Dear All: New Website Will Contain Dharma Stuff

Hi Everyone,

The migration of the old content to the new website has been completed and most of you signed up. Thank you. However, some of you have not, and so I wanted to send through a reminder as well as to let you know that I will continue to focus on dharma and meditation articles—albeit with a twist of science.

I also have exciting news coming up (just waiting on an official document to arrive via email). Think…retreat center in the mountains just North of Hobart. Think…Australian wide institution committed to Research, retreat and education. If you have not already done so, sign up to the new website ClarkeScott.org

More News and a New Website

Well, I am back in Hobart. Normality has return to life and I am working on my thesis again—currently I am researching the history and development of the notion of the self in ancient Indian philosophy, looking at the Rig-Veda and Upanishads in particular.

My retreat went well and was mostly peaceful. New Years Eve was a great night for meditation on impermanence. For most of the day it was hot, then came a massive storm around 9.00 pm. Needless to say, I stopped, opened the windows and doors to let some cool air inside. I took some photos with a low-resolution camera. Here is one in which you can see the tail of a lightening strike.

A few new, and I would say, exciting things have taken place over the Australian summer one of which is a new website. The other, I will have more to say about after the what and the why.  (note: if you are reading this in an email you will need to follow the links to the website to see all the details).

A New Website

The new website in a way represents the refocusing of my long term energy—after the PhD, of course. The new website the domain of which is my western name will come at the same problems addressed by the Buddha yet for modern Western culture. It is therefore unlike LodenJinpa.com which is more or less an explanation of the ancient texts. This new website will be a rephrasing of ancient issues pertaining to the human condition coupled with a modern scientific style of inquiry—more on this later. And of course, there will be news and stuff about what I am up to.

The reason for returning to the use of my western name is, in part, because western universities—UTas in this case —for legal reasons can not allow the use of my monastic name in their IT systems. I have no problem with this, as a name is really just a label but, it does create confusion over what to call me. For instance, at first people here at UTas knew me as Loden Jinpa, yet my university email address was in my western name. So, at some point, I stopped using my monastic name, even though I still blogged here. Even then people contacting me didn’t know whether to call me Loden, Jinpa, Loden Jinpa or Clarke. I came to realize I was going to have this problem long term if I was to have two names. What’s more I thought, if I was going to publish anything in the future then this problem would most likely continue.

Then came along a new opportunity. One that I feel very excited about, and in which there may be work for me after my PhD. As I have written about how this all unfolded over at the new website, I will not go into the details here. Suffice to say, as I mentioned above, the new website is more about presenting Buddhist thought empirically and in Western terms—cognitive science etc. Therefore, given my interest in presenting Buddhism to modernity, starting a new website with a western name, seems oddly enough now that I think about it, quite fitting.

So, I feel it is a good time to begin afresh. I have taken some of the articles from here to the new website. While the website will remain available for those coming from Google, this will be one of the last articles I will write for this website.

For your convenience, I will add those of you who receive my articles via email to the new system. You should receive an email asking you to confirm your interest in receiving articles from the new website—ClarkeScott.org. If you do not click to confirm you will no longer receive news from me. Of course, I would like to see everyone move over to the new website but, I understand that some may not.

So, without further delay here is ClarkeScott.org

The article detailing the new project and how this all unfolded is here: The Little Island that Could.

The Twisting of a Phrase For Clarity

A pithy turn of phrase, a quip engendering insight, all these linguistic devices are the tools of smarter men (and women) than I. Philosophy, for the most part, is not easy. It is not easy because of the hours spent frustrated by misunderstanding, or, as is more often the case, a sense of not understanding what the hell it is that you are reading. In the end, I must add, it is an experience for which one is better off for having. With the afore written in mind, and as good evidence of my point, I wanted to address the notion of clarity in philosophy.

Some might argue there is, in fact, a lack of clarity in the very enterprise of philosophy. Is this true? Perhaps, for philosophy is inherently abstruse. After all, the ideas we are grappling with are difficult. Yet, is it their importance that render these questions difficult , or is it their difficulty that makes them important? I think one could argue it is, in fact, both, and for that very reason, it is important for those engaged in the articulation of these difficult questions, to make certain the answers are accessible to as many inquisitive minds as possible. If philosophers, through wordiness, simply add to the abstruseness of their project, thus taking important questions and making them difficult, philosophy, turns into the quibbling of vain men (and women).

Having said all that, and in such a way as to highlight my very point, I want to ask the following question: Is misunderstanding the fault of the reader or the writer? Is clarity, merely comprehension? Or is understanding, “given” through the art of eloquence? This goes to the heart of a pedagogical dilemma: how do we get knowledge from the page to the heart? Is it the duty of a writer to forge understanding by presenting difficult ideas in plain English, even at the risk of cogency? Or, is it up to the reader to lift up, so to speak, their intellectual arsenal, in order to encounter first hand the wisdom hidden behind the words? These question seem important ones to me, for freedom from suffering is at stake here.

If philosophy is to be important to future generations, it must be important for future generations. It must speak to them in such a way as to seem important, even when difficult. For it is only when we see the doing of philosophy as important to community, important to the future of persons, that we will be interested in investing in its comprehension. Therefore, I believe, clarity is dependent on both reader and writer. Writers should strive for clarity at every turn. Making certain, to the best of his or her ability, what is said is as clear as it might be. This means, using the language (up to a point) of the day. Indeed, if your writing does not “speak” you run the risk of becoming the intellectual equivalent of a drunken shadow-boxer ranting at passers-by. Yet, readers of philosophy, too, have a responsibility to lift meaning from the page. To borrow something of a Heideggerian turn of phrase: To bring Understanding to understanding is to bring Being to being.

Thank You Geshe Thubten Loden

This is a copy of a letter I wrote to my teacher–Geshe Thubten Loden–a few days before leaving for Tasmania. I am publishing it here now as a means to create the merit for Geshe la to continue to stay with us.

Please Geshe-la do not leave us now. Please continue to remain with us, to help, guide and protect us.

Dear Geshe la,

This letter is to say thank you for the kindness you have shown me over the past 14 years, in particular the teachings, initiations and daily guidance I received from you over that time. You have been more than a father, more than a mother, more than a best friend. You put a roof over my head, fed me and helped me find work. You have taught me everything from philosophy to politics, from meditation to the benefits of eating well. You have given me initiations into highest yoga tantra meditations, along with the vows, as well as bodhicitta vows and ordination as a Buddhist monk. Your generosity, patience and compassionate actions are extraordinary. Your peerless skill in leading others from an unenlightened to an enlightened experience is truly amazing. Through your guidance, I have learnt the value of hard work and the value of caring for others. You have shown me that courage, wisdom and perseverance are necessary conditions for success in whatever endeavor we choose in life. I feel truly blessed to be your student and will never forget these priceless lessons.

Thank you also for making my recent trip to India far easier and beneficial than it would have been if not for your letters. As you know, rarely are private audiences with His Holiness the Dalai Lama granted. Through your kindness however, I was granted a 20-minute private audience with His Holiness. This alone requires a big, thank you.

Moreover, please forgive me for all the many mistakes I’ve made throughout the years. For all the times I misunderstood your instructions, or simply didn’t listen properly.

Even though I will never come close to repaying your kindness, I hope, in time, and in some small way, I can repay a little by working to benefit others. It is for these reasons, albeit with a twinge of sadness, I feel it is important to move to Tasmania in order to ensure that I do well and complete the PhD.

Please continue to bless, guide and inspire us for many years to come.

Your student,

Loden Jinpa (Clarke Scott)

Why Socially Engaged Buddhist?

Below is a stream-of-consciousness thought and I mean no disrespect to Socially Engaged Buddhists.

Today, I heard someone call themselves a socially engaged Buddhist. Isn’t all Buddhist theory socially engaged? As many have already had a lot to say along this line of argumentation, I will desist hereto.

Instead, I want to discuss the follow this line of argument: If you are calling yourself a socially engaged Buddhist, you do so, because you are motivated by the wish to help others, regardless of who they are and you want to do so directly, as you see this as a good thing to do. By no means would you ever intentionally harm others, no matter of gender, race or political leaning. You are fundamentally motivated by the wish to dissolve all prejudice and bias, after all, you are engaged with people in a social manner, right?

However, by framing your brand of Buddhism as “socially engaged”, it follows there are forms of Buddhism that are not so engaged. By doing so, you are in effect marking your brand of Buddhism off from those traditions that you deem as not so engaged, and therefore, even if only implicitly, are you not belittling those other traditions?

If you are socially engaged, should you not, in fact, call yourself something like, oh, I don’t know…actually, I have no alternative. Yet, I think my point is clear. Does it have merit? Probably not, but, it seemed worth pointing out, what to me seems to be a logically error implicit in the naming of this style of Buddhism.

Update: It is sheer coincidence that this post went up after Danny Fisher’ post on the virtues of Engaged Buddhism.

Next Page »