The Universality of Spiritual Truth

I have been a practicing Buddhist for 25+ years.  During that time, my practice has deepened, I am one with the true Buddha nature inside me (well, almost), and I share my faith and knowledge with others through my Buddhist blog, www.thepracticalbuddhist.com, and through the several books I have written.

It has been reaffirming for my faith to learn that the mystical traditions of all three Abrahamic faiths and great religious thinkers all basically teach the same thing as Buddhism: that suffering is universal and that we suffer because we have fallen away, out of touch, with the divinity that is within each of us; consumed instead with the ways of the world and the lessons it has taught us.  And that is is our responsibility, and possibility, to reconnect with that divinity and thus end our suffering.

Most recently, I found that reaffirmation in reading an article in The New Yorker, about Søren Kierkegaard, the 19th century Danish anti-establishment Christian thinker.  The article notes that he said that everyone is in despair and that if someone thinks they are not, they are lying to themselves.  Interestingly, in a recent video of mine, “The Mind - Suffering Connection,” I begin by noting that many viewers will say that they don’t suffer.  After asking them some questions, I say, “You may be in denial, but you suffer.”

Kierkegaard says that only by acknowledging our suffering can we begin to understand that suffering is “defiance of God,” or in modern theology, defiance of the divinity that is within each of us.  And that we can be freed from that despair or suffering only by giving ourselves over entirely to God.  The Zen monks who taught me put the same point this way, “by surrendering your ego-mind to your true Buddha nature,” or in the language of 12-step, “by turning your will and your life over to the care of your true Buddha nature/higher power.”

He wrote, as the monks taught, that the responsibility of choice - to believe or not believe, to act or not act - is always individual.  This is beyond difficult: to overcome our training, our life experience.  But it is possible and the responsibility is ours to do so.

He also said that life can only be understood backward, but it has to be lived forward.  In Buddhism, we learn that we do what we do because of our learned experience: the emotions, judgments, cravings, and attachments that form our ego-mind.  This is the past that for most people not only explains their current lives but controls their future.  Only if one frees oneself from the past, from the intervention of the ego-mind, can one move forward in a way which is one’s best interest, free of the burden of the past.

The last point I will make in this comparison is that Kierkegaard says that as one begins the spiritual path it is complex and then becomes more and more simple.  That is the experience I have found in my Buddhist practice.  As the practice deepens, as my connection with my true Buddha nature deepens, life becomes more simple because I am not pulled this way and that by the past, by my ego-mind.  Instead, I know that life is just the way it is. There is no obsession with future; only the present moment is real.  And I know I will be safe regardless what life throws my way because I have returned home, and will always return home, to my true Buddha nature.

And so how sad, how proof-positive of the fallen nature of man (including the men of organized religion) that instead of focusing on these universal truths and the fact that all religions at their core teach the same thing … and that we thus are all one … man and organized religion has used religion as a divisive instrument, a way to control their followers and gain and maintain power by creating an us v them world view.  How opposite of true spirituality is this!  How perverse and dark.  Our religious leaders are an obstacle to our spiritual growth, not the light they should be.

In Trump We Trust

It has been apparent for most of Trump’s presidency that regardless what he does or says, regardless how outrageous, how unprofessional, regardless whether he is fact-checked and shown to have lied, and certainly regardless what the mainstream (non-conservative) media say, Trump’s core base of support believes him, and Congressional Republicans either aggressively support him or stay silent.  So much so that one could say that his base believes in him.

A new poll published in The New York Times verifies this fact, but shows that his infallibility among his core base is weakening.  The poll shows that the vast majority of all Americans trust medical scientists and the CDC to provide accurate information about the coronavirus.  90/83% of Democrats, and 75/71% of Republicans.  

In interpreting this data, since Trump’s core base is usually said to be about 31% of the electorate, and self-described Republicans have recently wavered between 25 - 30%, one can say that virtually all Republicans are in his core base, meaning they have strongly approved of his performance.

The poll verifies that the trust of Trump among Republicans is still high.  Although Republican say their trust in medical scientists and the CDC is high, their trust in Dr. Fauci, who has openly contradicted Trump on many occasions is only 51% while their trust in Trump’s providing accurate information about the virus is 66%.  Their trust in information from the national news media is a dismal 7%.

Since medical scientists, and the CDC, routinely dispute Trump’s statements about the virus and the government’s response to the virus, it indicates that for a large percentage of his base, they believe in him regardless what their mind tells them.  The explanation for Fauci getting a much lower trust score that medicate scientists, is that he openly, albeit tactfully, disputes Trump’s statements, often right after Trump has said something, and on the same stage.  He’s in Trump’s face.  Many in his base don’t like that.

The good news in this otherwise bleak report is that a good chunk of Trump’s core base (34%) do not trust him to provide accurate information.  This is in sync with various national polls that show that Trump’s support is slipping within his base.  For example, in a recent Economist/YouGov poll, his“strongly approve” job performance rating is 65% of Republicans.  And given the importance that the pandemic will have in people’s decision making process come election time, this will hurt Trump even as he tries to stoke the fires of his base.

The election is still more than 4 months away.  But the facts on the ground and the polls give one a reasonable basis for hope that the election will be decisive and not a cliff-hanger.

Will George Floyd’s Death and the Protests Finally Lead in a National Discussion of Racism in America?

Over the years, I have written several posts about the necessity for this country to have a serious discussion about racism in order to free not just Blacks* but all Americans from this terrible curse at long last.  For example, in April 2019, I wrote a post, “We Need a National Discussion on Race and Racism.”

In the aftermath of George Floyd’s death and the nationwide protests, while the subject of racism is in the air, most of the action agenda proposed has to do with how to reform police departments.  While this is much needed and will undoubtedly be helpful, it does not touch the underlying problem.

This is not just a police issue.  This is a national issue that touches almost everyone and certainly impacts Blacks in all aspects of their lives.

Most fundamentally perhaps, because of its lasting impact, is the issue of the disparity in the education received by Black youths relative to whites.  While there are numerous factors that impact this disparity, and yes, one is what the family provides the child, a major factor is the disparity of education funding received by inner city (and rural) schools based on the residential tax base of the school district.  The other major factor, less often spoken of, is the bias of many teachers against the potential of the very children they are charged with educating.  Can we not all agree in the motto of the United Negro College Fund that, “a mind is a terrible thing to waste.”

There have been numerous studies that have shown what a school with proper resources, and even more importantly proper attitude, can do with children from the worst parts of the inner city.  To quote from one study, “In light of significant relationships that exist between teachers’ sense of efficacy [the belief that they are able to affect student performance] and higher student achievement and test scores, and in order to improve America’s schools, teachers’ low sense of efficacy in low performing urban schools should be seriously reconsidered.”

Another study titled, “Unequal Opportunities: Fewer Resources, Worse Outcomes for Students in Schools with Concentrated Poverty,” by the Commonwealth Institute, found that, “Students in high poverty schools have less experienced instructors, less access to high level science, math, and advanced placement courses, and lower levels of state and local spending on instructors and instructional materials.”

But even if there were a national will to address these issues, that would still leave untouched the underlying issue of the breadth and depth of racism in this country.  That is the legacy of slavery and it still impacts both whites and Blacks.  Economically, it keeps our country from maximizing its potential.  Spiritually, it keeps us from achieving our full humanity.

We must use the opportunity of masses of whites coming together to protest the treatment of Blacks by police, and predominantly white legislatures responding, to focus attention and discussion on the much more difficult issue of acknowledging and undoing the continuing destructive impact of racism in America.  

This may be our last chance to truly transform and reenergize our country so that the statement in the Declaration of Independence becomes based in reality, not just aspirational: that, “All men are created equal.  That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.  That among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  That to secure these Rights, governments are instituted among men.”  Our last chance to achieve Martin Luther King’s dream that all of us will be able to join hands and say, “Free at last!  Free at last!  Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!”

_______________

* I should note that I use the term “Blacks” rather than the possibly more politically correct “African-American” because I don’t approve of these hyphenated euphemisms.  We are all Americans; that should go without saying.  The hyphenated form, by qualifying people, whether African, Latino, or Asian, seems to connote a less than full American.  I also capitalize “Blacks” out of respect for the defined group of millions of Americans, citizens with a powerful history and culture, that it represents.

How Does Biden Defeat This Incumbent President?

What does Joe Biden need to do to defeat Trump in November? And hopefully not just squeaking by but by trouncing him.

First, the President has the bully pulpit, and never has that phrase been more apt than in the case of Donald Trump.  Biden has to figure out a way, in this age of pandemic with social restrictions, to give himself a public presence, to make him a leader for the American people.  He must develop his own bully pulpit.

Videos from his basement don’t hack it!  Yes, he can’t hold rallies and many of the usual things that candidates do.  

But he can hold press conferences … live ones … that reporters will cover.  Certainly on the issue of how to respond to the pandemic, he has ample reason to hold a regularly scheduled weekly news conferences to criticize what Trump is doing or not doing, tell the people what needs to happen and what he would do if President.  Like his plan for the Federal government taking over responsibility for testing and contact tracing … which was announced in a post on Medium and hardly noticed.  There is so much confusion surrounding the virus and opening up, the people would welcome a sane, trustworthy voice on these issues.

He can also use press conferences to announce his policy positions on other important matters linked to his criticism of Trump administration actions or policies.  There is no shortage of weekly items that highlight how Trump is destroying policies that were meant to protect the average person … health care, environmental roll-backs, the post office, to name just a few.  And that would give Biden the opportunity to showcase his own policies, not just to protect the status quo but to improve protections for the average person.

One caveat:  do not in general campaign against Trump the person.  Data show that most people are not as upset about Trump the person as liberals and especially progressives are.  Especially since Biden needs to attract people who voted for Trump, attacking Trump the person becomes viewed as attacking the people who voted for him.  So stick to attacking Trump’s policies.

In taking himself to the people, he has to keep in mind four key audiences:  white voters without a college degree, people of color both Black and Latino, and young voters.  If Biden is to win, let alone win handily, he must achieve a large turnout of voters in all four groups.  Luckily, everything that Biden should be saying, all the policies he should be promoting, he can say to all these audiences.  But he needs to make sure that in addition to talking about the big overarching issues, he addresses the needs of each of these constituencies directly.

One of the ways he can do this is to go and speak to them directly.  Yes, again, he cannot hold rallies.  But he can have news conferences around the country, in different type of locales that emphasize the inclusive nature of his policies.  He can hold these conferences in rust-belt areas, in urban Black ghettos and urban Latino ghettos, on college campuses.  And he should hold them in rural areas to emphasize that Democratic policies are good for rural areas; they aren’t just about helping the urban poor.

What’s disturbing is that either Biden has surrounded himself with a week campaign crew, because none of these what I think are obvious tactics are happening, which is what I think is what’s going on, or the less likely possibility that he just isn’t comfortable doing what needs to be done, other than through ads.  That would be unfortunate.

Whatever.  If he is not by his nature the man for this time, than those around him have to goose him up to become the type of man needed for this time.  The future of our country depends on it, and I am not saying that lightly.  Another four years of Trump would be devastating.   Even a nail-bitingly-close election would be harmful because it would indicate that the country as a whole was still terribly divided, not ready to move forward to do what’s necessary to truly make America great again.

With Rights Come Responsibilities

People on the Right are always talking about their rights and how the government is taking away their rights.  Whether it’s the issue of gun ownership or restriction of movement during the pandemic, people on the Right don’t seem to understand what it means to be a citizen of the United States.  Yes, we have rights.  But with rights, come responsibilities.  Not even the vaunted right of free speech, let alone the right to gun ownership is absolute.

Man is by nature concerned solely with his and his family's wellbeing. That is his biological imperative.  Socially, however, man has evolved into being a member, a citizen, of a larger society. And so, from the most primitive communities to contemporary societies, that driving instinct has been reigned in for the greater good of the community.  

In primitive societies and in many Asian societies, a collective culture developed that enforced working for the good of the group largely through strong social pressure; the individual was of lesser importance. In the West, where the concept of individualism took root, societies have instead depended upon laws to control the relationship between man's individual liberties and rights and his part in the larger society.

There are thousands of laws that control the right of an individual to do what he might want to do.  Whether it's the criminal law, traffic laws, building codes and zoning laws, or product liability law, laws have been developed that balance the individual’s rights against the greater public good; they tell the individual what the limits are of his freedom to act.  Without such laws we would have anarchy.

As our society became more civilized and enlightened, the concept of man's pro-active responsibilities to the larger society developed.  Existing along side his rights, are concomitant shared responsibilities for the community that go beyond the responsibility not to harm others.

In the current political context, there is a uproar on the Right regarding this fundamental aspect of the relationship between government, individual rights, and the greater public good that came to define the American social contract in the 20^th century.  This post will look at several examples.  The most topical is the restriction on people’s movement in the pandemic.  The second  is the ongoing issue of the right of gun ownership.  Other less emotional, but equally deep concerns, are the regulation of business, progressive taxation, and the government's responsibilities towards those less fortunate.

1.  The government has wide power to regulate matters that concern public health and safety.  Certainly in this period of pandemic, they have the power to restrict movement and take other measures to control the spread of the virus, to protect individuals from each other.   Yes, this restricts our normal rights in numerous ways, but these restrictions are necessary for the public good.

2.  As for gun ownership, even if one agrees (whjch I don’t) in the Constitutional right to individual gun ownership recently-found in the 2nd Amendment, that right like the right to free speech found in the 1st Amendment is not absolute.  It can be limited when necessary for the greater good.  So whether it’s broader background checks or prohibiting private ownership of assault-type weapons, these are restrictions that meet the constitutional standard.  The NRA’s argument that ultimately pro-gun control advocates want to take away your guns is just fear-mongering.  There is no basis in that claim.

3.  Then there’s the issue of business regulation.  The primary interest of any business is self-interest ... that is its nature as much as it's man's nature.  As we saw during the industrial revolution and the early decades of the 20th century, if business is not regulated, it will show no concern for either its workers or the greater public good.  

Because of this self-interest and the resulting efforts through lobbying and other means to avoid any restrictions, regardless how necessary to protect the public good, I have argued in earlier posts (“What Is the Role of Corporations in Our Society”) that because corporations are a creature of the law and have received many benefits under that law, corporate law should require that part of the decision making process be the impact of corporate action on the public good, whether it be directly or through the environment.

4.  Taxes.  No one likes paying them.  Most taxes, likes sales taxes, are unfortunately regressive … the lower a person’s income, the larger the share of their income that goes to paying taxes.  (With regard to the sales tax, that’s because lower income people spend a larger share of their income on the purchase of necessities and other goods, accounting for the tax taking a larger share of their income.)  

As the United States developed into a more progressive society, it realized that regressive taxes posed an unfair burden on the poor.  A socially fair tax would work in the opposite way … the higher ones income, the greater the share of that income that would be paid in taxes because such people have much more discretionary income and therefore a higher tax would not pose any hardship.  And so when the income tax was instituted, that’s how it was designed … as a progressive tax.

In 1932, the income tax for the top bracket was 63% of income over $1,000,000.  In 1950, it was 91% of income over $400,000.  As recently as 1980, the rate was 70% of income over $212,000.  Today, the rate is 37% of income over $510,000. The rich are paying a smaller portion of their income as taxes to support the greater public good than at any time since the income tax was instituted.

5.  Finally, there is government action to support the poor.  Over the course of the past 100 years, again as society has become more civilized and enlightened, government has taken a greater hand in both directly providing for those in need as well as ensuring in various ways that they have the opportunity to better their position in life. 

This was a fuller implementation of the role of government stated in the Declaration of Independence … “to secure” the right to life, liberty, and happiness.  Programs that were once considered radical or socialist by Republicans, such as Social Security and Medicare, which they fought tooth and nail at the time, are now accepted by most as necessary programs ... not without their problems, but vital to the wellbeing of a large proportion of our citizens and thus the stability of our economy.

In all these areas, the current radical brand of Republicans, egged on by the energy and anger of first the Tea Party and then President Trump, have argued that the government’s role should be reduced or eliminated.  People should be free to do what they think best.  Business should not be regulated.  The wealthy should not pay more taxes.  The poor should have to fend for themselves … if you don’t succeed, it’s your fault.  (Programs like Social Security are distinguished because it’s been earned, and corporate subsidies are necessary because of their importance to the economy.)

Each of these positions is against the balance that our nation has historically struck between private rights, the public good, and the role of government.  These positions violate an enlightened concept of the rights and responsibilities of a citizen.

Republicans wish to take us back to an era where individualism ran rampant and success was limited to the few.  America’s strength in the 20^th century evolved by broadening the base of prosperity among its citizens and creating a more vibrant, intelligent workforce through the intervention of government programs and regulation.

That is where we need to continue heading in the 21^st century to ensure America’s continued strength.  Trump’s policies will not make America great again because they are against the empowerment of people and thus actually weaken America.  Radical Republicans need to be recognized for what they are … hypocrites masquerading as the party of the people.  They are not responsible citizens of this great republic.

Where Is Joe Biden?

Joe Biden is running a strange campaign.  Since the COVID-19 restrictions, he has not been seen in public as far as I know.  He seems to feel that he has no options other than virtual ones and that he is already a well-enough known persona who people trust that he can beat Trump.  And if he looks at the polls, he can take comfort in them.

But there is a real risk in his losing the election if he does not step up to the plate and present his leadership chops to the American people.

First of all, he does have an option.  Both because of the pandemic and his de facto position as the Democratic nominee, he could hold a weekly news conference to present his take on what is happening, what should be happening, what he would do if he were president.  

He needs to show the American people the kind of leadership he would provide.  Which as a side benefit would make Trump look bad without saying a derogatory word.  Maybe he’s getting advice that Trump’s digging his own grave, so stay silent.  I think that’s bad advice.

Second, while he may win if people want to vote for the nice guy rather than Mr. Crazy, he won’t win big, which is what we need to take back the Senate, without him providing a strong force for the country to look to for leadership.  Joe Biden needs to show the public that he has balls.  

Third, Biden needs to show that while he is a unifier and can work with the opposition, he is not just “let’s all shake hands and be friends.”  He has got to show that he doesn’t have Obama’s key flaw, which was to think that the Republicans can be brought to the table as reasonable people; be nice to them and they’ll be nice to you.  Times have changed.  He needs to show determination and fighting spirit on the important issues of the day.

Finally, although he has now addressed the sexual assault allegation made by a former staffer, what he said isn’t enough.  Although The New York Times in reporting the allegation took no position as to whether the incident occurred or not, it did give the allegation status, especially since there is a confirmed contemporaneous statement to a friend about the incident.  

There are many problems with her story, but those are not dispositive.  Then there’s the timing, she changed her story from touching to assault just after Biden de facto won the nomination.  Hmm?  Yes, he’s never been accused of a violent or gross assault.   People who do such things do them serially, so the fact that no one else has come forward with an allegation makes it unlikely.  But that also isn’t enough.

Biden needs to get past the “she said, he said” dynamic.  What he needs to do is offer to take a lie detector test and make the test public.  He should also demand that Reade take a lie detector test.  While lie detector tests are not admissible as evidence in a court of law, they are in the court of public opinion.  

He has to get past this.  He may think it’s not going to matter for most people, even most women, but it just has to matter to enough to change some close states for him to lose the election.

Plus Biden needs to show that he has grown in stature with age.  He is not just another politician who is good at glib non-responses to serious questions.  He needs to show that he truly understands the seriousness of people’s concern about such matters and that he is willing to put himself at risk to prove his innocence.

Biden was not my candidate.  Others had better personalities and agendas for our time.  But Biden is a good man and will start the process of bringing our country out of the depths of degradation it has seen and into the light.

The Continuing Need for a National Health Policy

Several weeks ago, I wrote a post about the need for a national health policy regarding the pandemic.  Obviously that hasn’t happened.

As the President and state governors have been talking about slowly opening up the economy again, stepping back from the restrictions on people’s movements, and in a few cases taken such action, I need to repeat my call for a national health policy.

When it comes to controlling a pandemic, the fact of states’ rights makes no sense.  Since all states are connected in many ways, but especially commerce and freedom of movement, it is critical that there be a national policy controlling the actions of people.

A national health policy does not mean “one size fits all.”  It means that there are national standards that will be applied.  Under those standards, some states may be allowed to open up before others, and those decisions would be made in concert with the governors, but it must all be coordinated under a federal standard.  

For those who say that under the constitution states have to be left to go their own way … nonsense!  The interstate commerce clause allows the government to regulate anything that impacts interstate commerce.  This has been read broadly and is the basis, for example, for federal civil rights laws.  Certainly it would provide a basis for a national mandated policy on efforts to control the coronavirus pandemic.  To not have a mandated national policy in situation would be madness.

People are the key to either containing the virus or spreading it.  There is thus only one effective way of controlling the virus.

When we come out of the lockdown phase, all experts agree that testing and contact tracing combined with quarantine is key to insure that the virus does not spike again.  Everyone who has symptoms should be tested, and if that is not available, should self-isolate on the assumption that they have the virus.  Under CDC guidelines, once they have been fever free for 3 days without medication, have had no symptoms, and it’s been more than 7 days since the onset of symptoms, they can assume they are virus free and can come out of quarantine.

Every contact someone has had (which could be as minimal as being in the same room or talking) with someone who is infected needs to be traced and told to self-isolate for 14 days, the incubation period, and be tested before being free to be out and about since one could be asymptomatic and still pass the virus to others.

In addition, because experts agree that the rapid spread has occurred in part because asymptomatic people have not been tested and quarantined, yet have passed the virus on to others, random testing should be done of a large percentage of the population to insure that asymptomatic cases are detected and quarantined until they test negative.

Ideally, all people who test positive and who live together with family or other communal situations, would be removed from their home and placed in an environment where they will be isolated so as to remove the threat of an entire family or living group becoming infected.  This is especially important if people are living in crowded environments with no private space available.  This will probably only be possible in limited situations for a variety reasons, and so following guidelines for separation in the home are critical.

Everyone arriving in the U.S. by plane or any means of transportation must at a minimum be temperature screened for the virus before being allowed to enter.  Interstate travel should be restricted to critical travel and all arriving passengers should be temperature screened.

What to do about people who travel by car interstate?  If everyone could be counted on to follow the rules, to keep to their quarantine, then one could assume that anyone traveling is free to move about.  However, that would be a naive assumption, plus testing is likely not to be as rigorous as it should be.  That means that people crossing state borders by car should be temperature screened.  This will felt as a burden on states and invasive to travelers, but the government must take every necessary action to contain the virus.

But all of this leaves the question … when and how do we end or ease the lockdown restrictions.  One suggested guideline has several criteria:  new cases falling consistently over 14 days; hospitals no longer maxed out; capacity to test all who should be tested; and the capacity to trace all those who should be.  Added to that list should be the ability to isolate outside the home those who are living in severely crowded living spaces.

Although ideally there should be no opening up until most everyone who needs to be has been tested or contact traced, and isolated if necessary, that is not feasible.  The ramped up testing and tracing will have to be done while people are beginning to move about.

Thus, when restrictions are loosened, everyone must continue to wear a mask when out in public and continue to practice social distancing to limit the number of new cases because the inescapable fact that some people will still be walking around with the virus.