Dear Bill Maher

I have always liked your commentary on world events. I have always considered your perspective on politics and the affairs of mankind insightful and cutting. But now I have to ask whether you have suffered some type of traumatic cognitive disorder.

Your recent comments regarding Buddhism seem to be uncharacteristically pedestrian and sophomoric. And I mean literally sophomoric. It is as if, like a 15-year-old high school student, you were asked to write a report on “What is Buddhism” and you cited a single source. I’m sure you have a crack research staff, but in this particular instance, they have let you down. And the fact that you accepted their research unfortunately portrays you as a rather shallow person, less than informed and easily duped into accepting knee-jerk definitions in much the same way as a Pat Roberson or a James Dobson.

Yes, your comments about Buddhism are that pathetic.

“(Buddhism) really is outdated in some ways — the ‘Life sucks, and then you die’ philosophy was useful when Buddha came up with it around 500 B.C., because back then life pretty much sucked, and then you died – but now we have medicine, and plenty of food, and iPhones, and James Cameron movies – our life isn’t all about suffering anymore. And when we do suffer, instead of accepting it we try to alleviate it.”

First of all, when you say that “when we do suffer, instead of accepting it we try to alleviate it,” reveals your ignorance of Buddhism. The Buddha did, indeed, teach that life sucks; but he also taught that there is something we can do about it so that when we do die, we die happy. And iPhones and James Cameron movies have nothing to do with that.

“Tiger said, ‘Buddhism teaches that a craving for things outside ourselves’) makes us unhappy, which confirms something I’ve long suspected about Eastern religions: they’re a crock, too…Craving for things outside ourselves is what makes life life — I don’t want to learn to not want, that’s what people in prison have to do. Buddhism teaches suffering is inevitable. The only thing that’s inevitable is that if you have fake boobs and hair extensions, Tiger Woods will try to fuck you.”

Oh you silly and deluded quasi-comedic political pundit. Since when is Tiger Woods, a golfer, a spokesman for Buddhists? Does that mean that Woody Harrelson is a legitimate spokesman for the First Amendment? Had your crack research team done some real research, instead of using Google to find everything the Dalai Lama has said (or Richard Gere), they might have stumbled upon the concept that defining our happiness on sources, events and phenomenon outside of ourselves is surely a disappointing proposition. Come on, be honest about this. You have fame and wealth. If you suddenly lost that, would you still be happy? If you would be, then you have found the true happiness that can only be found within yourself. But if you would be terribly bummed if suddenly you lost all your television and publishing contracts, were foreclosed upon and couldn’t afford any longer the entertainment diversions you are currently accustomed to, then I would say you are suffering from the same delusion as a crack addict.

“People are always debating, is Buddhism a religion or a philosophy: it’s a religion. You’re a religion if you do something as weird as when the Buddhist monks scrutinize two-year-olds to find the reincarnation of the dude who just died, and then choose one of the toddlers as the sacred Lama: ‘His poop is royal!’ Sorry, but thinking you can look at a babbling, barely-housebroken, uneducated being and say, ‘That’s our leader’ doesn’t make you enlightened. It makes you a Sarah Palin supporter.”

All I can say is wow. Again, you are so focused on Tibetan Buddhism, and not just Tibetan Buddhism, but a very small sect within the larger sphere of Tibetan Buddhism. Yes, there are some kooky practices among the various sects of Buddhism. But that is not Buddhism. The Buddha never taught that there would be a re-incarnated leader of any particular sect. In fact, the Buddha never taught there was re-incarnation. He taught about re-birth. And this simple discrepancy again points to your sorely lacking research assistants that you must surely have, as big a television personality as you are.

Bill, I hope that you will do a bit more re-search about Buddhism before you make such ignorant comments in the future. You know, you just might find that the Buddha taught that ignorance is at the root of all our trouble. And someday, you might be facing some personal troubles. There’s that thing we Buddhists pay attention to called kamma. You should look into that. And not from a New York Times article either.

I thank Kyle at The Reformed Buddhist for the quotes. I visited Maher's blog and read the entire "piece." Also, credit must go to Rod at The Worst Horse for being among the first (if not the first) to address Maher's comments.

I am related to my kamma

This week in the world of news we had two extraordinary events that are connected in what appear to be an abstruse manner. But with both Tiger Woods and Joseph Stack, we have two examples of decidedly different ways to handle personal responsibility, and an opportunity to examine the element of kamma in each.

Today, Tiger Woods spoke publicly, and in my opinion, eloquently about his extramarital affairs, and in doing so, gave us a pretty clear picture of how he was going to deal with the consequences of his actions.

Just the day before, we had quite a different event with a desperate and deluded man opting to destroy his own life while attempting to destroy the lives of others. Joseph Stack felt trapped; but did he set his own trap and walk willingly into it?

After every sitting meditation session, I recite two things: the Loving Kindness chant and the Five Recollections. Within the Five Recollections is this line: I am the owner of my kamma, born of my kamma, related to my kamma, abide support in my kamma – whatever kamma I do, skillful or unskillful, to that I fall heir.

The key element to this particular verse for the purpose of this post is the phrase, “I am … related to my kamma …”

When I first heard this, I asked my teacher what it meant. He said it literally means that the people you are related to are part of your kamma. The parents I had was not an accident, nor was it “fate” or random that I have the siblings that I do. And all the people I’ve had other types of relations with – friendly, professional, intimate, antagonistic – are connected to my kamma. These people are in my life because of past actions, either in this present life or from a previous life. And how I manage these relationships determines whether I am abandoning kamma or creating more.

Holy shit, I thought. That is some heavy duty stuff. I was stunned with the concept. Because if these people are in my life because of past kammic action, then how I deal with them right now determines my future kamma and my future life!

Hold on to that thought for a moment.

Joseph Stack was a troubled man; that is not too difficult for anyone to see. His despair must have been profound. Yet, when you read his manifesto, it becomes very clear that he accepted no personal responsibility for his actions. He quite plainly took significant time to justify in his mind what he intended to do (remember, kamma is based on intent): “I would only hope that by striking a nerve that stimulates the inevitable double standard, knee-jerk government reaction that results in more stupid draconian restrictions people wake up and begin to see the pompous political thugs and their mindless minions for what they are. Sadly, though I spent my entire life trying to believe it wasn’t so, but violence not only is the answer, it is the only answer.”

What a desperate and deluded mind to reach such an ominous conclusion. And we learned that it wasn’t just the people in that building in Austin who were being targeted by his delusion. Prior to his fateful flight, the night before, he had a terrible argument with his wife, who fled with their daughter to spend the night elsewhere. Thank goodness for that. For the next day, Stack set fire to his home before he fled to attempt mass murder.

Now think about that phrase, “I am … related to my kamma …” Think of all the people Stack has pulled into his kammic universe. They will be back, whether he is reborn human or animal, these people will be back.

Now let us consider Tiger Woods. Did you watch his statement? I did, and while listening to him speak, even before he began talking about his Buddhist faith, I recalled the Buddha’s teaching to his son Rahula.

“Rahula, it’s like a royal elephant: immense, pedigreed, accustomed to battles, its tusks like chariot poles. Having gone into battle, it uses its forefeet & hindfeet, its forequarters & hindquarters, its head & ears & tusks & tail, but keeps protecting its trunk. The elephant trainer notices that and thinks, ‘This royal elephant has not given up its life to the king.’ But when the royal elephant... having gone into battle, uses its forefeet & hindfeet, its forequarters & hindquarters, its head & ears & tusks & tail & his trunk, the trainer notices that and thinks, ‘This royal elephant has given up its life to the king. There is nothing it will not do.’

“In the same way, Rahula, when anyone feels no shame in telling a deliberate lie, there is no evil, I tell you, he will not do. Thus, Rahula, you should train yourself, ‘I will not tell a deliberate lie even in jest.’”

While I listened to Woods speak, I saw a royal elephant. Granted, he completely messed things up with his wife and children, but you could tell he recognized that. He took complete and unequivocal responsibility for his own actions. He owned them. And he admitted that simply saying he was sorry wouldn’t change anything. He had to change. And by recognizing this, he has the opportunity in this life to diminish the kamma he has created.

Brit Hume is ignorant

We should forgive Brit Hume his ignorance, because the ignorance he displayed via his comment about Tiger Woods is, unfortunately, not limited to just a few people. For most monotheists, the idea of a religion that does not pay homage to a creator god is an anathema. Hence, anyone who practices Buddhism is incapable of obtaining forgiveness because only a creator god can forgive humans of their sinful ways. Of course, for we gays, the notion that being homosexual is a condition that requires one to be “saved” is an anathema to us.

Buddhism may actually be superior to monotheistic religions in guiding its practitioners toward a life of morality as opposed to a life of irresponsibility, as that is what the concept of “forgiveness” entails. It is a notion that when one “sins,” that action can be “forgiven,” or otherwise negated in that person’s life. The person is forgiven, the sin is forgotten.

This is not the case in reality, let alone Buddhism, as our actions set off a sequence of events that continue well on into the future, and if the action is considered a “sin” by others, the consequences will continue to manifest themselves well beyond any formal forgiveness. And besides, the act of forgiveness provides no assurance that the “sinful” act won’t be repeated.

Hence the beauty of Buddhism. As I have so frequently done, I will refer once again to the Rahula Sutta.

“In the same way, Rahula, when anyone feels no shame in telling a deliberate lie, there is no evil, I tell you, he will not do. Thus, Rahula, you should train yourself, ‘I will not tell a deliberate lie even in jest.’”

What the Buddha was teaching his son was that to prevent the re-committing of an unskillful act, it was important to cultivate a personal sense of shame. It didn’t matter so much what others thought about the act; what was more important to a person was how he or she personally viewed and interpreted that act. Unless a person feels shame at an unskillful act, the act will be repeated, because all action arises from the mind.

I was unaware that Tiger Woods was Buddhist, although it makes sense considering his mother is Thai. But if he had been raised in a Buddhist environment, the best thing for him to do is return to that Buddhist practice where he can develop the type of mindfulness that he would need to cultivate the proper sense of shame over his action and develop the skills he will need to curb his sensual desires. Failure to do so would mean that whatever kammic reactions he has set into motion by his infidelity and unskillful actions will continue for some time and quite possibly intensify.

Christianity will not help him accomplish that.

Buddhism is a supremely moral doctrine. Anyone who suggests otherwise, such as Brit Hume, is simply ignorant.