Before reading this chapter zandtao wants to warn you that he is looking at tathata - what is what. When we examine what is there in daily life, then there is conditioning involved. When we consider tathata there are kilesa that zandtaomed examines as greed, hate and delusion. Even the greedy and haters accept that these are defilements but tathata is in many ways concerned with delusion. For most people in daily life they do not see the pervasiveness of conditioning and do not see the level of delusion this conditioning brings.
For most Buddhists examination of daily life does not go beyond the recognition of dukkha and the recognition of defilement. Do Buddhists connect kilesa to socio-political establishment? In this chapter zandtao does. This arises from zandtaomed advice incorporated in the Seeker Story. Through the Seeker Story, zandtaomed asks seekers to examine family impact on their personal history as well as examine socio-political impact on their family and therefore their personal history. At no time does zandtaomed or zandtao take a political position but he does ask for a clarity in the way socio-political structures have developed from kilesa, and that clarity can be difficult because it confronts conditioning.
If the work on the Seeker Story has not been done, then reading this chapter could be difficult because it will be read from a position where certain conditioning has not been questioned. This can lead to the triggering of emotional reactions and emotive rejection. If when you read this chapter you find yourself rejecting the use of some words, take time to investigate this until you have built up a relationship with such concepts - not a reaction to concepts gained from conditioning. Building this relationship takes time because investigating conditioning takes time. At no point does zandtao take a view, any acceptance of such terms has arisen from experience within his own Seeker Story; if words are accepted or rejected by belief, by acceptance or rejection of an ideology, then the advice in this chapter might not be of value to you. When it comes to writings in the Prajna portal zandtao works on the basis that seekers have crossed the threshold in some way; following zandtaomed's Seeker Story would lead to that - and lead to an autonomy in the seeker that would not disturb the seeker's path (see the warning).
The love that is a Dhamma comrade - Real Love - cannot be touched by the conditions that create kilesa - by patriarchal conditioning. This is why patriarchy is inimical to love, and why through real love we can start to end patriarchy replacing it with love and the other Dhamma comrades. At the same time love that is affected by conditioning is not this Dhamma love, love that has attachment is not real love.
In this way we can look at love and ask if it is real. Love that is possessive is egoic, love that is clung to is egoic, love that enrages us is egoic. Feeling love is powerful but it is loving, rage associated with love is not loving but violent. In this way we can see romantic love for what it is - love plus egos at best.
But patriarchy promotes male violence and uses love as an excuse. Frustration that arises for many men in patriarchy becomes abuse and violence towards their lovers because of the ego that possesses - and possesses itself. The loved one becomes the object of their frustration within patriarchy bringing about fear and violence that many women (and other partners) have to suffer. The abuse stems from patriarchy and not genuine love which has no violence and is quite simply freedom - liberating.
A way we can cope with the restrictions on love from patriarchy is with wise loving or equanimity. Through our meditation we can develop the love-wisdom balance that leads to tathata, this love-wisdom balance is the brahma-vihara equanimity. With equanimity we promote the feelings of love but with wisdom we recognise the dangers that such feelings can cause if there is attachment. We recognise that love is liberating, that our practice includes feeling love but we use our wisdom to ensure that our love remains liberating and does not develop the destruction of attachment. Throughout looking at real love with bell hooks we have seen that patriarchy restricts love in family, it restricts individuals and society from living in siladhamma,
In this chapter (12) we are going to look at issues that might disturb our equanimity to see where they come from – starting with bell’s ch 11.
“The worship of death is a central component of patriarchal thinking, whether expressed by women or men” [bell's Love Ref 16.7]. Is there a worship of death? Let’s be clear patriarchy causes death in others. War is an integral part of imperialist, white-supremacist, capitalist patriarchy. Historically the rich have used war to increase their wealth; when we take a historical perspective there is a continuity in this strategy of the rich, no break – no change. However there has been a strategic change in the US following Vietnam, the backlash against the war has led to an imperial understanding that “our own” cannot be conscripted to join a war. Now the US fights wars only by those who choose war - with an increase in propaganda to ensure that there will be sufficient cannon-fodder. Sadly war continues to cause the deaths of war victims and the fewer cannon-fodder attracted to fight for their “country”.
Imperialism as war is the means by which capitalism expands its markets and widens its hegemony thus enabling an increase of profits, the increased market size and appropriating new resources to further increase profits. Does this lead to a worship of death? Maybe. There is however an unacceptable acceptance of war, mostly enabled by delusion - the kilesa conditioning of delusion. There is not only an increased propaganda at the time of war but also a celebration of war in entertainment throughout. And on a micro level this becomes personal violence to prove a point. Once an individual accepts personal violence to prove a point (or whatever the violence is used for), then it is an easy extension that nations establish the right to war. There is a war narrative presenting the other side as the aggressor meriting violence to address the moral wrongdoing, but in reality war is historically shown as an extension of territory for national gain – gain by the capitalists, however the delusions is presented to soldiers and ordinary people.
Historically nations have exploited men to fight these wars but more recently women have proved equally effective especially with the technical weapons of war. This is a sad impact of feminism that women demand the right to be exploited as soldiers, and now entertainment celebrates such soldier women in the way men have been celebrated throughout.
But (so far) zandtao doesn’t see it as a worship of death but a celebration of war - war that is presented as righteous by the conditioning; in the clarity of history's perspective this war just leads to increased profits – with the collateral damage of death.
In support of her death-worship hypothesis bell discusses the US gun-toting home-owner killing to protect their property – killing the stranger – the other. Killing in defence of personal property is personal violence that is predicated on war, the nation invading to protect their land. But it is the US, and through lack of first-hand experience zandtao doesn’t understand how the conditioning has produced such a gun culture. But the US hegemony has the most military bases across the world – and in defence of the “good old US of A” is apparently sufficient motivation for this – sufficient motivation for war – sufficient motivation for killing a stranger in defence of property.
But property being more important than the life of an “other” person (usually separated by race or class) is essential in a materialist capitalist culture, materialism having a higher motivation than love of life. This greed and hate can cost lives on a personal level but more on the stage of war. We are encouraged to invest ourselves in the materialism of our homes but not in love as the purpose of home.
Is there a lovelessness – a lack of respect for life – within this violence? With love there would not be this violence because love would find solutions other than killing. Worship of death in the USA – possible, but still a stretch. But bell was a black woman living in a society where police kill black people with impunity. For zandtao this is still not a worship of death but he can understand a black person feeling that way – facing daily violence as well as living in a country always involved in war.
Bell described the death of an Asian at the door:- “White supremacy has taught him ( -homeowner) that all people of color are threats irrespective of their behavior. Capitalism has taught him that, at all costs, his property can and must be protected. Patriarchy has taught him that his masculinity has to be proved by the willingness to conquer fear through aggression; that it would be unmanly to ask questions before taking action. Mass media then brings us the news of this in a newspeak manner that sounds almost jocular and celebratory, as though no tragedy has happened, as though the sacrifice of a young life was necessary to uphold property values and white patriarchal honor. Viewers are encouraged to feel sympathy for the white male home owner who made a mistake. The fact that this mistake led to the violent death of an innocent young man does not register; the narrative is worded in a manner that encourages viewers to identify with the one who made the mistake by doing what we are led to feel we might all do to “protect our property at all costs from any sense of perceived threat.” This is what the worship of death looks like” [bell's Love Ref 16.10]. This can’t be argued with – different to zandtao's culture, but zandtao can see similarities with British culture; if we had the gun, maybe we would be saying the same thing. In Britain such mental conditioning is present, fortunately the gun isn’t. Racism in the police force is a problem. Miscarriages of racial injustice have happened - including death in custody. Police have guns but people don’t; police racism does not have this unacceptable excuse for killing black people the same way as the US.
US imperialism is feared throughout the world, no-one can forget that the US is the only country which has used nuclear weapons as more than a deterrent in Japan. Whilst bell’s description of patriarchy is imperialist, white-supremacist, capitalist patriarchy, her look at violence does not include imperialism – the exportation of violence overseas by the US. This century there has been imperialist wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria, all geopolitical manoeuvrings of the US hegemony; we could also talk about the throttling of Venezuela. And as yet the deaths in Ukraine have not been recognised as part of NATO expansion, a very ominous turn - fighting on behalf of the US hegemony (NATO) has been carried out by Ukrainians and not Americans. This does not bode well for the future, who will fight for US expansion next?
When discussing death bell mentions none of this in her Visions of Love (Ukraine happened after her death), even though her patriarchy talks of imperialism; zandtao doesn't understand the omission of deaths caused by the US outside the US in this book. When she talks of worship of death, she is talking about deaths internally. And she chooses the death of an Asian. But what about all the deaths caused by patriarchal oppression that occur within gang culture; zandtao doesn’t know her work well enough to say if there is avoidance of imperialism causing deaths through gang culture. Perhaps if she included these she would not talk of worship of death in US culture but simply the creation of death.
In the UK thoughout zandtao's lifetime there has been a greater fear of death although that is getting lost in the young. The community bill grew up in was a fearful white community for whom his parents’ generation had been involved in the 2nd world war. Quite rightly there was fear of the devastation of war, but sadly and somewhat ironically that fear moved the people politically to the right where fascism abides. Why do apparently clear-thinking people accept the conditioning that the warmongers of the right espouse the politics that will keep us away from war? Around us there is such powerful propaganda that makes this state of affairs a reality. From outside the US, it appears that the war in Vietnam had a greater impact than the 2nd world war. However as described in the Marshall Plan, the US control and the way they intervened in the war in Europe led to their global hegemony; it also appears from the outside that the fearful European post-war years were years of US prosperity – the spoils of the Marshall Plan.
What about the fear of death compared with the love of life? Fear of death follows from the preparation for war through immunity to violence. Zandtao is constantly afraid of the violence of the MAWPs but that is not “fear of death”. The violence that soldiers are trained for uses the same violence these MAWPs have, only MAWPS are not honed to kill just intimidate to get their own way - bullies. Add a gun to British MAWPs and you might well have US culture with an increased lack of compassion for death.
Why does zandtao fear the violence of these MAWPs? Because it is directed against those who don’t have right-wing views, it is directed against anti-racists, feminists – they threaten women but the violence is often against men because of their code of no public violence to women. But let’s be clear these men would typically be violent to women in the home, because they accept violence to get their own way.
Accepting violence to get your own way is a key tenet of patriarchy. Personal violence and institutional violence, including the violence of the mild bureaucrat who has the violence of law and military behind them, are the ways we interact. In bill's teaching time violence at schools was not upheld, but institutional intimidation was common-place. Often this intimidation was there simply to support the continuation of institutional ethics and mores. Bill used the power of the institution to support his teaching, he thought it was always for the sake of education but it might not have been. For other teachers misuse to support their egos happened, maintaining the power of the office etc. The boundaries between misuse and good practice were never clear especially if teachers did not understand or accept they were in a corporate paradigm – most teachers do not accept that.
So we have intimidation being culturally accepted. With such intimidation rage is a typical response that if attached to can lead to violence, and violence is what is needed to support war. What breaks this conditioning is path or love – loving life. We can love life and avoid attachment to such institutional violence and intimidation. It is not easy but possible. In fact loving life and choosing to avoid such institutional conditioning could be a description of the path; please don’t waste time confronting institutions unless necessary, people working in institutions are invested in their functioning and will defend them. Institutions are part of the patriarchy, they have the weight of the patriarchy behind them, working around patriarchy is a sound way of living a loving life.
Bell talks of our loveless society being unable to express grief. “To cling to grief, to desire its expression, is to be out of sync with modern life, where the hip do not get bogged down in mourning” [bell's Love Ref 16.18]. Above zandtao discussed war as an integral part of the patriarchy - imperialist, white-supremacist, capitalist patriarchy. Somehow to accept war we have to stand back and not empathise with the grief of people who have not chosen war. The patriarchy cannot allow empathy for their grief so in general our grief is not expressed; we can then feel indifferent to the weeping and wailing of those whose family have been unjustly killed in a war for profit. Can there be anything more unjust than drones? To kill a target – a supposed terrorist – it is considered acceptable just to drop a bomb on a family gathering. Somehow to accept this we have to be able to accept the weeping and wailing at such injustice. And such injustice has an important consequence for war, the unjust killing of innocents means that the survivors legitimately join the war as opposition. There is no justice for the Israeli occupation of Palestine but good people in Israel, and many Jews elsewhere, accept the occupation because for the 75 years since the Exodus Jewish people have been killed by Palestinians. How do you end a war when both sides are fighting because family have been killed?
There is also a profit-motive for not living grief. When stoicism returns people to work, instead of those people creating integration through grief and the legitimate release of pain, those people are making profits – not for themselves and their grieving family but for the patriarchy. When the stoic return to work, other people watch and then feel guilty if, when Nature makes it their turn to grieve, they want to stay at home and release their pain the way Nature intended. Whatever the reasons for not grieving those non-grievers benefit the patriarchy, an individual will always benefit through the legitimate release of pain.
“To be loving is to be open to grief, to be touched by sorrow, even sorrow that is unending. The way we grieve is informed by whether we know love. Since loving lets us let go of so much fear, it also guides our grief” [bell's Love Ref 16.19]. As usual love shows us the way to live but as always love is in conflict with patriarchy. The above two reasons (two quotes from bell) that the patriarchy would not want grief are simply a part of patriarchal totality that prevents us from loving – a loveless patriarchy. It is easy to dismiss reasons such as the above about war and grieving or profit and grieving as being extreme if viewed in isolation or viewed from the deluded position that our system intends to be compassionate. But if we view our loveless patriarchy as a totality, then compassion is the exception not the rule. People themselves are rooted in compassion but are forced by patriarchy to live lives that are exploited for the profits of the patriarchy, we are all compromised in this way. When we ask how do we change this, there is no easy answer. Pathtivism or following the path does not describe clear and easy actions, it describes a lifetime of following the path; how do we commit to that path when we don’t exactly know what it is? So to varying extents non-seekers accept patriarchy, and its consequences; we tend to agree with the feeble delusions patriarchy offers because it is easier.
Except by making such agreements we are creating more loss – more death, more grief, more loss. Acceptance of patriarchy is leading us inevitably into destruction of our current way of life. Let’s look at that more. Firstly, does zandtao promote a political party? No. Does he promote a particular ideal? Yes and no. He promotes pathtivism – follow your path. What is your path? You must learn for yourself. Why is this a way out? Because our paths come from nature, nature is looking after us. Does nature need to look after us? In a sense nature does, but nature need not, nature will survive whether we do or not.
Is it necessary to be so extreme as to say "patriarchy is leading us inevitably into destruction of our current way of life"? By being "so extreme" zandtao is not avoiding anything. In the past he has avoided use of the term patriarchy because propaganda has managed to convince us that patriarchy means we are subscribing to political extremism. But what is the reality? Isn't what patriarchy takes us into extreme? In Buddhism there is a term, tathata, a word that simply says this is the way it is. Look at death and war, is this the way it is or not? Is there propaganda to delude us about war? Are wars fought for profits or justice? Sit back with mindfulness. Ignore what you see in the media and try to understand for yourself what is happening. Try to go beyond the conditioning of your upbringing and ask yourself “why are we fighting these wars?”
As discussed elsewhere, ask yourself what is patriarchy? Is it a few chauvinist men laughing at feminism? Is it more than that? How does it affect us? How does imperialist, white-supremacist, capitalist patriarchy affect us? Forget the images associated with these statements. Forget the conditioning that this is something young people grow out of as they accept what is required in life. Look at it with mindfulness.
Look at our world with mindfulness not with conditioning. Look at our world with compassion and not with the delusions patriarchy wants us to see with. Look at the world for what it is. In Buddhism we can conveniently look at the world in terms of kilesa – greed hate and delusion, and we can say it is up to us to remove our own greed, hate and delusion. Will that change what is happening in the world? It will help us individually, but will it change the world? Removing kilesa in individuals will still leave the causes and conditions that create the defiled world as it is. What else do we do? Very little. The problem is we cannot remove the kilesa of others, they must do it for themselves. They must see the causes and conditions that have created the kilesa in them and remove them.
Can we have a government that bans kilesa? Can we force people to follow their paths? With the conditioning as it is people are forced to be wage-slaves, and they are forced to contribute to maintaining the patriarchy. Can we stop that? We can use our compassion to avoid contributing to it as much as possible. Politicos propose socialism, and when it doesn’t work they can become greedy; for many socialists compassion is not the source of their struggle. A system of ideals cannot work without compassion. What matters is compassion! When we remove kilesa we uncover our own compassion.
When we reflect human nature has to dictate that the greatest injustice is war. Can there be any greater suffering than war? Yet for many of us our leaders are choosing war for whatever delusion. War simply kills ourselves. It also destroys our environment making it difficult for humanity. Life will survive but will humanity?
When bell talks of patriarchy worshipping death zandtao has doubts but don't we accept death in others far too easily – without compassion? Because of this acceptance have we lost our empathy with human loss, both in ourselves and in others? Use your mindfulness and ask if this is true.
When we use our mindfulness we do not have kilesa, we do not accept conditioning, and we do not accept death. But do we engage with this issue? Or do we accept delusions that the patriarchal conditioning of society asks us to engage with? Take your mindfulness and look at this carefully. Engage these issues with your compassion. Don’t accept the conditioning and propaganda, be mindful, see the world for what it is, and base your decisions on the reality of what is and not on the conditioning of your upbringing.
Base your decisions on what is and base resulting actions on sampajanna - wise action as a result of what is. Use your mindfulness to see through the delusions before it is too late. Do not let propaganda let you avoid analysis, because the words used are extreme. Look at the world without delusion, make your decisions and actions based on what is and not on what a few rich people tell you what they want to pretend it to be. War and death from war is extreme. It is extreme for a country to be at war. If a country is always at war, then questions have to be asked about what that country is doing. If it is your country, what are you doing? Can seekers accept these words of patriarchy and extremism? It is hard to look at unjust death with compassion. See war and death for what they are.
Loss and grief, zandtao grieves for all those who suffer and die unnaturally. That is compassion, that is the path. But the path of love can accept grief if the path is love; delusion and avoidance are not love, it is not the truth, it is not the way life is. See life for what it is.
What about this wage-slavery that is part of the capitalism of patriarchy? Historically the way to end slavery has been slave revolt, when sufficient of the current wage-slaves recognise their enslavement presumably that will happen. As with all slavery most wage-slaves have only one choice - to revolt or not, and such a revolt is unlikely to be immediate because of the level of accepted conditioning; outside the decision to revolt they have little control. Within trade unionism this revolt was channelled, wage-slaves for whom their slavery became an issue would be active for increased wages; but even that has been taken from them. In one sense that removal of minimal power is good, demanding wage increases without planet sustainability is socially irresponsible.
It is reasonable to contend that the 1%-accumulators are aware of this indenture of their workers - these wage-slaves, but these leaders are the people who profit the most from patriarchy and in their conditioned state are unliklely to advocate their own downfall. But they require far wider complicity than their own awareness to maintain this wage-slavery, they have a complicity through governments, they manipulate the leaders of wage-slave organisations and their political allies, thus creating a defiled world in which the conditioning maintains the wage-slavery. Spiritual leaders could also work with people to make them aware of their wage-slavery but do they? Zandtao is not asking for spiritual leaders to become the leaders of workers’ movements but do such leaders accept wage-slavery as part of tathata? Does their understanding of what is what accept patriarchy or do they avoid such awareness?
Would awareness of wage-slavery benefit all workers? What if such a slave needs money to take care of a family but is personally repulsed by being a wage-slave? For example discussing wage-slavery in a pulpit might not be appropriate, but what is appropriate is that the actions of spiritual leaders be influenced by an awareness of tathata which includes wage-slavery. How many religions are given donations by these wage-slaves, money that such people cannot afford? Do religious organisations maintain patriarchy or work against it? These are questions for religious practice, but does such questioning arise? How do spiritual organisations legitimately continue to work within patriarchy? It is legitimate to ask spiritually-aware leaders to be conscious of patriarchy and respond appropriately, zandtao does not accept that this is happening. Doesn’t our real love extend to freeing people from slavery whatever its form?
Does the understanding of spiritual leaders include the recognition that the conditioning of patriarchy tries to exclude love? Many people celebrate their lasting love such as marriage through religious ceremony, does that ceremony promote love? Does it promote love over patriarchy? Does it present patriarchy as an enemy of this love? Given the historical relationship between religious institutions and the system, zandtao asks those institutions to raise the questions. In the end, slaves can mostly only escape through revolt, but sound leadership could change the dynamics of wage-slavery. What if the profits of wage-slavery were returned to the society rather than to the accounts of a few? What if leadership examined the working conditions of the wage-slaves and made them more humane? What if leadership held the worst excesses of capitalism in the patriarchy accountable? At present it appears that only some within wage-slave (labour) organisations are asking these questions, but why aren't all compassionate leaders, as part of their own recognition of tathata, questioning - especially the religious leaders. Do we want the death and suffering that would come with revolt? Wage-slaves have had their power taken from them; it is not they who can make change, it is the leaders of society who can but they have allowed the current wage-slavery to exist – albeit having evolved from worse states of slavery. Doesn't compassion ask all leaders to improve the conditioning in this defiled world? Love is an important way of ending the defilement. At the very least shouldn't spiritual organisations be questioning their own practice so that the way their organisations are seen to function does not reinforce systemic patriarchal bias? Shouldn't they lead by example - even if the organisation chooses that discussing prevailing patriarchal limitations would not be constructive?
Zandtao has faith in the path and the authentic people who are following their paths; these people are questioning. But what about avoidance, avoidance that comes about because authentic people don’t want to cause offence within their institution or even outside? Avoidance is kilesa, seekers try to limit avoidance. But leadership – that is the key, because of the wage-slavery the only source of change is leadership. If spiritual leadership avoids in order to maintain acceptance by the establishment that compromise has far-reaching implications. Because of wage-slavery humanity relies on leadership, but that leadership is compromised. Zandtao apologises to the leadership who are asking the questions and creating change, but such leadership must see that no matter how much their work is good global leadership is causing damage.
Let zandtao now address wage-slaves. Can you free yourselves in any way and go beyond conditioning? Can you embrace love and go beyond conditioning – even if only partially? Recognise that leadership is failing you. Whatever good leaders are doing; the accumulators are increasing their wealth and a life-sustaining planet is being destroyed. Although as a wage-slave your responsibility has been taken from you, maybe in certain ways you can go beyond conditioning? Love is one way to do this, maybe within your slavery you can be more loving. It is not a solution but a step in the right direction. Loving. In your wage-slavery the patriarchy encourages fear but instead you encourage colleagues to go beyond fear – to be loving despite the slavery you are working at. “It is the practice of love that transforms. As one gives and receives love, fear is let go” [bell's Love Ref 17.25].
“The transformative power of love is not fully embraced in our society because we often wrongly believe that torment and anguish are our “natural” condition. This assumption seems to be affirmed by the ongoing tragedy that prevails in modern society” [bell's Love Ref 17.26]. Who benefits from this “natural” condition? The profits of the accumulators within the patriarchy. Yet if we love, who benefits? We do. Despite the system we are a part of as wage-slaves, we can benefit. Don’t use the patriarchy’s measures of wealth to tie you down, free yourself through love. “When we love, we no longer allow our hearts to be held captive by fear” [bell's Love Ref 17.26]. Despite being a wage-slave parts of us are freed by this love. “Power gives us the illusion of having triumphed over fear, over our need for love” [bell's Love Ref 17.26]. Even within wage-slavery some are given power over others. If we allow our egos to attach to that power then we increase the burdens on others, yet if we use that power in a loving way we lessen the burdens on others – no matter what the patriarchy wants. Please don’t allow power-illusions to increase burdens – be loving.
Bell goes on to discuss shame. In terms of patriarchy shame is conformism, shame limits personal expression – personal freedom. Shaming has become an internet phenomenon, and a serious issue for teenagers. This increases the conformity at a stage of human development where there is the beginning of creativity and learning through experience rather than conditioning. How does this benefit patriarchy?
Bill experienced some middle-class conformity, conformity without personal investment in his case. This conformity leads to nuclear family, career and huge profits for the rich - a capitalist dream. Teenage rebellion has always taken away from this conveyor belt, shaming decreases that likelihood. How can zandtao blame patriarchy? What can be done? It is something that is “let happen”, far more could be done to prevent shaming. But shaming conforms the rebellious, the desire to restrict this shaming comes not from the patriarchal system but from individuals who have suffered. The teenagers who suffer are the “outliers”, students on the edge either trying to fit in or beginning to show rebellion; shaming brings them into the net.
In adults shaming also acts as a process of conformity. People express themselves often under drug influence, then they feel guilt and shame lessening the occurrence of such expressions. In terms of siladhamma such actions often do need reigning in but the reality of shame is that it is social convention that drives the shame – conformity. With bill's own alcohol addiction shame was not a big factor because he fragmented his alcohol-self. Through upheaval bill was less willing to be dictated to by convention as he saw it as conditioning, but there were many actions that did not fit into siladhamma. In maturity zandtao recognised siladhamma is the measure of action for those following the path; at times siladhamma appears like moral conformity but the difference is that siladhamma is of nature, benefits the individual and is not a conformity that necessarily enables patriarchy.
“And it is then that many of us first learn that it is a virtue to be silent about pain” [bell's Love Ref 18.16]. Internalising pain is self-destructive. It creates fragments, that are part of the lack of completion - lack of integration; integration - the foundation of love. An integrated person can see conditioning, and does not accept the conformity of patriarchal upbringing. An integrated person values completion intentionally dealing with fragmentation, and through this process sees how patriarchal conditioning fragments through internalisation - the "virtue of being silent about pain"; this "virtue" is not siladhamma.
Bell recognised a patriarchal response to shame - “As more people have found the courage to break through shame and speak about woundedness in their lives, we are now subjected to a mean-spirited cultural response, where all talk of woundedness is mocked” [bell's Love Ref 18.16]. Zandtao sees this as a part of increased investment in right-wing intellectualism to divide, a patriarchal investment that divides community and separates the 99%. In describing this aspect of the Dark Web people have recognised a commonality of anti-socialist intellectual sentiment; zandtao wonders whether this commonality of sentiment could be seen as similar to Jordan Peterson’s resistance to compassion. Why can’t there be the humane response of compassion towards the wounded? This loving recognition hurts no-one. In all our lives there are times of being wounded – that is natural in life, why can’t we help each other through these woundings?
Who does it benefit to have an increase in mean-spiritedness? If you have been reading what is written here, you know the answer already - it is patriarchy. But why? This mean-spiritedness is cultivated in certain men – patriarchy, although women-supporting-patriarchy have shown such spirits. It is a spirit that divides community, not simply along racial lines but perhaps more importantly in western society within the white community as well. It is a mean-spiritedness that creates an apartheid, an enclave within society, and enclave means rigid thinking, defensive thinking, an inability to be open and tolerant. Within apartheid states there was a mutual acceptance that within those states there was a common correctness, and outside were wrong and did not understand. Within the apartheid communities that have been created within western society, there is a similar exclusivity. There is little logical sense to this commonality. Woke are taking over, taking our jobs, when woke people tend to be relatively feeble. There is little criticism of the owners – the 1%-satrapy – the patriarchy, the people who actually decide on who has the jobs, because this is where the investment comes from. So leaders within this apartheid substructure target the woke, what bill used to know of as self-interested liberals within education, people who have little power, loud voices and a dedication to the system that feeds them voicing some criticism but never significantly rocking the boat that enables their mortgages.
Patriarchy needs little sense in the way it controls. In the wider society investment in mean-spirited division does little for anyone except the few intellectuals gaining from this investment, and the majority of society loses as we lose empathy for the suffering of others, for the wounded, and such lack of empathy detracts from the development of a loving society. But of course patriarchy benefits through the instability of division, that then leads to the individualism of right-wing survivalism – an intellectualism where community is separated from self-interest – every man for himself.
What does make sense is a recognition that patriarchy creates an underlying conditioned rage. If zandtao puts words to this rage it is that there is injustice and the people supposedly tasked with overcoming this injustice, our political leaders, are not helping the enraged. Because the satrapy are now beginning to exploit the white-right, these people, previously advantaged in the patriarchy, now see non-whites being favoured by those in power. Progressives and non-whites know this is true only in some cases and continue to work for equality, the Liberal woke bleat promoting identity politics that ultimately has no power, and the patriarchy maintain their profits at the expense of everyone.
With this sort of ill-informed conditioned rage common sense does not always follow. Pathtivism can deal with this rage of conditioning. It does not ask for anyone to follow a set of beliefs, it simply asks people to follow their own paths. When you see the ease with which conditioning enabled voting for Bojo, when you see the ease with which the US hegemony has influenced discussion on the Ukraine so that good-minded people are not able to call for a diplomatic solution, you begin to see a powerful level of conditioning yet at the same time a very limited level of awareness that such conditioning exists. Since Marx in the mid-19th century this rage has been channelled into views either for or against Marx, and over time the patriarchy has been able to use these different views for division. Holding to views in such an entrenched way is part of the conditioning, and pathtivism asks people to recognise the level of conditioning within the patriarchy and begin to SEE through it. Without SEEing there will be a continuation of the same divide-and-rule politics that has characterised 20th century struggle, and which has seen increasing accumulation especially in the 21st century. Unfortunately the struggle has responded with more of the 20th century rhetoric without seeing this has been controlled and exploited.
With the increasing strength of the patriarchy love will be distanced further by this conditioning, conditioning of shame, fear, and promoting the isolation of nuclear family. The spiritual quest for love whether as pathtivism or not is a revolutionary counter to this exploitation. Love goes beyond the conditioning that maintains patriarchy, simply by loving the conditioning creaks. Compassion strikes at the internal apartheid structures patriarchy is currently creating, and through these deep human feelings deep human essence undermines the conditioning that separates us. Love counters the very kilesa that patriarchy relies on, working against the hate, disabling the greed and shining light on the delusions that patriarchy create for us.
With equanimity we can see how rage can develop from Real Love, yet this rage is attachment. Love provides the fire that could become rage, but wisdom channels that fire; this is the equanimity that is active but detached. If we ignore the feelings that could become rage there is imbalance. The feelings that arise with zandtao's compassion want to enrage him, that is a process of real love; his equanimity uses the energy of that real love wisely including not attaching to those feelings to create rage. This is not a detachment to develop calm, a calm that might ignore the feelings that arise from the love-wisdom; it is a wise detachment that acts wisely embracing the feelings of love and compassion. Throughout the bell hooks section of Real Love there has been the connection between love and patriarchy, patriarchy intentionally restricts love. For a compassionate person without wisdom this real love could be enraging, with wisdom there is sampajanna. For leadership there is the ongoing dilemma. If they act against patriarchy will the institution survive? If they don't act against patriarchy how much harm is done?
As written earlier zandtao's equanimity is tested by the death from war, and so much more that arises from patriarchy. As an elder zandtaomed tries to help seekers follow their paths. As described in this advice, Tathata of 2 Conditionings, conditioning has 2 aspects:-
conditioning that arises from birth through instinct to help us survive to adulthood
the conditioning that arises in society to propagate the kilesa – patriarchy
Through meditation individuals can be helped to cope with the attachments that arise through conditioning. This is what zandtaomed advises. But as zandtao seeks into Prajna real love increases feelings - vedana, feelings about the way humanity is going – tathata – in terms of that aspect of the conditioning, compassionate feelings that arise as a consequence of patriarchal conditioning. Throughout this 2nd section it is clear that love works against patriarchy with feelings arising because patriarchy works against love. Along with all the other damage caused by patriarchy patriarchy working against love is a huge problem.
But with tathata we can see the source of this problem, this is the gift of meditation, the gift of the path. Nature gives us conditioning to survive childhood but as a consequence of the kilesa that arise the conditioning of patriarchy develops. As individuals we can work on our own kilesa, follow our paths and contribute to the reduction of the kilesa in the patriarchy. In a way this is what Buddhism and the offshoot of mindfulness movement does.
But when we begin to SEE through tathata, do we SEE this is not enough? The collective life of the kilesa in patriarchy appears far stronger than the collective individual development along their own paths. Mindfulness and tathata give us the ability to SEE this comparative strength, and it also gives us the ability to SEE how this strength arises. Zandtao asks leaders to use their tathata to SEE how the patriarchy is functioning, and to embody their sampajanna to act appropriately. Overall the teachings direct us to personal development through meditation (eg zandtaomed's advice), and to examine the conditioning of kilesa, but the teachings tend to avoid the connection between kilesa and patriarchy - the system of kilesa conditioning. Unfortunately apart from a few discredited progressive activists and some spiritual leaders, most aspects of our leadership avoid noting the connection, and with patriarchy's increasing strengths greater ahimsa is created. Given that this greater harm is being created and given that it is approaching a species-extinction event, is it not time for all leadership to step up and with their wisdom point out what patriarchy is doing? Observing the way many spiritual leaders do not discuss patriarchy with many not pointing out the source of the problem as patriarchy, zandtao feels love beginning to feel frustration and rage. With upekkha he hopes that wisdom controls the love that arises but he continually comes back to the question should leadership stand up?
Because of the power of patriarchy wellness as typified by the mindfulness movement is not a sufficient response to patriarchy. As patriarchy restricts love, should love’s response be to use its wisdom to address patriarchy and determine improved sampajanna? It is necessary to use wisdom to examine patriarchy and the way it functions in society. Through the Seeker Story zandtaomed has done this on an individual level. In this z-quest zandtao questions our leaders; with their tathata-developed understanding of patriarchy and its impact, is there a need for a wise response beyond that at an individual level? Does love require more than a response of wellness? Does love require a response to the systemic causes of kilesa?
What is the core of patriarchy? Isn’t it accumulation - primarily for white men? The kilesa of enormously excessive greed. Doesn’t all the kilesa in our patriarchy follow on from this one kilesa – the profits for the few? If that is the case why isn’t wise leadership calling out these few? When love gives rise to feelings concerning this obscene greed it has to ask why our wise leadership is not doing this- calling out the profits of the few?
It is mainly Marxism and various forms of socialism in the world of conditioning that have offered a solution, the uprising of the 99% (proletariat). Let us examine the tathata of this possibility. Yes this world view has identified the source of the problem, an economic model that creates profits for the few. Tathata can then see the consequences of this economic model, the species-extinction event of humanity as a consequence of destructive behaviour towards Mother Earth. Tathata can then see other patriarchal consequences of this model including the restricting of real love discussed in this book.
But tathata has to ask if there has been any evidence to support the Marxist solution of revolution, violent or otherwise. Basically there is no such evidence. Since mid-19th century in various countries there have been relatively successful revolutions which have temporarily reduced the excesses of exploitation, but because the economic model is global individual isolated countries get sucked back into that economy. And the death and violence of the revolution have amounted to minimal benefit - minimal reduction of ahimsa. Excesses have been temporarily reduced but the problem has not been solved. Again within this world of conditionality there have been many sound analyses concerning these failures, some analyses are Marxist and some are anti-Marxist.
Tathata also asks how can we expect 99% to unify against 1%? There is a logical commonality amongst the 99% that the 1% have historically always exploited them initially as serfs and now as wage-slaves. Whilst there have always been people revolting against servitude it has still remained this common form of exploitation. Our kilesa conditioning through formal education offers us a choice of “careers” – different choices for being exploited, but it does not offer following the path or some other form of liberation. Over time it has been discovered that in a financial system individuals can be bought off. Within the left wing it has been a regular practice for the 1% to buy off individual leaders to cope with any possible unity, there is no evidence that this tactic will not continue to work.
But tathata does not hold to views, Marxist or otherwise; tathata holds to compassion – the ending of suffering for all. Whilst the merits of revolutions, violent or otherwise, can be argued in the world of conditioning, for tathata there is no clear evidence that violent revolution helps end suffering. But this does not alter the understanding that exploitation by the 1% for accumulation creates patriarchy and all its problems. Neither does this alter the understanding that a core source of the kilesa conditioning is the economic model of 1% accumulation that starts with the greed of a few.
Is this core understanding tathata – what is what? When leaders use their wisdom and ask themselves questions as to the source of the suffering arising from the kilesa-conditioning, do they not conclude 1%-accumulation?
As these leaders are wise, zandtao suspects they conclude this. What do they do with this conclusion?
Who are these wise leaders? Again, it is necessary to determine who are our wise leaders through wise mindfulness. Quite simply, out of all our described government who do not have attached egos? Amongst the conditioned rage is aa appropriate response to this question because the leaders with power have attached egos, and their decision-making is controlled by the 1% and its accumulation. This can be observed through wise mindfulness - our equanimity, and it can be recognised that no solution to our problems exists within the current power structure. No wonder there is observable rage amongst the conditioned.
So who are our wise leaders? Undoubtedly there is wisdom in this defiled world, but tathata of this wisdom is not being expressed - except in part by the rage of youthful progressives responding to their upbringings who clearly point out that our problems arise from the 1%, their accumulation and their resulting patriarchal system – 1%-satrapy. Global conditioned rage dictates that there be action against the 1%-satrapy but where is this action? Where are the wise leaders working with this conditioned rage and directing any wise action - sampajanna?
There is a societal vacuum where this wisdom is not expressed – a vacuum formed through the lack of expressing tathata. Zandtao seeking wisdom has arrived at a description of the problem:-
1) Teachings advocate a wellness and path solution (such as zandtaomed's advice).
2) There is a core of people benefitting from kilesa conditioning - the 1%, leading to their satrapy and the patriarchal conditioning
3) Where is the wise leadership expressing both awareness of the path and awareness of patriarchy? Where is there a wise leadership offering a solution beyond individual awareness?
When wise people consider tathata, are these three points concerning the wisdom vacuum not valid?
Global rage adds a dimension of urgency to this problem. Rage is on the increase, zandtao suggests primarily because there has been an increase in deaths to enable the accumulation of the 1%. However this is not the way rage expresses itself, it usually expresses itself through hatred often racial or religious. Currently there is rage amongst white men who are having their previously-inflated position of wealth and status reduced. Amongst the analysis within the conditioned world these men were previously favoured – privilege, but now that there is “more equality” they are losing status. What can be observed is that the proportion of wealth accruing to the 1% has increased, and this suggests that there is another dynamic in play. Historically there has been a practice of “divide-and-rule”, so could the 1% be manipulating in this way? Zandtao suggests that the 1% have increased their accumulation leaving a smaller cake for the 99% to divide up. At the same time through manipulation of identity politics they have changed the allocation of the remaining jobs from the traditional-white to jobs for the identities thus fanning the flames of white privilege. It is time that we all begin to SEE through such manipulations and stop accepting mainstream explanations.
Given the increasing rage, the increasing suffering through death in war, and the potential for species-extinction events, should wise leaders not get involved in addressing the systemic causes of these events? Is the individual approach sufficient?
Undoubtedly within religious institutions there are wise people following their paths; are those wise people the leader of the institutions? Religious institutions have learned to survive within patriarchy, but have their actions been compromised? If religious institutions were asked to consider the wisdom vacuum, would they accept there was a need for a change? If an individual within such an institution decided that the wisdom vacuum was true, would they rise to leadership? Are these institutions compromised? Perhaps these same institutions recognise what zandtao has termed the wisdom vacuum, but choose there is no appropriate wise action - sampajanna – at this time? This is not for zandtao to say but his truth includes the wisdom vacuum; it is legitimate for zandtao to ask.
What is asking? In some senses it is arrogant of zandtao to ask, why? Because wise people will have asked already, and wherever they are their wisdom will have given them an answer. Yet zandtao will continue to ask, why? Rage, wise leaders have to live in harmony with the rage of the conditioned people they lead; wise leaders have to live in harmony with totality of rage throughout Gaia – a totality that includes human rage; harmonious wise action is the responsibility of leadership.
With prajna's autonomy rises increasing spiritual love and spiritual liberation, what happens with spiritual love in patriarchy? Without equanimity it becomes frustrated – it becomes rage. On one level rage is attached to the feelings of love but it is not a harmonious response, and if those feelings are not guided by wisdom they can be deleterious – ahimsa. Throughout this bell section patriarchy has been recognised as creating lovelessness, so it is therefore a typical conditioned reaction for the feelings of love to become attached as rage against patriarchy. But what do the conditioned rage against? The 1%, men or women, who benefit from perpetuating patriarchy through war, wage-slavery, shaming and other measures? But these people, whilst benefitting in the defiled world, are conditioned by patriarchal conditioning as are so many. It is an easy reaction for rage to blame them but is it wise and compassionate? So do the conditioned rage against the conditioning? Yet it is the same conditioning that is used to build self-esteem to cope with growing into adulthood – see tathata of 2 conditionings. Tathata sees that the kilesa conditioning reinforces the patriarchy and the patriarchy uses kilesa, yet the people themselves are just conditioned. So where does wisdom direct rage? Leaders, where does wisdom direct rage? We know patriarchy causes ahimsa, we know patriarchal conditioning creates kilesa and kilesa creates patriarchal conditioning, but equanimity directs feelings of love; in human terms, metta to all. But equanimity also needs wise action.
Conditioned rage needs to be recognised and channeled fruitfully by wise leadership, avoidance is not such a fruitful direction. Rage can be seen as attached feelings of love without wisdom, and the wise need to help those with this conditioned rage. With the increased love of prajna's autonomy feelings can attach causing increased rage because of reactions to death from wars for profit - amongst reactions to other causes. Where does that rage go fruitfully? As a wage-slave where does the justifiable rage against servitude go? If we examine the 3 points of the wisdom vacuum described above, that rage is currently disposed of as becalmed anger and is let go as part of wellness. Nature gives us love-wisdom and gives us equanimity to stop our feelings attaching as rage, whereas wellness becalms it as an angry attachment. Are we throwing the baby out with the bath water by letting go of sampajanna as additional becalmed attachments?
Historically what has been the response of servitude? To attempt to overthrow the violence with more violence. With wage-slavery much of leadership perpetuates the servitude because they are aligned with ensuring the profits for the few. But what are wise leadership doing to avoid the violent overthrow, violence that can only cause great suffering? When we consider the wisdom vacuum, we see that rage as anger is avoided, mindfulness is channelled to create wellness and the feelings of love are not expressed.
For zandtao equanimity, the love-wisdom balance, is used to cope with increased feelings of love that can lead to rage; this is a question that arose when crossing the threshold of prajna. The advice of zandtaomed is to do the best you can to develop the best vihara and have faith to follow the path:-
Does zandtaomed promote the recognition of rage? No. Does he try to repress that rage? No. If it arises out of love on that seeker’s path zandtaomed must help the seeker recognise the causes and conditions for rage, and the seeker must be helped to develop equanimity to find harmony. At some point that seeker will have to find harmonious ways of enacting the increased feelings that arise from love. Maybe that seeker’s path will take them across the threshold into prajna with its autonomy, by then they will be equipped to make their own decisions using equanimity. So as an elder this is an issue of balance for zandtaomed, living in peace and harmony with these increased feelings of love until sampajanna can act wisely.
Considering the increased feelings of love with the possible attached rage has arisen through zandtao’s own seeking. It is his increased feelings of love (arising from Prajna) which is asking our wise leadership what they are doing? Isn’t avoiding these feelings of love the greatest issue of bypassing? No spiritual leader cannot have the increased feelings of love, but do our spiritual leaders act on these feelings? In terms of wellness zandtaomed recognises that anger arises out of compassion, and again in terms of wellness teaches release of this anger to help with the integration of the fourth tetrad – reconnecting to Dhamma. But at some point this use of equanimity could become attachment that is suppressing and could lead to rage, feelings of love that hopefully mindfulness will embrace and embody with sampajanna. With these increased feelings of love there comes the question is there bypassing?
Zandtao recognises an avoidance in the use of language and asks that this avoidance be addressed – in line with one of the 4 Agreements – be impeccable with the word. In Oct 2019 zandtao wrote this blog, bye-bye bell that includes some avoidance in the use of language, as zandtaomed he will continue not to use such language; as the seeker, zandtao, being impeccable requires the use of the correct nomenclature. Ajahn Brahm, why did you perform Bhikkhuni ordination? Because it was right and because the Forest Sangha were acting as patriarchy. Do you say this? On many levels it is important not to get hung up on language. Ajahn Brahm, how many people would avoid your teachings if you used the word patriarchy? Yet it is patriarchy that is the problem and it is the problem that the Forest Sangha were acting patriarchically.
In addressing wise leadership zandtao is not specifically addressing Buddhist leaders; because zandtao has learnt so much from Buddhism and zandtaomed’s key meditation approach comes from Buddhadasa – slave to the Buddha, many of his discussions are couched in Buddhist language. On an individual level the world we live in comes from individual attachments arising from kilesa, is there a problem with zandtaomed saying we live in a defiled world (discussed here)? Zandtaomed later developed the tathata of the 2 conditionings in which he described the 2 aspects of conditioning – conditioning for survival as we grow up and kilesa conditioning (conditioning by the kilesa that in a sense takes on a life of its own within society).
So what is the fullest word to describe what we see with kilesa conditioning? Zandtao contends that the most impeccable word is patriarchy. This contention arises from the process of integration in the Manual, a process that was developed in the Dedication, and completed in the Seeker Story. Zandtao developed an understanding of the word that made him decide it was impeccable. What is important about the word patriarchy is the amount of effort that needs to be used in understanding the word, what has been lacking has been a spiritual input because spiritually the word has been avoided. Zandtao questions Ajahn Brahm for avoiding using this impeccable word, and similarly asks wise leadership to consider using this word and perhaps giving advice on patriarchy. As zandtaomed the elder there is no such advice – even going in the opposite direction with bye-bye bell (in 2019 – not about her death). But once zandtao crossed into the threshold of Prajna his love-wisdom recognised the appropriate use of the word, and with equanimity he asks for greater consideration by wise leadership. Accepting that there is patriarchy and that it is an impeccable word, does not mean there is a rigid definition of the word, and nor does it require a particular set of actions as response. It simply means that tathata is saying there is a patriarchy, and this patriarchy along with the kilesa that have built it up is the system of conditioning that creates ahimsa in our world. How individuals respond is their choice? Already there is an individual response as part of wellness so the question is whether there is a need for a more collective response – and how? That question is for the wise leadership.
Bill’s compassion arising from upheaval took him into teaching maths, compassion teaching – maths was a skill he had already attained. On one level bill was so lucky to have a vocation, a job that bill was paid for and “loved”. Even when bill retired early zandtao still loved “working with children” and did some volunteer teaching after retirement beyond the usual retirement age – although it has stopped now. Did bill ever teach spirituality? Did he ever teach anything of zandtaomed or zandtao? No. Towards his retirement bill was beginning to work on meditation within teaching especially insights for problem-solving in maths, but his own personal development was not dedicated to meditation because of his lifestyle and teaching vocation. Instead his vocation was channeled away from the self-leading-out of education theory into being a successful exams teacher. In Matriellez bill’s understanding of education was discussed, read this book for more detail on education.
What has to be understood was that bill was a wage-slave. Yes his compassion chose for him education, and he was fortunate to be able to have a job that had some of his choice; but the reality was that he was a wage-slave. On one occasion bill was sacked because of a school whose admin was dominated by a few rich parents. At another school his contract was terminated because his education emphasis threatened a careerist who lost his job within a month of bill’s termination. This was private education where the controls were more immediate, and sacking is a tool of wage-slavery. Before private education bill taught in the public system, and there he was controlled by promotion. In his second school he became union rep and lost many promotions – perhaps 6. Ironically in his first school he lost a promotion because his job fulfilment was limited by strategies of a socialist worker HOD and by connected manipulations by an SWP clique in the school after a catastrophic lack of impeccable words by bill.
One way or another bill was controlled by the patriarchy throughout his salaried time; again ironically, he was highly regarded in the volunteer teaching because for many reasons all that bill did was teach English – still under limiting control but avoiding any confrontation with the systemic problems he engaged with when he was full-time. Whatever you understand of this zandtao website, as an early zandtaomed or zandtao bill would have had much to offer and could have developed this understanding as teaching materials if such were encouraged. As it was bill was repeatedly restricted, and in the end chose exams teacher as the most integral option. When you examine zandtao's website it can be seen that there was potential for so much more, but being a wage-slave bill could not teach what he knew then nor develop what is known by zandtaomed and zandtao. Patriarchy controlled what bill taught and used various tactics against bill if he went against patriarchy; this is of course servitude – wage-slavery.
For bill’s teaching wage-slavery is the most impeccable word for describing the world of work for him – wage-slavery for the patriarchy. Now zandtao asks of wise leadership whether this is just a personal experience of bill or whether it is part of patriarchy. Is the defiled world a world of wage-slavery? Do wise leaders accept this state of affairs and choose wage-slavery as an impeccable word to describe it? Again this is not presenting a political view or asking for a set of political actions but asking wise leaders not to avoid “impeccable words” if appropriate?
The patriarchy encourages avoiding the use of the word patriarchy, the patriarchy encourages avoiding the word wage-slave; by so doing they are valuing such words. If wise people avoid such words they too are valuing those words and by avoidance supporting the patriarchy.
Accepting the wisdom vacuum:-
there is 1) Path 2) Patriarchy 3) Change.
In this z-quest on Real Love we have the 1st section of Real Love as Path, advocating Real Love is part of the Path and is part of an individual’s decision on wellness and then following the path. In this 2nd section we have looked at love in the loveless patriarchy, and how patriarchy restricts love and consciousness – basically patriarchy restricts the path. However patriarchy does not restrict wellness because with wellness the 1% can still make their profits.
Integral to the profits of the 1% is wage-slavery, without people working in their 1%-satrapy there are no profits made. Of course people need to work in the satrapy to get money to survive, and this need is the crux of the wage-slavery. So where is change going to happen? The 1% could suddenly find their paths and develop compassion - but they have heavy conditioning. The 99% could violently overthrow the 1%-satrapy with all the military support that is enmeshed in the satrapy; whilst in the long term this might be better for the 99% the short-term destruction is fearful. The third change is a form of evolution in which consciousness is raised.
In the first step of the wisdom vacuum there is wellness and path that raises consciousness, but this alone is quite clearly not working as patriarchy is becoming more entrenched. Various forms of change from within the wage-slaves are also not working as individual leaders are being bought off as and when the 99% begin some form of mobilisation. Or as in the case of Occupy in 2011 when the 99% became more aware and active, there was investment to counter this and there has been a global move to fascism since then.
So what is the change that is evolution? Is wellness and path sufficient for this evolution? For some of our wise leaders this evolution is simply a raising of consciousness continuing to develop wellness and path. But as consciousness is being raised conditioning responds by restricting awareness, this conditioning comes from patriarchy. Is it not important to know what is preventing consciousness from being raised? On an individual level conditioning restricts by encouraging kilesa. But is it not better to know that there is a system in place that is encouraging this conditioning?
Suppose as an individual there is developing wellness and path, but then the individual stops developing as conditioning restricts their progress. Is it sufficient to know that conditioning is restricting your development? Or is it better to know that conditioning in society has reinforced itself into a system known as patriarchy? On an individual level there is a certain amount of weakness that is preventing development, but that weakness is understandable given that it is the system that has developed around the conditioning kilesa which is causing the lack of development. It does not change what the individual has to do – go beyond conditioning, but it does explain why it appears harder than individual weakness. There is a total system of patriarchy that is working against change maintaining their profits (greed - lobha) by fostering hatred (dosa) using delusion (mosa) – kilesa, albeit this system is simply conditioning.
As seekers it is helpful to be able to recognise what is causing our egos so that we can let them go. Buddhism helps us do this by talking of kilesa, upadanas and no I or mine in the 5 khandhas. But how do the attachments of kilesa, upadana and khandha manifest in daily life? Through the patriarchal system we live in. To recognise the conditioning to let go we recognise the system that is perpetuating that conditioning – patriarchy. So although Buddhists are talking of conditioning arising from kilesa, upadana and khandhas, they are also talking of conditioning that arise from patriarchy; there is no distinction in daily life between conditioning arising from kilesa, upadana and khandhas and conditioning that arises from patriarchy. When Buddhist meditators are working to release conditioning, they are effectively at the same time working to lessen the grip of the patriarchy. Would it not be good for meditators to be advised that conditioning arising from patriarchy and conditioning generally are the same? Would both sources of info be helpful?
If we accept that conditioning and patriarchy are essentially the same what are the implications of this for seekers and wise leaders? For the seeker there are few implications. As a seeker they first look for wellness and then look to follow the path. As wage slaves their liberation is essentially individual – individual wellness and individual path. But for wise leaders should they lead against patriarchy – the perpetuator of conditioning? Does change require that wise leaders lead against patriarchy? Change requires that we become aware of conditioning and on an individual level go beyond conditioning. Conditioning arises through patriarchy, patriarchy and conditioning of patriarchy are no different and that conditioning is all of conditioning.
Wise leadership want compassion – freedom from suffering for all, this means moving beyond conditioning for all; that is the “objective” of wise leadership. Is it appropriate for wise leadership to confront patriarchy? Zandtao suspects not given the power of patriarchy. Is it appropriate for wise leadership to have a deep understanding of the impact of patriarchy? Yes. Is this the same as wise leadership having a deep understanding of conditioning? Yes. Conditioning and the source of conditioning are the same – kilesa or patriarchy.
Zandtao is unable to resolve satisfactorily this fundamental dilemma of change. Change arises when we go beyond conditioning individually. The conditioning that we need to go beyond rises from kilesa and functions socially as patriarchy. Knowing that conditioning arises from patriarchy might benefit some seekers in helping them recognise the egos to be released but for wise leaders to confront patriarchy might be counter-productive. Yet by avoiding the recognition that patriarchy is the source of our conditioning wise leaders are supporting patriarchy. At some point zandtaomed advises seekers to become aware of patriarchy – as part of their Seeker Story - to help in their personal integration, but for seekers to confront patriarchy at an early stage might be counter-productive. Wise leaders must choose when they advise seekers that conditioning and patriarchy are in essence the same. There is a wisdom vacuum but how wise leaders effect change must remain open – an individual leadership response.
Even given this dilemma increased feelings of love recognise the restrictions of patriarchy and what it is doing to humanity – to us. This love-wisdom demands that all people do the best they can to make life better for us – to end a system that benefits so few by harming so many. Love-wisdom places a burden on wise leaders - as opposed to the deluded puppet leaders allowing themselves to exploit and be exploited, for wise leaders to continually examine their relationship with patriarchy and see what can be done to improve the lot of humanity. My love-wisdom calls upon wise leaders to engage with the dilemma demanding of their wisdom sampajanna if at all possible. In terms of the wisdom vacuum the complacent use of individual development without appropriate consideration of systemic approaches to minimise the impact of the patriarchy is a form of bypassing. Do you name patriarchy? HHDL, do you name patriarchy? Ajahn Brahm do you name patriarchy? Ajahn Buddhadasa, Thay, should you have named patriarchy? Do you represent seekers? Do you name us as wage-slaves and help us end being exploited? This is the dilemma that humanity’s love-wisdom puts on you. Please, for love’s sake.
|
Zandtao Meditation page
Advice from Zandtaomed