul or spirit that is immaterial and distinct from the physical body. For instance, there are those who say “We are not humans having a spiritual experience; we are spirits having a human experience.” I would say that many – perhaps most – contemporary yogis actually DO hold some belief in a transcendent, non-material, non-natural (supernatural) realm of existence. Such yogis believe they have a soul (a non-material essence) which they may refer to as their “true Self” and generally they distinguish this Self (with a capital S) from self (the small, egoic self). Many of these yogis believe this soul/spirit/essential Self reincarnates which is to say this spirit incarnates (takes up meat/flesh/body) again and again.
 
I have absolutely no issue with such yogis who have this dualistic belief, though I absolutely do not share it. And for such yogis believing in such a non-material entity, it is absolutely coherent and logical to assert that they are “spiritual but not religious.” When these yogis say this, what they are generally really saying is that they are rejecting institutionalized religion and asserting their personal belief in spirit. That’s a coherent position to take and I’ve no criticism of it other than saying I think it’s wrong, but they have every right to hold it.

Now, where I have witnessed some incoherence is in a subset of such “spiritual yogis” who speak of some non-physical aspect of the human while also asserting that they are non-dualists. When questioned, and when I point out the incoherence of asserting they are non-dual while believing in a “spiritual realm” separate from the material body, (the duality of body and spirit) many then move into a form of Idealist monism and say that “everything is spiritual.” Their idealist non-dualism may take Tantra as a model and say that consciousness, which they equate with immaterial spirit or divinity (and not the brain, as is the general consensus among neuro and cognitive scientists) is the ultimate foundation of all reality or even exhaustive of reality. While I do not share in this belief (as I accept the scientific consensus that the mind and consciousness is what the brain does), I have no issue with those who do hold this philosophical position. (By the way, I have no qualms of changing my position if new convincing evidence that changes the consensus of those with expertise)
 
It is truly only in regard to those who use the term “spiritual” to refer to what are simply human values that I question. For instance, Stephen Covey offers a typical definition:  "The spiritual dimension is your center, your commitment to your value system. It draws upon the sources that inspire and uplift you and tie you to timeless truths of humanity."

The wellness community often talks of “spirituality” in this sense as is evident in the University of Iowa’s “Student Wellness Services” website page:
 
“It relates primarily to the quality of personal relationships or love for nature. A basic foundation for spiritual wellness may be the sense that life is meaningful and you have found your place in it. The search for meaning and purpose in human existence leads one to strive for a state of harmony with him/herself and with others while working to balance inner needs with the rest of the world.

Many of the behaviors associated with wellness are key components of a healthy spiritual life. Examples include volunteerism, social responsibility, optimism, contributing to society, connectedness with others, feeling of belonging/being part of a group, and love of self/reason to care for self.
 
It goes on to say that “Signs of Spiritual Health” include:
 
- Insightful and nurturing relationship with self and others
- Strong personal value system; cultivation and fulfillment of purpose in life; hope; positive outlook; acceptance of death; forgiveness, self-acceptance; commitment; meaning and purpose; clear values; sense of worth; peace.”
 
I do not see any need to call these basic human values, attributes, and activities “spiritual” and to do so, in my opinion, tends to de-center their humanity, subtly devaluing the human animal natural realm while insulting millions of atheists and secularists who experience all these values and traits without believing in spirits or souls.

This brings me to what may be my major issue with spiritual thinking. In valuing what are simply core human values as something “sacred” (which literally means to set apart) from the material human realm, there is a devaluation of the material human realm – sometimes grossly so and sometimes more subtly so. Ironically, it was just this that spurred me to write a letter to then Shambhala Sun (now Lion’s Roar) which became the subject of my first Zen Naturalism Blog post in 2008.

The editor of Shambhala Sun, Melvin McLeod wrote: “I don’t think anybody, no matter what they argue intellectually, actually believes their subjective experience doesn’t have some nonmaterial basis.” This is such a condescendingly dismissive statement I was appalled! His inability to imagine the heartfelt understanding of others is a blatant example of religious/spiritual/intellectual intolerance. I wrote at the time (when I was still using the word “spirituality” where now I would write “religious” or “religion”): “My spirituality rejects all forms of supernaturalism. It seems to me that every so-called “spiritual” tradition that valorizes some postulated “non-material” realm ends up devaluing the material! You can hear McLeod’s disdain for the material when he goes on to write: “You don’t have to believe in God to think you’re more than just cells.” I, for one, stand in mute awe as what “just cells” are and do! Of course, we are more than “just cells”; we are aggregates of cells, tissues, organs, bodily systems, brains (made of these “just cells”) and their function gives rise to emotion and thought! How utterly awesomely amazing! Do you really need to postulate some immaterial animating force to make life the amazing thing it is?
 
And there is an even deeper argument against his dismissal of “just cells” that you would think a Buddhist such as him would have thought of! There is no such “thing” as “just cells” according to the Buddha’s central teaching of dependent co-origination! These cells are made of elements birthed in the heart of stars that exploded as nebulae (except for the hydrogen which was created at the Big Bang)! We are literally not just star dust, as Carl Sagan called us; we are star babies and there is some element in my body – and yours! – that is as old as the universe! Happy Continuation Day! This understanding in no way diminishes us as humans. Or as buddhas! In fact, I find it boundlessly expansive in reminding me of my utter non-separation with all that is. I can only think a very outdated concept of “matter” and “material” is behind such a dismissal.
 
McLeod didn’t stop there. He went on to rhetorically ask: “So, is this goodness, this human nature, purely material?” Why wouldn’t it be? There is a comprehensive library of research that shows a completely naturalistic, evolutionary explanation for the origin of morality that actually predates any known religion.
 
J, and many others, criticize science for being “reductionist” and fail to see the forest for the trees. The Buddha was a reductionist. One example is his reducing perception into a chain of discrete events, allowing him to see where the “weak link” in the perceptual chain of events would allow the application of mindfulness to alter one’s conditioned reactivity into a more skillful response.
 
Here I wish to reiterate something I shared with J as well. While fundamentally (that is to say, the very basis or foundation) we are not “just cells” but actually sub-atomic particles, it would be the height of foolishness to try to speak from that level for any meaningful human relationship. There are many “non-fundamental” ways we have to talk about the world that describe higher-level realities. I gave the example of a baseball game. We could describe it from the level of Quantum Physics, or Newtonian Physics, or even the biology of the players but that would miss the point, the reality of the game! And I DO understand the reality of the game (with strikes and balls; walks and home runs etc.) as being “real” and not diminished by my understanding that fundamentally it’s all quarks! Unlike a radical eliminativist who denies the reality of the baseball player and the rules of the game as simply an illusion, I accept these as emergent realities. And I believe this is the same for love, compassion, and joy.
 
The cosmologist Sean Carroll speaks of three different kinds of stories we can tell about the world:
           The fundamental level of sub-atomic particles
           The level of people, cars, animals
           The level of values such as right and wrong; purpose and duty etc. The crucial                  thing from a naturalistic worldview is that these values are rooted in our nature
            and are what we bring to the world. We, as particular manifestations of the
            natural cosmos bring into the cosmos values such as love, compassion,   justice
            etc.
 
While science gives us knowledge about the world, and while science can inform our discussions about values, it would be ultimately ridiculous to speak about love and compassion from the fundamental level of subatomic particles while also accepting the knowledge that fundamentally, love and compassion are the emergent realities of such particles!
 
As for the terms religious and religion, note again that I identify as “religious” which points to my overall life orientation rather than any set of beliefs, doctrines, or dogma (religion). As I wrote in my previous essay, in the West we have a very limited idea of what religion is and it is very much tied to the theism that runs through the three Abrahamic religions that have dominated Western history and culture: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. But the origin of the term (from the Latin religio) is more an action, a disciplined activity that, like Yoga, is about cultivation. Used agriculturally, it would have described the activity of shaping growing plants; of cultivation. The Buddha too used such agricultural terms such as bhavana (meaning cultivation) to describe the practices he shared.
 
Remember the description of “spirituality” from that University of Iowa’s website:
“It relates primarily to the quality of personal relationships or love for nature. A basic foundation for spiritual wellness may be the sense that life is meaningful and you have found your place in it. The search for meaning and purpose in human existence leads one to strive for a state of harmony with him/herself and with others while working to balance inner needs with the rest of the world.

Many of the behaviors associated with wellness are key components of a healthy spiritual life. Examples include volunteerism, social responsibility, optimism, contributing to society, connectedness with others, feeling of belonging/being part of a group, and love of self/reason to care for self.
 
The very same thing can be said of the praxis of religion; the religious way of life.
 
After all, The Buddha himself rejected the idea of a creator god, and Buddhist philosophers have been known to argue that belief in an eternal god is nothing but a distraction for humans seeking enlightenment. I shared with J that Richard Gombrich has written about the Buddhist monk who, when asked about god, replied, “What does god have to do with religion?” For the Buddhist monk, who may even have believed in the existence of various deities, such beings can do no more than grant boons. What that monk was pointing out is that the real project of religion is liberation, and no god can grant that. One must work and practice to cultivate one’s liberation. So even deity believing Buddhists feel that the gods have nothing to do with the real purpose of religious practice.
 
And Buddhism is not the only nontheistic religion. For instance, there are non-theistic Quakers, also known as nontheist Friends who engage in Quaker practices and processes but who do not believe in god, the divine, the soul, or the supernatural. Like traditional Quakers, also known as Friends, nontheist Friends are interested in realizing peace, simplicity, integrity, community, equality, love, joy, and social justice in the Society of Friends and beyond. Daoism is another non-theistic religion though the Dao may be seen as a supernatural animating force by some.
 
One commenter at my blog spoke about how institutional religions have a dark history of authoritarian patriarchal power that actually demeaned nature as ‘the feminine.’ And this is true, and another reason many reject religion as J mentioned. And there is no denying that Western institutionalized religion (especially Christianity and Islam) has been pathological in its authoritarianism and in Asia Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam have often allayed themselves with brutal governments. To this I would simply argue that it is also possible to create a religious institutional structure that is non-hierarchical, egalitarian, and consensus-driven. (Here again the Quakers are relevant) And that’s what I and others are creating for ourselves in order to share in a truly communitarian way, our religious awe and investigations.

​The religious worldview that informs and shapes my life is what I call Zen Naturalism. As such, it is one of the many pathways in the growing Religious Naturalism movement. Religious naturalism combines a naturalist worldview with ideals, perceptions, traditions, and values that have been traditionally associated with many religions or religious institutions. "Religious naturalism is a perspective that finds religious meaning in the natural world and rejects the notion of a supernatural realm." The term religious in this context is construed in general terms, separate from the traditions, customs, or beliefs of any one of the established religions.

In the Zen Naturalism that I and others are co-creating, we practice many of the traditional forms of Zen from prostrations to chanting, and of course meditation. These are forms of a religious/yogic discipline firmly grounded in the teaching of the Buddha and various Buddhist traditions, while rejecting any teaching that defies what we currently know about the universe. Thus, I do not accept the teaching of “literal” rebirth as most – but not all, traditional Buddhists believe. The famous and influential Thai monk, Buddhadasa was known for saying “we come from one womb and enter into one tomb”; rebirth for him happens every time we have an “I” centered thought.
 
As I also mentioned to J, while major schisms in Western monotheistic religions were based upon difference in belief because of the emphasis on orthodoxy (that is similar belief) in Buddhism, monastics of various schools of thought could and did live and practice together despite differences in philosophy because they shared a similar practice (orthopraxy). Schisms in Buddhism were generated by differences in practice.
 
Thus, anyone sharing in the practices of Zen Naturalism: the various meditation techniques from satipatthana to shikantaza; chanting and the various ceremonial forms is welcome to join our growing sangha no matter what beliefs they may have. And I do have students who practice sufism, Christianity, Judaism, as well as those who identify as atheistic, agnostic and humanist. It’s a big natural tent; a tent as big as the natural world!

This one is prompted by an episode of Conspirituality Podcast that, among other topics, explores the narcissistic mental masturbation of Mikki Willis, responsible for the excreta known as Plandemic. Listening to it today, I was once again struck by how obvious (retrospectively) so many in the wellness/yoga/new age world of magical thinking would fall for the myriad pandemic conspiracy theories. One common thread that all these true believers share? That would be The Secret and the delusional notion that “thinking so makes it so.”

Believe me, as someone who enjoys daydreaming and fantasizing, I feel it would be AWESOME if just imagining something – thinking about it with one-pointed focused attention – would make it come to pass. But I know that such magical thinking seems to offer a power and control that we simply do not have! Such magical thinking is proffered under many names, by folks as diverse as Deepak Chopra, Oprah Winfrey, and ex-presidential candidate, Marianne Williamson. Variously referred to as “the law of attraction,” “mind over matter,” “magnetism,” “manifestation,” and other such vacuous terms, the bottom line is that it's simply magical thinking without a shred of scientific, empirical evidence to back up any of its outlandish claims. But that doesn’t stop charlatans, con artists, and perhaps some true believers among the bunch, from writing thousands of books and producing almost as many YouTube videos, not to mention such vapidity as the films The Secret, Universal Law of Attraction, Quantum Communication, and the pseudoscience of What The Bleep Do We Know? Apparently, from the evidence of that “documentary,” not much!

Now, as usual, there IS an authentic teaching common in many “spiritual” traditions that offers these hucksters the grain of truth that they then distort, contort, and force into the shape they want in order to rationalize their magical thinking. For instance, in the very opening of The Dhammapada we read:
​

The translation above, by Guy Fronsdal follows the original Pali quite closely. The idealist, Thomas Byrom “translates” the same passage beginning with:

​Not quite what the Buddha is reported to have said. Byrom and his ilk seem to think – again in accord with their idealist philosophy – that the world is literally a creation of mind; that the world is a projection of consciousness. This may be what cult leaders like Michael Roach preached, but the Buddha was not an idealist. Like Patanjali, he taught that there was a real world. However, he was also a phenomenologist: what we know of the world, he said, is what we experience through the bodymind. As he taught in the sutta known as Sabba (“The All”):

          I will teach you the All. Listen. What is the All? It is eye and visible object, ear and sound, nose and scent, tongue and taste, body and feelings, mind and thoughts. This is the All.
            If anyone says, “This All is not enough. I will proclaim another All,” can it be done? The speaker might believe it can, but he will not be able to show another All.

It is ​as a phenomenologist, and in that sense, and in that sense only, does the Buddha mean we can be said to “create our world.” What the Buddha is saying in the opening to the Dhammapada is that, for instance, if one chooses to face the breakup of a relationship as certainly painful, AND also as an opportunity for growth, then of course they will have an amazingly different “reality” than someone who meets it with anger and bitterness. But the breakup is still something that really happens. I witnessed this when I was diagnosed with cancer. While I wasn't happy to receive the news, decades of practice allowed me to meet it with a calm heartmind. Many of the other patients were suffering from fear, anxiety, anger, and depression. But the reality is we ALL had cancer and we were ALL going through the same treatment. 
 
When put to the test by real scientific methodology, we find that not only can we not change the universe by merely thinking, attempting to do so can be counterproductive! For instance, a study done by Lien Pham and Shelly Taylor compared “effects of process- versus outcome-based mental simulations on performance.” What that means is the researchers had a group of students think about getting a good grade on an upcoming exam (outcome-based), and another group were told to think about the process of studying and taking the exam (process-based), and compared these two groups to a control group. The students asked to imagine the process did better than the control, but those who imagined getting good grades did worse. So-called “positive thinking” by itself is worthless, a waste of time and effort, and undermines the real control people can have through more practical action. Imagining the PROCESS you need to go through to attain a goal is useful because it leads to actually doing what needs to be done!

Relevant to the bullshit promulgated by people like Willis, J. P. Sears, and Zach Bush throughout the Covid pandemic, magical thinking can lead people to ignore, deny, or delay real, evidence-based treatment while attempting to “manifest” away the disease! Over the decades, I have witnessed many yoga practitioners, under the influence of such magical thinking as the "law of attraction" add painful mental anguish on top of a serious or terminal diagnosis, questioning what they did wrong, and wondering how they "manifested" their illness! This is the “second arrow” that the Buddha warned about… adding the mental anguish on top of the reality of aging, illness, and death which are realities for the noble; those willing to face the truth of existence.
 
Finally, such magical thinking as taught in The Secret props up the neo-liberal ideology that emphasizes the individual as the site of all responsibility, and in this way, it disproportionately negatively impacts the weak, the poor, the oppressed, and the disenfranchised. Telling such people that their situation is due to their “wrong thinking,” and that all they need to do is to use the power of positive thinking and their status will change is cruel, shaming, and ultimately disempowering. Rather than putting energy, resources, and effort into changing the real causes of the obscene disparity we find in society, we simply place the burden onto those most in need of support.

* I use the word "bullshit" here and in the blog post not scatologically but as a precise philosophical concept as defined by the philosopher, Harry Frankfurt.

This essay owes much, especially the research elements to the fabulous resource for critical thinking, The Skeptics Guide to the Universe.

“We define spirituality as an active identification with things greater than one’s self that give meaning and purpose. In this context, friendship, trust, loyalty, affirmation, and respect are spiritual values.” --- Glenn & Nelson, Raising Self-Reliant Children in a Self-Indulgent World

Glenn and Nelson’s definition of spirituality succinctly summarizes what most of those who consider themselves “spiritual but not religious” seem to mean when they assert this about themselves. From a little survey of friends and students who identify themselves in this way, I have also received statements such as:

It means that I am beyond myself in this world. I have no vision of a higher being; it is the universe of beings that explains spirituality.
 
One correspondent wrote:
Spirituality is the pursuit of Truth. Religion is the organization of Truth. Spiritual but not religious is the pursuit of Truth outside of organization.
 
Noticing that he had capitalized “Truth” I asked why he had done so. “What is the “Truth” that spirituality is engaged with?” In his response he wrote:
“I capitalize Truth because ‘truth’ is somewhat subjective and contextual… I’m not referring to relative truth but that ineffable, absolute… you could call it ‘Tao’ or ‘the Divine’ but anything you call it will carry baggage… it has countless names but they all point to the same thing, the so-called ‘Golden Thread’”
 
Interestingly, he added: “Truth is just a placeholder word for that which is beyond intellectualism and is entirely experiential.” I find this an interesting comment, as well as being somewhat contradictory, in light of his previously distinguishing “Truth” from “truth” by calling the latter “subjective and contextual.” Contradictory because, by definition, if something is “experiential” it IS subjective! SomeONE is experiencing it, after all. And doing so "contextually" in some place and time and in relation to some specific circumstances.

Finally, one correspondent wrote in to me:
“…since reading his book, Spirituality for the Skeptic, I love Robert C. Solomon’s definition of a naturalistic spirituality as ‘The thoughtful love of life.’ Can it really be said any better and more succinctly than that? No bullshit. Just, ‘the thoughtful love of life!’ Imagine if all beings could live up to this kind of creed.”

In researching this topic, I found this from Wikipedia:
"Spiritual but not religious" (SBNR), also known as "Spiritual but not affiliated" (SBNA), is a popular phrase and initialism used to self-identify a life-stance of spirituality that does not regard organized religion as the sole or most valuable means of furthering spiritual growth. Historically, the words religious and spiritual have been used synonymously to describe all the various aspects of the concept of religion, but in contemporary usage spirituality has often become associated with the interior life of the individual, placing an emphasis upon the well-being of the ‘mind-body-spirit’ while religion refers to organizational or communal dimensions.”
 
The article goes on to mention that although:
“Historically, the words religious and spiritual have been used synonymously to describe all the various aspects of the concept of religion, religion is a highly contested term with scholars such as Russell McCutheon arguing that the term "religion" is used as a way to name a "seemingly distinct domain of diverse items of human activity and production". The field of religious studies cannot even agree on one definition for religion and since spirituality overlaps with it in many ways it is difficult to reach a consensus for a definition for spirituality as well.”
 
I think in many ways, this last statement truly gets to the heart of the matter. Maybe as “terms” so broadly defined and described, we have no fucking idea what we’re talking about!
 
And that certainly isn’t going to stop me from entering into the breach!

​From what I’ve heard and sensed from the many people I know who self-identify as “spiritual but not religious” (including what seems like most, if not all, Western contemporary yoga practitioners) it seems to come down to one of the following three positions:

1. As in the definition from Glenn & Nelson that opened this essay, what is being referred to as “spiritual” could just as well be referred to as secular ethical/moral values. Qualities such as “friendship, trust, loyalty, affirmation, and respect” are simply human values and as such, are purely naturalistic. To my mind, there’s no real justification to label such qualities as “spiritual.” Key to their definition is also the notion that one experience “an active identification with things greater than one’s self that give meaning and purpose.” For them, there is nothing inherently supernatural about this as “things greater than one’s self that give meaning and purpose” can be anything from parenting and teaching to political activism.

2. As my correspondent above who referred to some “ineffable absolute” there are those who, in speaking of “the spiritual” are referring to a felt sense of some “force transcendent.” For some, this is equated with the supernatural, but it need not be conceptualized as such. That is to say, the Tao can, and is often thought of as simply being of a “natural” order, but still an “absolute Truth” beyond the relative understanding of humanity. From this position, identification with something “greater than one’s self” most likely carries a supernatural – or at the very least – extraordinary transcendent connotation. 

3. Finally, I believe the Wiki article points to a very important aspect of this self-identity: “in contemporary usage spirituality has often become associated with the interior life of the individual, placing an emphasis upon the well-being of the ‘mind-body-spirit’ while religion refers to organizational or communal dimensions.” Notice there’s no mention of “identification with something greater than one’s self” and “well-being” seems to be the raison d'être of spirituality, the locus of meaning and purpose!  

This last point helps make clear why so many contemporary Westerners have moved to such an identification: it perfectly colludes with the neo-liberal ideology that hypervalorizes the individual over community that has so permeated the contemporary yoga and wellness communities. We’ve seen it in the proliferation of conspirituality throughout the Covid-19 pandemic, with so many yogis and wellness practitioners spouting Q-Anon dogma about “individual sovereignty” and “subjective truth” over scientific evidence in a similar way we also see “lived experience” overemphasized and centered over and against data.
 
A typical response when you Google “the difference between religion and spirituality” is something like: “Religion is a specific set of organized beliefs and practices, usually shared by a community or group. Spirituality is more of an individual practice and has to do with having a sense of peace and purpose.” I’ve noticed that many in the yoga and wellness communities avow some belief in “Oneness” that transcends the self, but identification with such an abstraction rarely is seen to carry over into actual human relationship or any communitarianism. Of course, when it does, it often takes on a cultish, in-group/out-group orientation; something else we’ve seen during the pandemic.

When we look at the etymology of the words “religion” and “religious” we see that the Latin religio is an action, a discipline. It comes from the word ligare which means “to join, or link” which to my ears sounds a lot like what the Sanskrit word yoga means! The word “yoga” comes from yuj, meaning “to join,” “to unite” or “to yoke”. Yoking is specifically the action of restraint, a binding. A typical simile of the binding of mind to body (or the individual to divinity) was the ox yoked to the cart. In yoga, it is often the breath that is the yoke, yoking mind and body. Interestingly, religio was often used agriculturally to describe binding a branch of a tree or bush to shape it to a specific form. That “religion” became associated with creeds and organizations is understandable, but it’s helpful to remember that the religious act is one of self-directed action.
 
When one actually looks up the definition of “spirituality” the first definition that comes up is: “the quality of being concerned with the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things.” And, when you look up the definition of the word “spirit” we find: “the nonphysical part of a person which is the seat of emotions and character; the soul.”
 
It is for all these reasons:

1. That the word “spirit” literally refers to some alleged “nonphysical part of a person” such as a “soul”
2. That the word “religion” refers to the act of uniting, binding, and containing… basically disciplined action toward a communal sense of wholeness
3. That qualities such as friendship, trust, loyalty, affirmation, and respect are simply human values and as such, are purely naturalistic; AND that the search and creation of meaning and purpose are also human concerns and thus completely naturalistic

that I identify as RELIGIOUS BUT NOT SPIRITUAL.

T
I am not a “Secular Buddhist” as generally understood because the Secular Buddhist movement has, for the most part, jettisoned ceremony and ritual, as well as most expressions of community. I am certainly not a “Traditionalist” either because I am firmly rooted in philosophical naturalism and rather than grounding my understanding in dogma and doctrine, I base my positions upon a naturalistic, scientific, rational, and empirical search for “truth”. I fully accept that we can only have truths in a provisional sense and welcome the ever-evolving understanding such truths bring. I call this approach, which embraces traditional forms of practice (including prostrations, chanting, meditation, ceremony, and ritual etc.) while remaining fully rooted in naturalism, Zen Naturalism.

Zen Naturalism is a form of practice and understanding that rejects dependence on the ‘supernatural’ and, as a path of inquiry, emphasizes the orientation of non-attachment from dogmatic fundamentalist views through the practice of meditation, as well as through the techniques of science and the scientific method, embodying the expression of appropriate and skillful means.
 
Zen Naturalism does not accept the systematic, and often hierarchical, polemical arrangements of the Buddhist teachings proposed or endorsed by any school of Buddhism. Zen Naturalism sees itself as a 'new' form of Buddhism reflective of a contemporary understanding of the world, the cosmos, and life itself. Zen Naturalism is open to truths garnered through study and practice of Buddhist texts from the various schools, as well as from texts written by non-Buddhist philosophers and  scientists. It recognizes that it too will change as new understandings replace old understandings. Keeping the "Don't Know Mind" is essential in keeping this open-ended inquiry from solidifying into a rigid, dogmatic creed of beliefs.
 
This spirit* of inquiry, this spirit* of commitment to all forms of action that can sustain questioning, insight, and compassion, is considered to be more important that any Buddhist institution or tradition.
 
Zen Naturalism is, and can be considered to be, a kind of ‘secular religion;’ a form or method of yoga (disciplined action and inquiry) as its aim is freedom and the awakening life. As a naturalistic-based practice, freedom is understood not supernaturally, but as the progressive liberation from our conditioned reactivity and false identifications. It is not the world-wary attempt to leave the world altogether that is found in early traditional Buddhism. But also, as a contemporary movement, and one that does not reject the world, it is a ‘communal religion’ that celebrates life in community and society. As such, it calls for active engagement to better life and the world for all beings. Rituals of celebration are designed to create meaningful relations among the various beings and experiences of the world. They make visible the more subtle and invisible relations that exist amongst all beings.
 
In conclusion, Zen Naturalism does not need to seek meaning and validity in any transcendent realm. While rooted in certain forms of traditional zen practice, it is this naturalist perspective that is guiding orientation of the Empty Mountain Sangha.  At present, most of our sangha's activities are online via Facebook and Zoom. Feel free to look us up!

* Hopefully, from the context it is clear I have no issue with the secondary definitions of the word "spirit" and it is in this way that I use the word here.

​Those qualities regarded as forming the definitive or typical elements in the character of a person, nation, or group or in the thought and attitudes of a particular period.
"the university is a symbol of the nation's egalitarian spirit"
Similar:
ethos, prevailing tendency, motivating force, animating principle, dominating characteristic, mood, feeling, temper, tenor, attitudes, principles, standards

• a person identified with their most prominent mental or moral characteristics or with their role in a group or movement.
  "he was a leading spirit in the conference"
• a specified emotion or mood, especially one prevailing at a particular time.
  "I hope the team will build on this spirit of confidence"
• a person's mood.
  "as I sat alone in that corridor my spirits were low"
• the attitude or intentions with which someone undertakes or regards something.
  "he confessed in a spirit of self-respect, not defiance"
  Similar:
  point of view, outlook
  
• the quality of courage, energy, and determination or assertiveness.
  "his visitors admired his spirit and good temper"
  Similar:
  firmness of purpose, resolution, resoluteness, resolve
  
• the real meaning or the intention behind something as opposed to its strict verbal interpretation.
  "the rule had been broken in spirit if not in letter"

I am delighted to offer this from a dharma talk offered by one of my senior students in training to become a Zen Naturalist Dharma Teacher. Andre is based in Toronto, and runs, along with his wife, Catalina, Spirit Loft.

In A Brief Talk with Malukya, the Culamalukya Sutta, we are introduced to a troubled practitioner named Malukya who is struggling with speculative thoughts. He demands answers from the Buddha about metaphysical questions related to whether or not the universe is finite or infinite, whether the body and soul exist or do not exist after death, and so on. Malukya is looking for resolution to these profound questions, he is looking for the “Truth”.

“When I was in solitary seclusion, it occurred to me that you have left undetermined, set aside, and rejected certain speculative matters. Is the world eternal, or not eternal... infinite or finite? Is the life force identical to the body or different from the body? Does a person who has come to know reality exist after death or not exist after death?
If you do not determine these matters for me then I will abandon the training.”

The Buddha responds by reminding Malukya that these kinds of questions are not what the training is designed to determine.

“Malukya, did I ever say to you, ‘Come, Malukya, train with me, I will determine for you whether the world is eternal or not eternal, infinite or finite,’ and so on?”
“No, you did not,” responded Malukya.
“In that case, you fool of a man, who do you think you are, and what is it that you are repudiating?”

Glenn Wallis points out in his book, Basic Teachings of the Buddha, that Malukya’s questions are flawed. Inherent in Malukya’s questions were assumptions about the Buddha’s training, and about metaphysical ideas such as the existence of a “life force” (soul), and the duality of being and non-being. It seems that Malukya really wants to feel a sense of knowing, a sense of control.

Instead of answers the Buddha offers Malukya more questions, as well as a parable called the Poisoned Arrow. In the parable we are told of a person who is struck with a poisoned arrow. Friends and family bring a physician to release the arrow and save the person’s life. The person struck by the arrow, however, insists that they must know the answers to a great many questions before the arrow can be pulled out. Through this parable the Buddha is encouraging Malukya to question the process of his thinking.

“It is, Malukya, as if a person would be shot by an arrow thickly smeared with poison, and his friends, companions, and relatives would hire a physician to remove the arrow. But that person would say, ‘I will not have this arrow removed until I know who shot it; whether he was from upper, middle or lower class; his family name... whether he lived in such and such a town... and until I know whether the bow that was used was a long bow or a cross bow... whether the bow was made from swallowwort plant, from sanha hemp, sinew, maruva hemp or from the bark of a khari tree...

All of this would remain unknown to that person, Malukya, and in the meantime they would die. So, too, Malukya, someone might say, ‘I will not enter the life of training until you determine for me whether the world is eternal or not eternal, infinite or finite,’ and so on. Still, these matters would remain undetermined, and in the meantime that person would die.”

The Buddha seems to be suggesting that we don’t need to waste time waiting on unanswerable questions to be resolved in order to train our hearts and minds in compassion and wisdom and relieve ourselves from suffering. The questions Malukya offers are not answerable, they are indeterminate. To give an answer founded only in a belief, or in hope, would not be beneficial for starting the training nor would they be within the Buddha’s scope of practice.

“And why, Malukya, have I not determined these matters? To do so does not lead to what is beneficial, to the beginning of the training, to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to peace, to direct knowing, to awakening, to unbinding. That is the reason that I have not determined these matters.”

Malukya desired a story, a narrative, and definitive answers to resolve his big questions. Stories can be powerful and may help us to find meaning and even cultivate understanding and compassion. However, in this sutta, the Buddha is suggesting that speculation, stories about the afterlife, about being and non-being, would only be pointing us away from what the teachings are designed for, that is, easing the suffering in this world, and increasing our clarity and understanding, in this life.

The Buddha clearly defines his scope of practice and encourages Malukya to find clarity in what he has determined: The Four Ennobling Truths.

“And what, Malukya, have I determined? I have determined, This is unease. I have determined, This is the arising of unease. I have determined, This is the cessation of unease. I have determined, This is the path leading to the cessation of unease.”

The Buddha’s teaching seems to be founded in what is referred to as methodological naturalism. Which is to say that natural effects have natural causes. It’s a letting go of supernatural beliefs when tending to the problems, and potential solutions, for the natural world.

So, what does this sutta demand of us?
The teaching demands that we develop clarity and focus on the scope of the Buddha’s training in wisdom and compassion. Which is also a training in critical thinking, so as not to become the victim of false assumptions or dogmatic views. It asks that we focus on what can be determined, that of, understanding dukkha (stress, unease), letting go of unskillful habitual reactivity (samudaya), realizing and cultivating moments of clarity and understanding (nirodha), walking the path of peace, awakening, and liberation in this life, right here and right now (magga). The Buddha is asking us to reflect deeply on the nature of reality, the nature of human experience.

In the ancient Tibetan practice of Lojong, the first verse/slogan says this: Train in the Preliminaries.

The “preliminaries” are usually defined as our meditation practice, shamatha-vipassana, or calming-insight practice. This training also has to do with how we view and relate to our past and present difficult experiences and with our sense of resolve and personal responsibility. A suggestion that all the messy stuff of our life including divorce, heartache, illness, death, job loss, even traumas that we have not yet transformed, are the field of practice and training. These are the preliminaries that we are training in. So, we don’t need to go anywhere or be in some special state of being or knowing in order to begin the training.

Training the mind to re-cognize the difficulties, the heartaches, the catastrophes of life, as the preliminaries of our spiritual journey. These difficulties can strengthen our resolve to dig deeper into our practice and into our life in the here and now. This is a stark contrast to some of our usual habits like shame, guilt, repression, denial or delusion.

As part of my zen training, I have been listening to a series of talks from Steven Novella called Your Deceptive Mind. Novella is an American clinical neurologist and assistant professor at Yale University School of Medicine. Novella is best known for his involvement in the skeptical movement. He’s interested in human nature, and the role the brain has on the experience of mind, and how we think and behave. He suggests that “We are our brains.” The brain is an organ that can think, the brain is self-aware! It is perhaps the most complicated organism that we know about in the universe. However, the brain is also deceptive. Novella emphasizes that we are not inherently logical creatures. We are highly emotional creatures. Which means that logic and critical thinking are skills that need to be developed and practiced.

As human brain-minds we have an innate desire for control, or perhaps better said as, a desire for a sense of control. This is a common obstacle that we inherit through the function of our brains and can manifest as superstitions, belief systems and dogmatic thinking. Feeling a lack of control can even enhance the brains pattern recognition. Which is to say that when we feel a lack of control the brain can find ways to reinforce our beliefs.

Perhaps we can see that urge for control in Malukya’s assumptions, and, I would like to suggest that we are seeing this kind of desire for control and a fallibility of thinking play out in real-time in our current society and politics. We can see it in things like bigotry, racism, in QAnon, and the alt-right and anti-mask conspiracy groups. This is all very dangerous territory!

In a Brief Talk with Malukya we can see a firm process of critical thinking in the way the Buddha responds and guides Malukya towards clarity. It should be noted that the sutta also says that Malukya was happy with and rejoiced at the Buddha’s response and continued on with the training.

Steven Novella provides us with a clear thought process that we can use to ensure that our thinking and beliefs are rooted in the same kind of critical thought and discernment as the Buddha’s:

• Examine all of your premises, the facts that you think are true, your assumptions.
• Examine your logic, is it legitimate, flawed, or biased?
• Understand your motivations, are you looking for a narrative, do you desire a

confirmation? Deconstruct that process.

• Think through the implications of a belief. If this were true what else has to be true?
• Check with others, you don’t know what you don’t know!
• Be comfortable with uncertainty and open to new information or perspectives.

Here are a few great resources that I highly recommend to help continue the development of your thoughtful, critical, skeptical and science-based inquiry of the world and the issues that we are facing as a society:

Mindscape with Sean Carroll, a theoretical physicist. Sean hosts conversations with the world's most interesting thinkers. Science, society, philosophy, culture, arts, and ideas. 

Conspirituality with Derek Beres, Matthew Remski, Julian Walker. A weekly study of converging right-wing conspiracy theories and faux-progressive wellness utopianism. 

Decoding the Gurus Christopher Kavanagh, an anthropologist, and Mathew Browne, a psychologist, try to make sense of the world's greatest self-declared Gurus. 

In times of great misinformation, like the age we are currently living in, it’s important to stay diligent and informed. Keep training!
​Deep bows, Andre

I don’t wish to sound all “Polly-annish” about life. It’s not “all good.” Shitty things happen and there may be times when gratitude is an incorrect response.
 
And with that acknowledgment, I will still stand by the assertion that sharing what we love with joy and appreciation is good medicine for the dis-ease of the self-contraction.  ​

So today is the USA's celebration of Thanksgiving. And thankfully, the lies we were taught about Thanksgiving are being exposed and acknowledged. And, as to be expected by the voracious appetite of late-stage capitalism exacerbated by neoliberal ideology, more attention is paid to tomorrow's "Black Friday" than this day of giving thanks! We have this one day of giving thanks and then it's back to the rapacious greed of buying, buying, buying.

And yet... that there is a day set aside to offer gratitude for what we do have is a good thing. For the last several years, we have celebrated "Friendsgiving" as Monica, Giovanna and I have no family here in Tucson. This year, with Covid, it will be greatly reduced to just us and one other family whose daughter is Giovanna's bestie, with whom we have bubbled for the sake of our daughters' sanity. 

But today, I have been thinking more of the "Giving" part of Thanksgiving. What gives you joy to give? I love sharing laughs with my daughter, movie and book suggestions to my dearest friends, treats to my dog, Gomez and sharing the Dharma with my students. There's more... I excitedly told my friend Laurent that when he comes by for our monthly "Physically Distanced Outside Happy Hour" I am looking forward to sharing the Uncle Nearest whiskey I found at Trader Joe's! And, of course, there's the donations made to various charities. 

We can give time, energy, attention even when we've little material goods to give. I have noticed that when I give, I feel both more connected with others -- interestingly, not only to the one I give to, but to life itself -- and expansive. I feel myself expanding beyond the bonds of self until, as Dogen says of zazen, bodymind drops away and there's no trace of this dropping away. 

I want to thank all those who have joined me in daily practice since March, and especially to those who transformed this time of pandemic difficulty to request I offer my 9-month Buddhist ethics (Precept) course and for their support, both energetic and material. Let us together keep sharing the gifts of love, life, heartbreak and joy. 

​There are quite a few stories in the suttas where the Buddha really comes across with a subtle and sometimes almost sardonic sense of humor, using some pretty funny examples of behavior that is unskillful as he does in this sutta, which is one of my favorites as it is in response to a notion many yoga/meditation practitioners have about expectations. That is, that they are “bad” or a “distraction” and should be dropped.
 
This notion persists today. In Zen, the idea that we should practice free of all expectations is often held up as an emblematic feature of practice. This idea is sometimes referred to in Suzuki Roshi’s term, “no gaining mind” and that sitting itself (zazen) is “good for nothing” as it’s often said.  But this “no gaining mind” and “good for nothing” is mistakenly taken to mean there is no “goal” to practice which is patently absurd.
 
Expectations can be problematic and is often so for beginners who hold expectations of what meditation is or “should” be and what the goal of practice actually is. And indeed, if one holds too fast to such expectations, they can certainly become obstacles keeping one from seeing what is actually happening or, perhaps worse, by leading them to think what is happening is “wrong.”
 
When people hear that they should practice with “no gaining mind” and do not have the proper context and understanding, they take it to mean that there is no goal or purpose for practicing. The Japanese term, mushotoku, is make up of mu, which is a negation (no, not); sho means “place, and toku means advantage, gain or profit. So, together, this means “the place where nothing is to be gained.” In this context, “no gaining mind” refers to the mind which penetrates emptiness and dependent origination; the mind where the non-separation of subject and object is experienced.
Dogen Zenji speaks of mushotoku as “Simply do(ing) good without expectation of reward or recognition, be truly gainless, and work for the sake of benefiting others. The primary point to bear in mind is to drop your ego. To keep this mind, you have to awaken to impermanence.” I don’t like the use of the word ego here as it leads to another misunderstanding that ego is itself something negative to drop. A better understanding here is to drop or move beyond attachment to the notion of a essential self-nature. No one sits in zazen without a functioning ego! The idea here, though, is that Dogen’s “goal” of practice is awakening to impermanence. This is the perfection of wisdom (prajnaparamita) described in The Heart Sutra.
 
When we sit zazen, in samadhi intimacy with all things, we sit in the place where there is nothing to be gained because it is the place where nothing is lacking. There is no need to grasp at things that are impermanent such as:

​Elsewhere, Dogen writes: “When even for a moment you express the Buddha’s seal by sitting upright in samadhi the whole phenomenal world… and the entire sky turns into awakening. Furthermore, all beings… at once obtain pure body and mind, realize the state of great emancipation, and manifest the original face.”
 
Does this sound like “good for nothing” to you?
 
Again, without context, it sounds pretty clear that zazen has no purpose at all. But the full quote from Kodo Sawaki is: “What is zazen good for? Good for nothing. As long as this good for nothing practice does not penetrate our bones and we really practice what is good for nothing, it won’t be good for anything.” Sawaki is telling us that in order for meditation to be good for anything, it has to be good for nothing. By making meditation good for nothing, we focus on the doing and not on the benefits we expect. And this was the heart of my first meditation instruction given me by Sw. Satchidananda in 1977 when he told us: “Yes, you have a goal. You wish to get somewhere. In practice; in everyday life. But to get to your goal, you need to attend to what is right now in front of you. If you keep your eyes on the goal, you miss what is here now. So, put your goal on the shelf and attend to now.” If we practice fully now, benefits come. It is cause and effect.
 
But… and it’s a fairly big “but,” by attending to where you are now, with increased understanding, with a deeper intimacy with experience, the goal may change! That is another reason we should hold expectations lightly. We may start out with the goal of “stress management” and after years of practice the goal may transform to “working for the sake of all beings.”
 
The Buddha described his path as a “direct path to awakening.” An image he gave was a path through the woods that leads to a pond in the woods. It is certain that if someone walks along that path in the right direction, they will inevitably reach the pond. As the Buddha points out in this sutta, if one practices with right determination, a wholesome mind committed to sila (the ethical training including the five precepts left ignored for the most part by the contemporary Mindfulness Movement), and practicing the method correctly, then insight, understanding, liberation, will be the result.
 
In the end, he is saying, if you have no expectations but practice unskillfully, you will be no better off – indeed you will be worse off – than someone with expectations following a skillful method. Right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration are aspects of the correct method taught by the Buddha. And so is right view, right motivation, right action, right speech and right livelihood. By holding whatever expectations we may have lightly, we attend to just this, this present moment, in order to see its impermanent, not-self, ultimately unsatisfactory nature. We attend to this moment in order to see the causes and conditions that led to it in order to respond appropriately. This means, if the present moment is one of suffering, we work to end the causes and conditions that led to it and cultivate causes and conditions that lead to less suffering. If the present moment is one of joy, compassion, and equanimity, in seeing the causes and conditions that led to it, we work even harder to continue to sow the seeds of continued freedom from suffering.

*​The Diamond Sutra; Section 32

Walking Meditation is not simply preparation for sitting, and not merely something to do between the "important" work of sitting meditation while on retreat. No, walking meditation is a full-on mindfulness practice in its own right; one that the Buddha seemed to favor as he grew older and apparently experienced the pain of rheumatism. 

When ordaining into the Tien Hiep Order  established by Thich Nhat Hanh, one even vows to make all of one's walking, 'walking meditation.' One image Nhat Hanh uses when presenting this practice is to recall the legend of the Buddha's first steps after being born: under each footfall, a lotus blossomed. He points out that often while walking, we are lost in thought, anxieties about the future, thoughts of the past, 'imprinting' our worries into the earth. With walking meditation, we can feel at home where we are, each step a kind of embrace or kiss of the earth literally grounding ourselves as Earthlings.

There is the practice of formal walking meditation, where we walk slowly, sometimes as slowly as a full cycle of inhalation and exhalation with each half-step. OR, you can take a half-step as you inhale, and another half-step as you exhale for a more 'moderate' pace. If you wish to take up this formal practice, mark off a path (best to be at least 25 feet or so) that you will walk back and forth upon at this slow pace.

However, it would be inappropriate to walk this slowly throughout most of your daily activities, but that doesn't mean you can't do walking meditation! I've even done it on Fifth Ave off 42nd street in Manhattan at lunch hour and no one would have known from just watching! Simply bring your attention to your feet, lifting, moving and being placed back on the ground while feeling your breath. Avoid manipulating the breath. You may find that you take 5 half-steps on an inhalation and 8 half-steps on your exhalation. That's fine. Some folk even count: "In-in-in-in-in; out-out-out-out-out-out" as they walk. If you find such noting or labeling is helpful, then by all means try it. If you find it gets in your way, let it go!

One way to work this into you life is to choose to do this as you walk to your train or bus. If you work in an office, you can do it every time you walk from and to your desk (on the way to the restroom for instance). I will often approach my daily walk to the mailbox in this way, or when I'm walking my dog, Gomez, which will often include some standing meditation when he's taken with a particular scent!

I'd really love to hear from any of you who choose to take up this practice. Where are you doing walking meditation? How are you finding it? You can begin at any time and comment below if you'd like. 

And remember, as Lin Chi, the Chinese Zen Master, is reported to have said: "To walk on water is not the miracle; to walk upon the earth is a miracle."

​The title of today's post is a quote attributed to the Buddha who is said to have often repeated, "I teach only one thing: suffering and the end of suffering."

​Some smarty-pants once said, "Isn't that two things?" But obviously, if you understand -- truly understand -- suffering, you understand its causes and thus its ending.

A friend wrote asking: "Help me here with this idea of the end of suffering being the goal. I have turned that around over and over and can't seem to grasp what that would mean. The human condition is so completely tied up with suffering and the idea of suffering. Bearing suffering well is a virtue in our culture. I can't imagine a being free from suffering. Can you? So it struck me this morning on the cushion reciting "May I be happy. May I be peaceful. May I be safe. May I be free from suffering." What am I saying? I look around and I think that really I don't suffer from much. Relatively, my sufferings are really nothing. But the conditions still exist for great suffering. I am not grieving the loss of a loved one. I have my health. I have a home. I have a job. But any of these things could change instantly and I would suffer. But I suppose that sort of suffering is temporary. It is certainly to be expected and to bear it well is the most that I can hope for. So is the freedom from suffering on some other level? Is it an attainable goal? Is it the "holy grail"? 
So again - back to 'What would freedom of suffering be like'?"

Now, part of my response hinges on what exactly do you, we, or the tradition(s) mean by "suffering?" The word generally translated as "suffering," duhkha, literally means "wrong" or "bad space." Being old enough to have lived through the 60s, this always makes me think of a hippie having a bad day saying, "Hey man, I'm in a really bad space." While it has most often been translated into English as "suffering, others have tried to avoid the histrionic and dramatic sounding "suffering" by translating duhkha as "discontent," "dis-ease," "unease," "dis-satisfaction," "painful" and "stress." The Yoga Tradition -- including Buddhism -- asserts that life, the human condition is duhkha. And when we turn away from the 'over-the-top' sounding "suffering," and think of life as stressful, painful or unsatisfying, who can argue?
 
Now, with the earliest Buddhist understanding, it is accepted that a yogi can indeed transcend and end duhkha by completely eradicating the causes of duhkha: craving, aversion and ignorance. An arhat is a being who has 'gone all the way' and 'done what must be done' to purify his or her mind of these 'taints' and thus is free from duhkha. Traditionally, as birth itself is understood as duhkha, this was also taken to mean that the arhat would never be reborn into samsara again.
 
The mainstream traditional understanding seems to say that birth, aging and death are inherently duhkha. Thus, the practitioner wants to end having to be reborn again and again. Others, who reject the teaching of rebirth, offer that duhkha is only present when there is grasping in the mind. This is arguably a more modernist understanding, but it does have some support in the earliest texts that seem to assert that birth, aging, and death are only duhkha when the mind is grasping and resisting these experiences. If the mind is not grasping, then these phenomena are not duhkha.
 
Finally, there is a radical, naturalist understanding that says duhkha is inherent in life. All life is afflicted. As the Buddha defined duhkha, we age, we experience illness and pain, we lost what we love and get a whole shitload of dung and then we die. Duhkha is what happens to us! Thus duhkha can never end or be escaped from. It's "baked into" this world. However, how we relate to it will determine whether we live a more free, creative, skillful, joyful, unbound life or if we merely 'suffer' through life's unavoidable challenges.
 
This is a short, perhaps simplistic response. If you are interested in a more developed review of the concept of duhkha and some various interpretations, please check out my essay on duhkha and the Four Noble Truths at my other blog: Zen Naturalism.