On waiving copyright, and Israeli and Tibetan clinging

Today I will address my personal decision to waive copyright protection. However, I will then transition to how Israel and Tibetan Buddhists, each in their own way, are guilty of clinging. Or, put a better way, guilty of attachments which block the path to enlightenment. And, yes, even the Israelis, though not Buddhists, hunger to become fully-enlightened Buddhas – they just don’t fully realize this yet.

Waiving copyright

I hereby waive copyright protection for any and all material posted (or to be posted) on this website. Nobody has to ask my permission to use, rework in their own style, or compensate me in any manner. I don’t even ask that users acknowledge me as a source. The only limitation is that I maintain the right to post and utilize, without payment of any fee, any and all such material as I see fit under my own name. [NOTE: It’d be a hell of thing if someone developed one of my themes, copyrighted that for themselves, and were to tell me I couldn’t use my own original source material.]

Naturally, if anyone reading this wants me to address some type of “permission” or memo of understanding directly to them concerning (say) any one of my ideas on this blog, I would be more than happy to do so.

Now why, you may ask, would I do such a thing? I can’t remember where I’ve heard this (and right now, I’m too lazy to try to google the source): “If you show me a man who says ‘This is mine,' I’ll show you a thief.” That’s my guiding principle here. Now that doesn’t mean you can approach me on the street and ask me to surrender my underwear on the spot. In that particular case, there are other considerations involved which I won’t get into here.

A more accurate view would be to consider my waiving to be a form of almsgiving – Buddhists such as myself are supposed to be big on that. It is written: “Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.” But I don’t waive in order to be flattered; I do so in order to inspire. Must be the teacher in me that delights when someone can take a concept I’ve initiated and more fully develop it. Or even rework it in a form far superior to my original.

Don’t be deceived, though. My waiving is not entirely selfless, for I do gain something from this mindset. I have found that by not zealously clinging to my writings, I have become more creative. [Translation: I give up something, but I get much more in return.] I’m not sure why that is, but I’ll hazard a guess. People who cling excessively to “their” ideas get trapped in their own style of thinking. But by “giving it up,” I free myself from those chains. By not weighing myself down by saying, “This is mine, mine, mine,” I have discovered that internal doors of the mind open up bringing me fresh inspiration.

Yeah, I know…sounds kind of hokey, I suppose. But there’s a grain of truth in there somewhere. At least, this seems to work for me.

The Buddha’s teaching on clinging

We form attachments – that’s what we humans do. But when we obsess about these, to the point of desperate clinging, the internal calm needed to attain enlightenment is disturbed. We end up thinking so much about our “things,” we can’t focus on what is necessary for enlightenment. Desire is a good thing – for instance, the desire for enlightenment. But that’s about it.

Israeli clinging

I shouldn’t really say “Israeli” when I mean Zionist, so I stand corrected.

The Zionist clings to his (false) notion that God gave to his tribe a homeland. By the way, this territory far exceeds the Occupied Territory and Israel itself, but that fact is not trumpeted by the Zionists. They’re taking action, one step at a time. First, flood the West Bank with as many settlements as possible so as to dilute any possible Palestinian territorial claims. Then…ah, yes, then will come that time in the perhaps not-too-distant future when the Zionists can press their claims for the rest of the land they wish to annex. Again, this is a far greater mass than is currently appreciated by the popular press.

Personally? I don’t think God made any such gift to the Jewish tribes, at least not for all time. Even if He did, for the sake of argument, I view such a gift as a divine test. Case in point: If someone gives me a present, it’s mine to do with as I please. If I wish to share it with someone else, or even give it away entirely, that would be my prerogative. After all, unless it’s the kind of gift given with strings attached, I would be free to dispose of it as I saw fit. Once given, such a gift then becomes my personal property.

In the case of the Jewish tribes, if God did indeed give them (for instance) land now known as the West Bank, that doesn’t mean those tribes have to greedily cling to that land as if it’s a lifeline the loss of which would surely lead to drowning. Perhaps the tribes are being tested to see if they would be willing to give some of their (supposedly) God-given land to their stepbrother, the Arabs living in the West Bank. Stepbrothers? Yes, same father (Abraham), different mothers (Sarah and Hagar).

Here’s the test: If the Jewish tribes can stand idly by while their stepbrothers are living lives of misery and privation right next door to them, as a result of actions they themselves have inflicted, then how can it be said they are following the commandment to “Love the stranger.” If they can’t even show any love for their stepbrothers, how can they love those even stranger still?

This is no small question. For if the Jews are to be a nation which will be a light unto other nations, they’ve got to show loving kindness toward their own kin. If they can’t do even that much, then they might as well forget about that “light unto other nations” stuff. It doesn’t take much to see that Israel is not considered exemplary by the other nations of the earth – except perhaps the United States, though mostly because we find Israel useful as an ally.

Tibetan clinging

I don’t have any idea how the average Tibetan living in exile in India feels about the loss of his homeland. I don’t know if he has any expectation of regaining that homeland. But I do know this much: Far more important than their homeland is their religion – though I wish certain others could come to feel the same way. Homelands come and go. We leave this life only to be reincarnated elsewhere. And it’s doubtful that that “elsewhere” will turn out to be the homeland we’ve become familiar with in this life.

The Buddha himself set the best example by giving up his homeland. More than that, he gave up the throne which he, as a prince, would have inherited. By giving up his homeland, he gained far more than he lost. Excessive identification with a way of life or a particular piece of real estate turns out to be a hindrance to our spiritual progress.

I have a strong disclaimer, though, concerning the authenticity of the Tibetans’ adherence to Buddhist doctrine. From what I can see, they seem to have become too focused on the worship of the Dalai Lama and to various local protective deities. They have only the most indirect connection to the Buddha. If they had a firmer connection, they would abandon the unique, local variant of “Buddhism” which I call “Tibetanism.”

To me, the Dalai Lama, as the spiritual leader of his people, is especially at fault since he does not follow the Buddha’s most supreme teaching – the Lotus Sutra. The Buddha told his followers to abandon all of his prior teachings, since they had been meant as only a prelude to the revelation of the truth, known as the Lotus. However, the Dalai Lama says nothing – not one single word – in support of this highest doctrine.

He does, though, say a lot about other irrelevant stuff – and he giggles perhaps a bit too much.

The Buddha taught that the most ideal Buddhist practice is to read, recite, ponder, and spread the teachings of the Lotus Sutra. Since the Dalai Lama has not done that, he must be considered a heretic. And this label is doubly-damning because the Dalai Lama should know better.

However, all that having been said, I do not consider the Lama to be an evil man. He’s just another victim of clinging – in his case, to his homeland’s customs, language, tribal costume, and to the reverence his people feel for him. About that last: It’s hard to shake off the addiction to being worshipped. This is a trap which ensnares leaders the world over – from the secular (Saddam Hussein and a wide variety of presidents-for-life) to the religious (Popes and lesser pretenders to godliness).

The Dalai Lama has a real and enduring value in that complete strangers to Buddhism are attracted to him. I’m not sure why, though that is not as important as them making some kind of initial connection to Buddhism. Even if that connection isn’t the most ideal.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“We would all gain much if we mediated on our attachments and tried, at least for a moment or two, to abandon them. Might open up whole new worlds.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com