Dog prays at Japanese Zen temple

I just thought this was really cool and I wanted to share. Click on the title to see the article!

Chinese media: 'crush' Tibet protests

Notice? We are only hearing from the "Chinese media". Apparently, they are using videos of the violence to post photos of rioters on TV. People are then supposed to turn in their friends and family members. Doesn't that sound like a good time?

China is officially an atheist country. Your loyalty is supposed to be towards the State, not some "non-existent" deity or religion. Tibet, with a government that is officially "Tibetan Buddhist", which is a distinct form of Buddhism which evolved specifically in Tibet, is considered "feudal" and "medieval" by the "progressive" Chinese. From the Chinese point of view, they are helping Tibet. Tibet has tons of mineral resources on their land that would be just going to waste (from the Chinese point of view) if they were left to their own devices. The Chinese want to utilize those resources, and, in return, they want to "modernize" Tibet. Of course, Tibet didn't really agree that that needed modernization, any more than the Native Americans in this country did, but that is besides the point.

It is important, too, to realize that even though China is officially atheist, there are several religions that are practiced there, including Confucianism, Ancestor worship, Taoism, Buddhism, Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, Indigenous religions, and new religious movements such as Xiantianism and Falun Gong. There are also the remnants of Heaven Worship, Manichaeism and Zoroastrianism. With so much religious diversity, it is easy to see why the government may want to remain officially atheist.

The overwhelming attitude, though, is Confucsianism, with its emphasis on social order and personal responsibility to maintain it. Chaos is abhorrent and embarrassing, and China is no doubt mortified over the current conflict in Tibet. Under Confucsianism, the individual's responsibility is to maintain a peaceful and harmonious society. Hence, actions taken by the Chinese governement which may seem horrendous to us, may be accepted as necessary to maintain order to most Chinese. It is always important to realize that different people have different value systems.

Chinese troops converge in Tibetan areas

The situation is Tibet is a very serious one. Most Americans only even know where Tibet is because of the rock-star popularity of the Dalai Lama. Today the Chinese government has sent thousands of troops into Tibet to, allegedly, hunt down rioters. The question that has to be asked is obvious. How does one identify a "rioter" if they are not caught in the act of "rioting"? Call me paranoid, but I have a bad feeling that people are just going to rounded up indiscriminately and publicly executed. In addition, Beijing has warned tourists and journalists away from Tibet. This is also very significant. For one thing, tourism is a big income generator for the area (and, since it is part of China, presumably the rest of the country as well). So, a lost of tourism costs money. But, more importantly, journalists are being warned away. This is never a good sign. It appears to me that Beijing would like to "punish" the country for creating this embarrassing situation.

Which brings us back to the Dali Lama. Last week, he threatened to resign if the violence didn't stop. This was an interesting, even shocking, move on his part. China is accusing him of inciting the violence, but it is obvious, to me, anyway, that this is not the case. The Dali Lama is both the spiritual and the political leader of Tibet. He performs both functions from Darmsala, India, since he has been in exile since 1959. China, of course, is in a difficult position with this, because if they recognize the Dali Lama as leader, it implies that China is not completely in control of the region. However, when the Dali Lama says that he is going to resign, be must be talking about his political role, since his spiritual role is established by the fact that he is the 14th incarnation of the office. He cannot "resign" and still be alive.

This threat is a two-edge sword. On the one hand, it says to Tibet "You MUST stop the violence. If you do not, I will resign as your political leader, and you will be on your own." Why would he do such a thing? Why would he not stand beside his countrymen in their struggle for freedom? Because, the Dali Lama is the "incarnation of compassion". His whole being is a symbol of peace. And, besides, China is likely to squash them like a bug.

Secondly, it says to China "You must back off, or I will resign. That will leave Tibet with no leadership (since they do not recognize yours), and the entire area will fall into chaos and anarchy. This will be a very embarrassing situation for you right before you host the Olympics"

Hosting the Olympics is a big deal in the International Community. China has been working very hard in recent years to be taken seriously as a world power. The recent problems with poison dog food and lead contaminated toys have been real problems for them in the recent past. Just think what a large scale punitive public execution would do!

And, finally, do not underestimate the power of the rock-star in this country. China makes a LOT of money on us. What would happen if the U.S. finally enacted a large-scale boycott of all Chinese goods and services? We won't do it to strengthen our own economy, but perhaps we would do it for the Dali Lama. Wouldn't that be interesting?

This is big news.

CURRENTS / Religion gets personal

This was so interesting! This is an article from the Daily Yomiuri about new innovations in funerary customs in Japan.

"Buddhism came to play a big part in funeral services in Japan in the late Edo period (1603-1867) at the politically motivated instruction of the shogunate. Before that, community leaders had conducted rituals in accordance with Shinto-influenced customs when a member of their community died.

In an attempt to stamp out Christianity, the shogunate required all families to register with a temple and placed the Buddhist institution in charge of ritual care of the dead. With the funeral being such an important Christian rite, the shogunate could deduce that anyone who did not follow the Buddhist service after death was likely to be a Christian."

I had no idea that there was this much tension between the Shogun and the Christians in the 1600s, but it makes sense.

Taoist homosexuals turn to the Rabbit God

I found this in my email this morning.

My exposure to Taoism is mostly through the New Age Movement. New Agers tend to be very tolerant towards the LGBT community. However, it never occurred to me to wonder what Taiwanese Taoists think about the matter. This article was a gift!

Al-Qaida likely to attack US, intel says

As always, click on the title to see the referenced article.

I have spent a long time... many, many hours, trying to figure out what could or would be the possible benefit for "terrorist" groups to blow up innocent people, whether that be in the U.S., Iraq, Israel, or anywhere else, for that matter. Really, what are those folks trying to prove? "Do what we want or we will blow you up?" Does that make any sense? "Those people" (you decide for yourself who "those people" are) "are nothing but a bunch of violent, religious fanatics." Hardly. That logic doesn't make any sense, either.

I have finally come to a conclusion. My conclusion is, Terrorism, and, by that I mean suicide bombers, planes flown into big buildings, anything like that, is a Fund Raiser, in much the same way that some religious groups do mission/service trips.

For example, one of the way a church in this country may choose to raise funds is by doing some sort of "good work", like sending a group of people to New Orleans to help with clean up, for example. Before the actual trip takes place, the church may bring it up during collections or even by a direct mailing campaign to get people to contribute to this mission. This is how the trip is funded, and most of the money collected will probably go to the cost of the trip itself. While folks are down there working, there are pictures taken, and, usually, a minister will go with them. Then when they all get back, the pictures, which are pictures of people everyone knows from the congregation, dressed in hazmat suits shoveling muck in ruined houses, are published in the church bulletins, news letters, direct mailings, and anything else where the church can ask people for more money. This shows the people with the wallets what good work their church actually does, makes them feel good, and makes them want to be a part of that by contributing more money.

There is nothing wrong with this. This is how non-profit fundraising works, whether it is a religious organization, a charitable organization, or saving the whales. They ask their donors for money to do specific things, then they show their donors what they did, so that their donors will be more inclined to donate.

I am thinking, at this point, that we can view "al-Qaida", and similar groups, as "non-profit organizations". I think they are collecting money from donors, and then, when they pull off these big, deadly explosions and it makes lots of press, then their donors are more likely to donate again.

Now, I am not saying that blowing up people is morally the same as feeding hungry children. It is not. However, one of the Five Pillars of Islam is Zakah, or "alms-giving", and the amount given is based on the giver's wealth. So, my guess is that people who donate to terrorism see some benefit to themselves. Obviously, large numbers of very poor, oppressed, depressed people are going to feel angry at U.S. apparent affluence and conspicuous consumption. It is the rule in non-profit fundraising that the most amount of money comes from large numbers of small donations.

How about wealthy people, though? Who, among the world's wealthiest people, could benefit the most from a destabilization of the U.S. economy? This is a question that I don't have an answer for, but I would guess it has something to do with oil production. I am a religious scholar, not a macro-economist, and I will be the first to admit it.

However, I would be interested in hearing from people who ARE macro-economists. The bottom line here is this: In all things, follow the money.