Isn’t that why we have the Christian metaphor of the Good Shepherd? Someone who will tell us right from wrong, who will keep us safe from harm, who will tuck us snugly in the warm blankets of heaven on that last and most frightening darkest night of the soul?

Not all people are like sheep, though. There are a few who prefer – or stumble into – the role of shepherd. They are smarter and more intelligent than the flock they aspire to lead. Some of them aspire to the role of shepherd out of love and compassion for the poor sheep, who, by their nature, are truly helpless. Others aspire to the role of shepherd out of the delusion they know what’s best – at least for themselves – and will take the flock by whatever means they can.

All shepherds and hopeful shepherds have a message for the flock. But the sheep have difficulty discerning among those who would help them from those who would harm them. After all, they are just sheep.

Many people, like sheep, don’t have – or don’t utilize – the capacity to discern the truth and make skillful decisions about what’s in their own long-term best interests and the best interests of those who share the pasture. Because, like sheep, they can only know what their immediate instincts tell them. And the instincts of sheep aren’t very good. Can a sheep tell when the butcher walks into the pen with a loaded rifle?

But we’re really not’t sheep. And it is possible to separate the good shepherds from the bad shepherds – if we’d really care to take a close look at them and listen carefully to their messages.

Is the message filled with compassion, hope, love, tolerance, and concern for the welfare of everyone in the flock? Or is the message filled with hatred of “the other,” fear that “the other” will take what’s “yours,” and intolerance of anyone who doesn’t accept the message? What’s the overall demeanor of those who would aspire to lead you? How do they live their lives – not just when they are in the spotlight, but when no one is looking? Are they kind, gentle and honest;  are they authoritarian, overbearing, and deceptive; are they generous, or greedy for money, fame, and power? Are they wise or deluded? Although it may take a long time and require some effort, it really isn’t so hard to discern the truth.

Providing truth is what you really want.

The photo collage is of some notable shepherds, some of whom are speaking to their flocks. Can you tell the good ones from the bad ones? In the picture are, in no particular order: the Buddha, Jerry Fallwell, Benazir Bhutto, Idi Amin, Sarah Palin, George W. Bush, Anwar Sadat, Jimmie Carter, Menachem Begin, Mother Teresa, Thomas Jefferson, Franklin Roosevelt, Rush Limbaugh, Nelson Mandela, Joseph Stalin, Pat Roberson, Dick Cheney, Aung San Suu Kyi, Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler, Martin Luther King, Mao Zedong, Mahatma Ghandi, Barack Obama, Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro, Dorothy Day, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Jesus, who is shone once as the Good Shepherd and again preaching the Sermon on the Mount.

*This post was inspired by this story, sent to me by someone suggesting that Barack Obama is leading the United States down the same path as did Adolf Hitler lead Germany.

I’d always known from the way he lived he that he was religiously conservative. “Devout Catholic” is an apt description. But I was well into my adult life before I got a sense of where he was politically. He usually kept his political opinions to himself while I lived within his household – at least he didn’t discuss them much with his children. It surprised me to learn that his political views were so different from my own.

Perhaps my mother had something to do with this. Even though she also was steadfastly Catholic, there was never any doubt about her open-minded slant – however quietly she presented it. Maybe it was she who – in order to keep the peace – was responsible for the dearth of political discussion in the home.

Anyway, I’ve recently had a few conversations with my father about the political state of things. He’s as conservative in his political views as he is in his religious views. From our last talk I came away shaking my head in wonder: How can it be that he cannot see how wrong he is?

But wouldn’t he have similar thoughts of me? How is it, he must surely wonder, that my first-born son can be so wrong? How can he not see the danger in this liberal nonsense?

And then there are our divergent religious views. After he read my book, Mapping the Dharma, he said to me, “That Buddha was a pretty good psychologist.” Then he added, “I don’t agree with him, though.” Now there’s an understatement.

But this isn’t about me or my father, nor is it about politics or religion. It’s about being attached to views – any views. “A thicket of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views,” is what the Buddha called this ocean of opinions we so enthusiastically – and often angrily – navigate every day.

It’s so easy to get caught up in what we believe to be right. And it’s easy to let everyone around us know, not  just how right we are, but how wrong they are if they don’t agree with us. We want the world to be a certain way and it’s difficult to accept that others see things differently. It churns and churns in the mind. If we’re not careful, agitation and anger are the results. Even the most superficial disagreement is stressful.

The Internet with its World Wide Web is an unimaginably vast Thicket of Views. It can be a very good – and even reliable – source of news and information as well as a means of personal communication and honest discourse. It’s also the prevailing medium of disinformation, propaganda, and a channel for outright hatred. Through the Internet I can find people who will agree and sympathize with me. And I can find people who despise me and my views.

My father gets his news and information much the same way most of us who use the Internet do. He reads from websites that suit his tastes. So do I. Each of us has our ideas, our points of view, reinforced daily. That’s a problem. Not just for my father and me, but for anyone who has a view to cling to.

One of the websites I looked at daily (that is, several times every day) was TruthOut. It’s a compendium of liberal news stories grabbed from diverse but mainstream sources. Many of the articles would stimulate mental debates with a stereotypical conservative. With these debates I would sharpen my views, refine my logic, and undermine the views of my imaginary opponent. A the the same time I would tighten the grip on my own political or spiritual views and on the view that I am so smart and so clever.

But that cleverness is all in my imagination. And my views have no more substance than the bits and bytes that form the letters on this screen. A few taps on the delete key and they disappear into nothingness. After that discussion with my father, I deleted the link to TruthOut. Not because I’m not interested or don’t want to be informed. But because I do not need that kind of mental agitation. The politicians will do what they do regardless of what I think about it, regardless of how irritated I get with one side or inspired by the other. This has helped me gradually loosen my grip on a particular political viewpoint.

There is no value in being enmeshed in a thicket of views. But there is lots of value in being free of its entanglements.

Obama’s election was good for three reasons: First, it puts and end to an era of arrogance, contempt, and mismanagement in Washington.

Were I a political cartoonist, I would have portrayed George Bush as a little kid rushing into a kindergarten classroom where the other kids had built an array of block towers. And there is George, gleefully kicking blocks around the room.

Bush now is in time-out. Soon, Obama will have the opportunity to do his best to sweep up the mess.

The second reason – and perhaps the more important – is the election of a man whose skin color and ethic background does not match what some believe to be those of “real America.” Yet real American he is. This divisiveness from the McCain campaign troubled me more than anything. Divisiveness of any kind leads only to trouble and suffering.

I appreciate John McCain’s concession speech, which was sincere and statesman like:

These are difficult times for our country. And I pledge to [Obama] tonight to do all in my power to help him lead us through the many challenges we face.

I urge all Americans … I urge all Americans who supported me to join me in not just congratulating him, but offering our next president our good will and earnest effort to find ways to come together to find the necessary compromises to bridge our differences and help restore our prosperity, defend our security in a dangerous world, and leave our children and grandchildren a stronger, better country than we inherited.

Whatever our differences, we are fellow Americans. And please believe me when I say no association has ever meant more to me than that.

I hope those who found yesterday a disappointment will heed McCain’s words of unity and support and, at least, give Obama the opportunity to succeed rather than spend the next four years doing whatever they can to disrupt the process for no reason other than hatred.

Baseball didn’t come to an end when Jackie Robinson joined the Brooklyn Dodgers in 1947. Rather, it goes on and on. A well-played game still excites the crowds no matter what color the players.

The third reason Obama’s election is important is now that we’ve got a black man – indeed a black family – in the white house (or nearly so), we can continue the business of electing wise leaders – regardless of physical attributes – rather than greedy, self-indulgent, and deluded ones. Instead of seeing Obama as a man of color, I hope he will be seen as the man of wisdom he has shown himself to be during the campaign.

If anything will destroy this country, it will be a sustained run of unwise leaders.

]]> http://paulgerhards.com/blog_thisisthatis/2008/11/05/wisdom-comes-to-the-white-house/feed/ 2 http://paulgerhards.com/blog_thisisthatis/2008/11/01/elections-and-equanimity/ http://paulgerhards.com/blog_thisisthatis/2008/11/01/elections-and-equanimity/#comments Sat, 01 Nov 2008 23:49:11 +0000 Paul http://paulgerhards.com/blog_thisisthatis/?p=343 By 8:00 p.m. PST Tuesday, November 4, the United States of America will have elected its 44th president. At 57 years old, I’ve been through a few elections. Being a 9-year-old Catholic in 1960, I remember the controversy around John Kennedy’s candidacy: If elected, he would take orders directly from the Pope – and good-bye America as we know it.

I remember – when Lyndon Johnson ran against Barry Goldwater in 1964 – my father worrying over “the lesser of two evils.” The prospect of nuclear war and a fall to communism were as real then as are the rain and leaves falling into my yard today.

Nixon and Watergate and the CREEP. Carter and Tehran and a suspiciously coincidental release of hostages just as Reagan raises his right hand on the steps of the Capitol. Bush the First and Willie Horton. Clinton’s “that woman” and his definition of “is” leading to Gore’s hanging chads plucked clean by a conservative Supreme Court. Kerry torpedoed by swift-boating veterans for propaganda. Aren’t all elections contentious?

They are. And maybe this current one isn’t any worse than some of the others in US history I’m not immediately familiar with. Still, I think this election may be the most divisive. One thing is sure, there is a lot of anger and hatred out there in “real America.” Ah, yes, divisiveness. Who gets to define “real America,” and why they (we) are angry?

Something else is sure come November 4th. Many millions of people will be relieved and elated. A reciprocal number will be in despair and likely much angrier. One’s mental state on that day will depend not only on the actions of millions of others, but on the actions within one’s own mind.

This campaign has given me a lot to think about regarding equanimity. I confess I haven’t acted with dispassion about some of the things I’ve heard and read about the candidates and their campaigns, but I appreciate the role equanimity plays in keeping my mind from going over the edge into anger or righteousness.

Equanimity has two meanings. The first is what one would expect: evenness of temper, calm, not reactive. The other meaning, specific, I think, to Buddhism, is being equally accepting of everyone and every situation.

Equanimity is one of the four sublime mental states. The others are loving kindness and compassion, both directed toward everyone equally, and an appreciation of the accomplishments of everyone, also spread equally.

Imagine seeing John McCain and Barack Obama as just two people who want the same thing. An equanimous mind would understand not only their suffering, but how it is fueled by their desire to win. An equanimous mind would accept the candidates for who they are – human beings no different in their humanness from each of us.

Beyond the candidates, an equanimous mind would understand how the desire to be on the winning team and the fear of being on the losing team cause stress and suffering for everyone who is part of the drama.

A equanimous mind would accept the outcome of the election for what it is. I’m not suggesting apathy and resignation. Rather, whatever happens, one can respond with dispassion based in wisdom instead of reacting with glee or anger based in delusion. Every day America changes – regardless of who sits behind the big desk.

Equanimity and the other sublime mental states require a mind that is alert to the dangers of destructive mind states. There is a Bush-era bumper sticker that reads: “If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.” A Buddha-era bumper sticker may read a bit diffently: “If you’re outraged, you’re not paying attention.” It all depends on your point of view.

Fear is suffering. If there is suffering, there is a cause of it. Much of the cause has to do with identifying with a particular political party and the views it espouses. Opposite that is my aversion to a particular party and its views.

The goal is to end suffering. The only way to do that is first to recognize suffering for what it is. Without knowing what the problem is, I cannot begin to search for a solution.

The solution is to eradicate the cause. The only way to discover the cause is to search for it and be able to identify it when it presents itself.

Clinging to one view plus having an aversion to another is a formula for dukkha (suffering). No clinging, no aversion, no suffering.

Simple.

Imagine a world where everyone practiced impeccable morality and good virtue. Imagine a place where no one would harm another being in any way. No one would assault, take advantage of, or kill another. No one would steal from another. No one would lie to, insult, or diminish another. People were always kind and generous. However unlikely this scenario, it would be a place of absolute safety. To a Buddhist, this is the purpose of morality – to provide safety to oneself and to others.

The aspect of morality contains three factors: right speech, right action, and right livelihood. How we speak to others (and to ourselves!), how we act, and how we support ourselves in the world are fundamental to a Buddhist way of life. Without morality (indeed, without any of the aspects) the practice cannot be Buddhist.

The Buddha gives four criteria that will ensure one’s speech is in accord with that which promotes goodness rather than harm. Right speech is:

• Truthful
• Harmonious
• Pleasant
• Meaningful

One’s speech is “right” when it embodies these four qualities. It is right because it fosters real safety and tends to shed light upon the darkness of delusion, which is part of the human condition.

If right speech fosters safety, what can be said of “wrong” speech? Wrong speech reinforces and perpetuates doubt and delusion. Wrong speech injures.

Delusion may not be a very nice word to some. It may conjure images of stupid or crazy. What delusion means – from a Buddhist perspective – becomes clearer when you think in terms of its opposite: wisdom. A person who possesses wisdom does necessarily possess a high IQ or an utterly sane mind – both of which are relative states.

Think of wisdom and delusion as reciprocal states. The more wise a person becomes, the less deluded.

Consider how you would answer these two questions: Are you wise? Are you deluded? Most people, I think, would deny both, for a wise person would not likely brag about it. A deluded person would not likely have the wisdom to know it, so would react with indignation.

With this as background, I turn to the current election and the role speech plays in the campaigns.

When voters like and believe in what they hear from a candidate, they “jump on the bandwagon.” To keep voters on the bandwagon – and more importantly to keep them from jumping to the other guy’s – candidates try to ensure that the other guy’s party is not where voters want to be. Sometimes the tactics used to gain and keep voters are less than honest, designed more to delude and confuse rather than to shed light on important issues. At some point truth becomes irrelevant to both the ticket and the electorate who would vote for it.

Where in all of this is right speech? Is what the candidates (and their supporters) say truthful, harmonious, pleasant, and meaningful? Does what they say foster clarity and insight, or induce doubt and perpetuate delusion?

When a candidate is less than honest with voters – intentionally less than honest – in a campaign, can that candidate, once elected, be expected to be honest with the United States citizenry during the normal course of business? Or would such an executive continue a pattern of deluding the public?

And what of the voters who would ignore evidence of deception and vote merely on emotion? Are they wise? Are they deluded? Are they capable of knowing the difference?

Can there be anything right about speech that is intended to divide, confuse, mislead, and further delude the electorate in an effort to inspire disdain – if not hatred – for the opposition? Is such speech wise? Is it moral?

]]> http://paulgerhards.com/blog_thisisthatis/2008/09/14/right-speech-and-the-politics-of-delusion/feed/ 5 http://paulgerhards.com/blog_thisisthatis/2008/09/06/the-politics-of-delusion/ http://paulgerhards.com/blog_thisisthatis/2008/09/06/the-politics-of-delusion/#comments Sat, 06 Sep 2008 16:56:02 +0000 Paul http://paulgerhards.com/blog_thisisthatis/?p=154 My friend Joy over at 365 Words Beginning with P recently posted this article describing the differences between pluralists and fundamentalists. Pluralism, in general, accepts that all beliefs and ideologies are part of the greater fabric and are beneficial to the whole. For a pluralist, spiritual debate is not part of political debate. Matters of spirituality are important, but they are discussed outside of the political forum.

Fundamentalists, on the other hand, do not differentiate between spiritual debate and political debate. These two arenas are inseparable. Those who are different cannot be allowed to prevail because they operate outside a grand spiritual plan. It’s one thing when conflict arises through differences of opinion. Here, the problem is greater. It’s a clash of world views – metaphysical views – not just ideologies. It’s a battle between perceived good and evil. Winning becomes the imperative.

Each of us has a unique world view. That view is shaped by many factors. We are conditioned to think in a certain way by both physiology and sociology. We are born into – and gather into – groups of people who share our views. Consequentially, these groups help to reinforce and further condition our views.

? ? ?

I have been following the recent political activities only peripherally. Although I do have my opinions about the political scene, I have intentionally refrained from posting them here. But I do wish to comment on how I see the proceedings from my dharma perspective.

It doesn’t take more than a political convention or two to demonstrate the nature of delusion, not to mention the sheer pervasiveness of it. Both sides know and speak the truth, and both sides accuse the other of propagating lies and distortions. Both sides cannot be right at the same time no matter how much they believe themselves to be. Peel back the the layers of so-called truth and you’ll find delusion.

Delusion, the Buddha says, is the cause of all human suffering. The purpose of Buddhist practice is to dispel delusion. By striving to and finally seeing the truth of existence one awakens to reality.

It’s sad to see convention goers cheering and chanting slogans. It’s sad because watching from outside the arena one sees a crowd of very deluded beings. It’s sadder still because the heros on stage intentionally are leading these people deeper into darkness for the sake of winning.

Where is the good? Where is the evil?