Over at Buddhaspace, “G” offers his analysis of how Buddhist tradition and Western psychotherapy are coming together.

…many modern scholars and those working on the science of the mind believe that there is an intrinsic psychotherapeutic aspect to Buddhism.

via Buddha Space.

Over the last couple of weeks, I’ve received several inquiries relating to how any of us could possibly “let go” of that man called Rush and all of the unconsciousness that he spits out over the airwaves each day. For the record, my preference is to choose music over talk whenever I can. I should also note that while I’ve only listened to Mr. Limbaugh a few times in my life, I have found his commentary, political and otherwise, tends to embody the very attachments that veil awakening from our sight. And these veils are spread easily. But this doesn’t make him evil. Unconscious, maybe. Egocentric, for sure, but evil? If he’s seen as evil, his unconsciousness must be spreading.

Unconsciousness, like the common cold, gains traction on the terrain of those who see the world as being divided dualistically between in here and out there; I’m right and you’re wrong; and, us versus them. A deep and authentic stillness practice will eventually show anyone brave enough to commit to its rigors many significant things, among them: first, that us is them, and second, that no one is brilliant enough to be 100% wrong.

Seen through the Dharma’s lens, Mr. Limbaugh can be an amazing teacher since, at least in my sangha, he seems to put people in touch with many of the thoughts and feeling that they cling to. So bows to Rush, and any other person in this life who forces us to face our attachments. His words and deeds might just inspire compassionate and mindful action that intimately, and intentionally, meets all of the unconsciousness thus lessening its charge, decreasing its valence within us as well as within those who echo his sentiments.

With this in mind, I was struck by an article in the Huffington Post, where Mike Papantonio makes an interesting numerical argument regarding Limbaugh’s affect:

The analysis on Rush is easy. Historically, he has had zero impact on the outcome of elections. Every day during the 2008 presidential primaries, he attacked John McCain and predicted McCain would never win in the primaries. All the anti-McCain hate talk Rush could dish out had no effect on the outcome. Next, Rush tried to show that he had political muscle by calling Barack Obama a communist and a Kenyan illegal immigrant. Rush was certain that his vast political influence would end Obama’s presidential hopes. But the truth is Limbaugh’s political influence is not vast at all.

He goes on:

Let’s buy the spin and assume that 13 million people at some time during a week listen to Rush’s rants. If every one of those listeners does exactly what Rush begs them to do, as they march off the cliff they will have zero impact on elections. In the last presidential election 125 million people voted, and the Democrats whom Rush vilifies daily pulled off sweeping victories all over America. Rush has an approval rating with the general public that is even more dismal than the one W. left behind when he left office. Gallup puts Raging Rush’s favorables at around 28%. An entire generation of young voters tuned Rush out years ago. Instead, they tune into places like Jon Stewart’s Daily Show or the Colbert Report to follow politics.

What do you think?

Bows, Mike Papantonio.

Rev. Danny Fisher offered this Barbara O’Brien piece up on his blog. Despite its brevity I agree that it is a very valuable bit of writing for those looking for a teacher.

How do you know which teachers are for real and which are phonies? Many schools of Buddhism place great importance on lineage — the teacher’s teacher, the teacher’s teacher’s teacher, and so on, going back generations. Most schools of Buddhism only recognize teachers who have been authorized to teach either by that school’s institutions or by another authorized teacher.

I especially like:

A few tips: Only the phonies claim to be “fully enlightened.” Beware of teachers who ooze charisma and are worshiped by their students. The best teachers are the most ordinary ones. The true teachers are those who say they have nothing to give you.

via Shambhala SunSpace

The Huffington Post’s, Tara Stiles writes smartly of using basic yogic goodness to enhance our online experiences.

She first asks:

Do you ever feel like freaking out on someone on Facebook, or Twitter?

Have you ever wrote not-so-nice things about someone or someone’s photo or video on any social network site?

Do you find yourself spilling your latest psychological drama in your status updates or on multiple friends’ walls?

Are you a mood-based social networker and with little control over your typing impulses?

Has anyone had to physically tear you away from your iPhone or blackberry when they are trying to have a conversation with you?

Then offers a path:

Ok, now that we’ve all been diagnosed with social networking rage it’s time to do something about it. Let’s get acquainted/reacquainted with the Yamas and Niyamsas, often referred to as the 10 Commandments of Yoga. They are the ethical precepts described in Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras as the first and second of the eight limbs of yoga. So basically we are supposed to pay attention to these before we do any downward dogging or social networking for that matter. Having proper ethics will rid us of stress, addiction, and madness, and also classy up your image.

Bows, Tricycle.

“Convictions are more dangerous foes of truth than lies.”

-from the Nietzsche Family Circus

Or, as other bodhisattvas might just as easily say: certitude leads to war.

Bows, The Daily Dish

NPR contributor, Ted Rose, offers up a very interesting piece on mindfulness and the consumption of alcohol. It’s well worth the read.

Money quote:

…once a meditator has developed basic Buddhist discipline (known as Hinayana training) and adopted the intention to dedicate his or her life to benefit others (the Mahayana view) the practitioner is ready to incorporate Vajrayana teachings, in which the simple prohibitions outlined in traditional Buddhist sutras are re-evaluated. When a meditator reaches this point, which usually takes a number of years, a dangerous substance like alcohol is viewed—within a context of strong discipline and clear intention—not as a conventional escape, but instead as a tool for loosening the subtle clinging of ego.

The key here is that in the ultimate sense everything is an advanced practice, but we can’t shortcut this process. Ego’s will try, but this is why we take vows. The vows offer a moral code that is structured in ways that make it harder for the ego to think that it’s enlightened. Chogyam Trungpa perhaps exemplified this kind of misstep in his many “advanced” practices. And to be sure, I do my best to be mindful as I enjoy a glass of wine or my pizza and beer. But I (and the rest of us) must be careful with our “advanced” practices. Especially if they aren’t grounded in vows.

Bows, elephant journal.

According to Lama Marut,  an ex-Venice Beach surfer and professor of Religious Studies at UC Riverside, Dharma tweets are sweet…

With his account on Twitter, Lama Sumati Marut helps his followers stay mindful of how to be happy with his free daily “Dharma Twitters.”

While the title of this piece overstates it, I’ve found Twitter to be surprisingly powerful. It’s an interesting practice; being limited to 140 characters describing “what is happening now.” Give it a try.

(Self-Promotion Alert: if you’re interested, feel free to follow at http://www.twitter.com/InfiniteSmile)

Bows, Tricycle Editor’s Blog.

I’ve been wondering a lot recently how print media will survive in the years ahead. How, for instance, might newspapers integrate relevance, utility, and innovation as various circumstances pressure them into finding greater sales through lowest common denominator content.

Of course the same applies for the Dharma.

Anyway, it looks as if my smart and innovative brother, Matt, may have come up with what looks to my eye to be something powerful. It’s called The Guardian Open Platform and to my untrained eye, it appears this “open API” allows for something truly remarkable.

The newspaper has just announced a new suite of online services that some go as far to suggest may be the future of distribution. It’s no printing press 2.0, and won’t be printing money just yet, but it’s the sort of courageous innovation crucial to the news-industry’s survival.

Imagine this…

The Guardian aren’t purely in it for profit; their composition assures that they don’t intend to seek profit for shareholders benefit. Instead, their motivation is independence and conformity to their trust’s founding values. They can afford to be innovative and take risks in order to lead the way: being courageous, as their values state, is important. Indeed, shareholders “would normally have a heart attack at such a move.”

Does this make them “socialists” by American standards? Or are they simply being integral in their thinking and practice?

Bows, guardian.co.uk.