Category Archives: Daily Buddhism

Daily Buddhism

Creation and the Origin of the Universe

9 Comments

Question:

I have been wondering what the Buddhist take on creationism is? I have long believed in reincarnation and never really thought much about it, but this morning BBC radio 4 had a thought for the day and a Sikh was talking about most major religions believing in the one god having created everything but that that god had different names, i.e. God, Allah, Krishna etc this lead me to think, as we don’t have a god as such, is there a Buddhist view on creation? Your thoughts, as always, would be welcome

Answer:

Like the question of God, Buddhism generally doesn’t concern itself with this. There is no specific story about the creation of the universe in Buddhism. In fact, Buddha, in the Acintita Sutta, is supposed to have said, “Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.”

Many of the ideas that influence Buddhism came from Hinduism, and creation stories fall into this category as well. The most common Hindu stories tell that Brahma created the universe, or at least is the oldest being in it. The universe was created, changes, and then is destroyed. This cycle is called a kalpa, and has happened an uncountable number of times already. Just as people a born, live, die, and are reborn, so is the universe as a whole. Again, the idea of a creator god is not generally accepted in Buddhism, but the stories are often repeated in the texts, mostly because people at the time knew the stories.

Of course in more modern times, we have the Big Bang theory, and the idea that eventually gravity will pull the universe back in on itself, finally re-exploding outwards to start the cycle over again. There is a lot of scientific evidence that shows this is probably the way it works, but the two ideas are not that far apart. They both show the universe living and dying in repeated cycles.

Daily Buddhism

Sign Language in Buddhism (ASL)

3 Comments

Every once in a while I get questions that I know absolutely nothing about. This is one of them, and it involves sign language. This probably won’t affect many of you, but it might still be worth following some of the links to see what’s out there.

Question:

I am new to buddhism and also curently in a sign language program at my school. Recently we studied religious signs, which were mostly Christian and Jewish signs. I was wondering if you knew of any sources, perferably websites but others are welcome, where I might find buddhist signs? Thank you for your help!

Answer:

As I said above, I know nothing about signing, but as someone who is very interested in languages I did a little research on the question. Anything that can be added by readers would be appreciated.

Signs for Buddhism: http://www.theinterpretersfriend.com/rlgn/sins4buddhism.html

Teaching Buddhism by Sign Language: http://www.blogecology.com/japan_teaching_buddhism_by_sign_language

Resources for religious interpreting: Buddhism http://www.theinterpretersfriend.com/rlgn/buddhism.html

Not related to Buddhism, but The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Conversational Sign Language (Illustraated) might be a good start for those interested in the topic: http://www.amazon.com/dp/1592572553/?tag=askdrarca-20

And here’s a Youtube video of the Metta Sutta in sign language:

(Click here if it doesn’t load in your browser)

Daily Buddhism

The Colors of Our Practice, By LaToya Springer

18 Comments

LaToya Springer

We have a wonderful guest post this morning by LaToya Springer. LaToya is a California native currently living in Las Vegas, Nevada. She works as an administrative assistant, wife, poet, and community activist. She has been meditating for a little over a year, combining Vipassana meditation with Zen Buddhism.

The Colors of Our Practice: Buddhism without Boundaries
By LaToya Springer

I am a fairly new Buddhist practitioner. My introduction to Buddhism was Siddhartha by Hermann Hesse which I read in the 10th grade. My Buddhist education continued when I went to college. I took some religious studies courses that fueled my interest in the practice. In the meantime, I was still trying to be a ‘good Christian’ and attend church, but there was something about Buddhism that interested me. After a long period of soul searching, I dedicated myself to the path. I can’t really say that I converted; Buddhism seemed natural to me. It fit with my personal philosophy. There is nothing spectacular about me. I’m 25-years-old and married. I love to cook and read.

And I happen to be African-American.

I had initial reservations about sharing my new practice with others for good reason. A few people in the Black community took my decision personally. They felt that I was turning my back on my family and culture. Suddenly Easter gatherings and Sunday dinners became a war front in the battle of religious wills. I found myself constantly having to justify my practice. As a result, much of my first year as a Buddhist was spent cultivating patience and loving kindness.

I am met with both curious glances and open arms when I attend retreats or gather with fellow practitioners to meditate. Though I am often the only African-American present, I have never felt out of place. In fact, I am more at ease in these situations than in the past when I attended church services with my peers. While I value my sangha and my experiences, I am concerned about the lack of people of color in American Buddhism, particularly those in leadership roles. The sangha, or Buddhist community, plays a crucial role in the practitioner’s spiritual development. It is the community we go to for support and encouragement.

But what do we do when our sangha is not representative of us?

I have found the Web to be an excellent tool for expanding my Buddhist community. Sites like Facebook, Myspace, and Twitter are a great way to reach out to others. The Web has been essential in helping me find other African-American practitioners. Blogs and personal websites that share the experiences of others like mine have helped me to grow in my practice. In addition, I have found great books written by African American Buddhists.

There are more of “us” than one might think.

There are times when I find myself outnumbered. I’m either the only Buddhist in a group of my peers or the only African-American in a group of Buddhists. In these moments it is helpful, when appropriate, to initiate dialogue about my experiences. As a result, I have learned a lot from others and others have learned from me. Educating others or offering a perspective not of the norm has been rewarding.

The Buddha’s teachings transcend race, color, gender, and sexual orientation. We are all brothers and sisters in the practice. However, we must be realistic and not ignore the fact that many of the prominent faces of American Buddhism do not fully represent the community in its entirety. We cannot be naive to think a lack of visible diversity has no affect on the growth of Buddhism in this country. Nobody wants to take part in something that is (real or perceived to be) exclusive or exclusionary. For that reason, it is important to reach out to other communities and make them feel included. Providing a platform to share experiences can be the best kind of spiritual education.

Feel free to leave a comment on LaToya’s article in the comment section below.

Daily Buddhism, Koans

Koan: Every-Minute Zen

1 Comment

Koan: Every-Minute Zen

Zen students are with their masters at least ten years before they presume to teach others. Nan-in was visited by Tenno, who, having passed his apprenticeship, had become a teacher. The day happened to be rainy, so Tenno wore wooden clogs and carried an umbrella. After greeting him Nan-in remarked: “I suppose you left your wooden clogs in the vestibule. I want to know if your umbrella is on the right or left side of the clogs.”

Tenno, confused, had no instant answer. He realized that he was unable to carry his Zen every minute. He became Nan-in’s pupil, and he studied six more years to accomplish his every-minute Zen.

Daily Buddhism, Reviews

Book: Shaolin Qi Gong: Energy in Motion

4 Comments

Book: Shaolin Qi Gong: Energy in Motion
By Shi Xinggui
Destiny Books, 154 pages, 2007, DVD included.
Amazon Link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/1594772649/?tag=askdrarca-20

The great teacher Bodhidharma is credited with the creation of Shaolin Temple qi gong and kung fu in the 6th century CE. Motivated by the terrible physical condition of the monks who spent all their time meditating or copying scrolls, his two-part system promoted physical as well as spiritual fitness and became the basis for all the martial and meditative arts taught in the Shaolin Temple. These ancient practices increase physical health and vitality, enhance creativity, and can be practiced well into old age.

Author Shi Xinggui, a Shaolin monk, explains the fundamental principle of qi gong–the art of mastering energy (qi) and moving it through the body–and provides clear demonstrations of all the positions and movements. In order to develop qi attentively, it is necessary to cultivate the art of slowness in both movement and breathwork. Shi Xinggui provides both a short form and a long form of the daily exercises, with lessons on heart centering, organ strengthening, and balancing the energy using the three dantians–the three energy centers of the body. A 53-minute DVD of the exercises performed by the author is also included.

The preceding text is from Amazon; I couldn’t have explained it all any better than that. So what do I think about the book? After simply reading the book, I have to say I thought it was all a bit silly. A collection of very slow, very gentle exercises where you probably wouldn’t break a sweat. From my American background, where people routinely spend hours at the gym and consequently end up seeing a doctor for a sports-related injury once a year, this seemed less-than-productive.

But then I watched the enclosed DVD, and it all became clear to me. He is so slow, and so graceful in these videos that it becomes obvious what the benefits will be. This seems to be just as much about inner peace as it is physical exercise. I have gained a new respect for the topic after watching the video.

The book is a glossy photobook with enough text to explain what’s going on, but not so much as to detract from the many full-color pictures of Shi Xinggui doing the exercises. The text and pictures are large and generous; you’ll be able to understand fully what he’s doing just by looking at the pictures. If not, there’s always the video. The DVD is a professionally-produced disc with attractive printing and various chapter stops. The soundtrack that accompanies the exercises is perfect. All but the last five minutes are videos of Shi Xinggui doing exercises silently. The last 5 minutes are brief biography of him, all in on-screen text- there is no speaking or voice-work at all on the DVD.

If you are looking for a VERY low-impact exercise system that will, at the very least, improve your flexibility and peace of mind, pick this up and follow along. I would imagine people with severe arthritis or similar problems might have some difficulty with this, but if you are simply out of shape or overweight, that should be no hindrance to doing everything in the book.

Daily Buddhism

Violence and the First Precept

11 Comments

Question:

I know you’ve been over the Buddhist diet a million times but I have always been perplexed about the justification of not adhering to a vegetarian diet by the many Buddhist lay people in Asia. I personally am not a vegetarian but I hate unanswered questions.

Anyway, I happened to notice that the Wikipedia version (terribly reliable source, I know) of the Five Precepts words the first precept as: “To refrain from taking life (non-violence towards sentient life forms)”. Is that “sentient” part of the phrase why many Buddhists eat meat? I have been struggling with this precept, and deciding whether or not to consider myself a Buddhist, because I believe that eating meat sparingly is natural and so is killing to eat, no matter what sort of organism you are. I also think all vertebrates are sentient and I love animals. I believe in practicing subsistence hunting/fishing/gathering and I think that it is probably less karmicly-damaging than eating a cow or a chicken from a factory farm. I am also willing to accept the consequences of my actions in regard to what I eat and how it gets on my plate.

Another reason I struggle with the First Precept is because I believe in self defense and the right to bear arms. I would not hesitate to defend myself, my family, or the people I work with. However, if I want to adhere to the Five Precepts should I shoot to disable (this goes against what I have been taught, which is shoot to kill because a.)it requires less skill b.)the person you shot could sue you even though they were in the wrong when you shot them)? It is doubtful that I will ever have to use lethal or sublethal force to defend myself or others so should I stop worrying about it and be prepared to accept the consequences of my actions on a Buddhist level (as well as the personal and social consequences I have already chosen to accept by using firearms)?

Answer:

To start with the last part of your question first, it’s generally considered acceptable to defend yourself and others when necessary, at least when lives are at stake; killing over property would not be justifiable, at least not in my opinion.

As far as eating meat is concerned, that bit on sentience has always been hotly debated. Did Buddha really say that, and even if he really did, exactly what is sentience? Which creatures have it and which don’t?

Historically, monks would not kill animals for meat. They generally raise food in gardens in their monasteries as well as take in donations from the local laypeople. Certain orders were forbidden from anything other than begging for food. If they were given meat, they would accept it and eat it without reservation. According to the old stories, Buddha himself accepted this situation, but again, that is debatable.

I’m not going to judge one way or the other. I eat meat, but I think I’d feel better about myself if I didn’t. It’s one of those things I’ve been thinking about doing for more than a decade. I don’t cook, and eat way too much junk food, so it is going to be difficult for me to switch. But I will… someday. I really cannot justify it for myself other than basing it solely on convenience, and that’s obviously not the right answer.

I’m going to leave this one up to the readers to comment and answer. Are you a vegetarian? If not, how do you justify that?

Daily Buddhism

Racism and Buddhism

16 Comments

In last Friday’s post, I discussed genetics a bit. During the article, I mentioned, “whether you are tall or short, black or white, blue-eyed or brown-eyed, is a matter of genetics…” which I intended as a simple statement of fact, and never imagined that anyone would take offense to that. Yet, the following comment came in:

Comment:

I appreciate your common sense approach to the nature-nurture debate. The slideshow of the Temple of the Tigers is fascinating. However, one important point regarding your statement, “Obviously whether you are tall or short, black or white, blue-eyed or brown-eyed, is a matter of genetics. No one has any control over that stuff.” The terms “black” and “white” are racial categories applied by human beings to other human beings. It is well known at this point that the concept “race” is a social construct. The PBS series, “Race: The Power of An Illusion” goes into depth on the complexities of the concept of ‘race’ there is information online available. Whether as a human being you are considered ‘black’ or ‘white’ is, actually, not a matter of genetics, but is a socially constructed categorization. Not too long ago in the United States, both Irish and Italian peoples were not considered to be white, for instance.

My Response:

First, I have not seen the PBS series he describes, so I may be missing his point entirely. Also, I will admit that I chose to use the term “black” rather than the preferred (in America, anyway) “African-American” because there is a large international readership here, and the term really doesn’t work well in an international context.

But anyway, I see no problem with the way I used the term in this context; I could have said light-skinned or dark-skinned person, but I think it’s clearer as I said it. Everyone knows what I meant, and there was no judgment or racism in the way I meant it or, I believe, in the way I said it.

But now we get to the topic at hand. You say that “race is a social construct.” OK, I agree. There are some very dark-skinned people and some very light-skinned people, and a whole spectrum of shades in-between. Where the lines are drawn are vague, and much of our self-identities are caught up in where we (and others) position ourselves in that range. In the way we treat each other, it is completely a social issue.

But yet, anyone with eyes can see a difference.

Buddhists are realists. If you take a so-called “White” person and stand them next to a so-called “Black” person, there is an obvious physical difference. Saying otherwise is political correctness taken to the point of absurdity. Anything else is like saying blue eyes and brown eyes are the same. No, they aren’t. They work the same; they function identically; yet there is a difference.

Internally, spiritually, or in all the ways that matter to a Buddhist, they are the same. To deny the physical difference, just seems like denying the truth. We should embrace the differences, and accept them, even enjoy them; to deny them is just wrong-thinking.

Daily Buddhism

Choices and Responsibility

9 Comments

A reader wrote in with the following comment:

[quoting one of the comments from an earlier Daily Buddhism post]
” . . . not judged by (our) actions? Which, by the way, are all a result of ones family life, and how their father treated their mother, grandfather to grandmother, so on and so forth. Our minds exploited by the information and beliefs of our elders. We are all products of societies influence, generation after generation. And are a direct result of our environment. ”

I remember years ago I was getting counseling from a very wise man and explained to him how when I returned to my home town after a couple years away, I fell right back into my old patterns of life, which included many healthy choices. I explained it him this way, ” Have you ever seen those chickens at fairs that do a trick or something? Like the kind that are in a small cage with a light bulb and a piano? When I was growing up there used to be one near our house at a small amusement park. You put a quarter in a slot below the cage and the light bulb in the cage would turn on. The chicken would see the light and walk over to the piano. The chicken would peck out four or five notes on the piano and food would be dispensed as a reward. You see, I feel like that chicken when I come home. When the light goes on, I play the piano.”

My wise counsel replied, ” You have forgotten one important point. You are not a chicken.”

My Response:

This note made me think. We often hear about the nature vs. nurture argument, and I often wonder just how much of the world’s problems are due to genetics. It seems that on the news, more and more bad things are being blamed on genetics, everything from diseases and obesity to criminal actions.

Obviously whether you are tall or short, black or white, blue-eyed or brown-eyed, is a matter of genetics. No one has any control over that stuff. But is it really reasonable to blame things like overeating and drug abuse on genetics? How much behaviorally can we really blame on genetics rather than upbringing, and even more importantly, personal choice? I won’t argue against there being a genetic factor that can push people in certain directions; perhaps genetics is the cause of someone who has a tendency to overeat or even make them more likely to become addicted to something. However, as the reader who wrote the letter above stated, we are not chickens. We do have a choice in our actions.

Buddhism, more than any other religion or philosophy, emphasizes personal responsibility. You make the choices. You control your life. This is the main repercussion of the existence of karma; you are the one ultimately responsible for yourself, bad genes or otherwise.

Another reader sent in the following slideshow which emphasizes this point perfectly. Sometimes it is possible to go against one’s own inner nature and behave on a higher level.

“Tiger Temple”

If the slideshow does not appear, it can be downloaded as a Powerpoint presentation here:
http://docs.google.com/Presentation?id=dcgwhk5g_159fpzdk6cd

Daily Buddhism

Rewards and Punishment

12 Comments

This one is a little different, as the question is longer than the answer, but I thought it would be good to print the whole thing, as there is quite a lot of good information:

Question:

It came up in a conversation that the majority of religions are based on a ‘reward’ system. By this, I mean if we perform good will towards man, we will be granted eternal happiness. For those that falter throughout life, continuously acting upon transgressions, they are sent back on the continuous wheel of life known as rebirth or sent to the flames of Hell.

Muslims follow the Koran, which provides vivid descriptions of both Heaven and Hell. Heaven is viewed upon as “Worldly Delights”. Whereas torments of Hell are explained in lurid detail. On Judgment Day, Allah will rise and determine ones destiny. Also being described as, “passing over Hell on a narrow bridge in order to enter ‘Paradise’, or Heaven. Those who fall, weighted by their bad deeds, will remain in Hell forever.”

Hinduism states that in order to be freed from the endless rounds of birth, death, and rebirth, one must follow a life completely devoted to the Brahman. Their afterlives continue in many forms, and in many different worlds depending on how one lived his/her life on earth. Good for good, bad for bad, etc. In fact, neither life nor after-life are permanent unless the soul is liberated. Liberation is defined as “freedom from the individual soul from the cycle of births and deaths, from the sense of duality and separation, and union with Brahman, the supreme soul.”

In the Jewish religion, they await the coming of the Messiah, where he will hand out the eternal judgment and reward to all. One large belief in Judaism is that their entire Jewish race and the whole of creation will be judged, as opposed to individual men. Again, it comes down to good for the good, bad for the bad, etc.

Christianity is a strong representation of this view. Those that follow God, abiding by his will, will be rewarded upon death with eternal happiness, and into the gates of Heaven. Those that turn their face from God, performing a life of everlasting sin, will be doomed to the gates of Hell. “He who overcomes shall inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be My son. But for the cowardly and unbelieving…their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.” Revelation 21:8.

And finally, with Buddhism, the doctrine is summed up in the Four Noble Truths: Life is suffering; The origin of suffering is attachment; The cessation of suffering is attainable; The path to the cessation of suffering, The way down that path is known as the Noble Eightfold Path. As well as the FNT, we have to factor in Karma. In Buddhism, from what I’ve learned, it is basically the result of our own past actions and our own present doings. In other words, we are responsible for our own happiness and misery, “the architects of our own fate.”

And finally my question: Why is it that Religions have to be so black and white regarding eternal happiness. Shouldn’t Religion and Spirituality be celebrated as Love? If God is Love, or the God of your understanding, then why would such a world be created in which suffering and pain is inevitable. Thus creating opportunities and “excuses” for sin. Creating anger and hatred, revenge and spite, good and evil. Shouldn’t everyone be granted eternal happiness? Not forced into the cycle of rebirth, in the sense of “try try again? Shouldn’t all men and woman be accepted for who they are, and not judged by their actions? Which, by the way, are all a result of ones family life, and how their father treated their mother, grandfather to grandmother, so on and so forth. Our minds exploited by the information and beliefs of our elders. We are all products of societies influence, generation after generation. And are a direct result of our environment. Love should be rewarded with love, as should pain, suffering, anger, hatred and the like.

What is your take on all of this, from a Buddhist’s standpoint?

Answer:

I’m going to turn off “Buddhist-teacher mode” for this one and put on my old Comparative Religions hat for this one to look at it from the outside. This answer has a lot to it, so if I offend anyone, I apologize in advance. Take issue with it in the comment section if you want, better yet, add your ideas!

Whether or not there is a God behind any of it, all religions seek to explain the world around us and also answer the big questions, such as what happens when we die? How they answer these questions lies partially in the cultures and regions from which they came. Those in the East involve reincarnation, while those in the West involve some higher power that sits in judgment.

The last line of your own question, “Love should be rewarded with love, as should pain, suffering, anger, hatred and the like,” explains the rest. Humans have an innate need for fairness and justice. If I spend my life helping others, being generous and compassionate, etc. and my neighbor is a greedy, cheating, liar, then what’s fair about that? The afterlife, in most religions, is there to balance the scales. That nasty old neighbor will get what’s coming to him later when I enjoy my rewards! Pain should be rewarded with pain, hatred with hatred, and so forth; you reap what you sow; karma; it’s all a form of eternal justice to make up for the inequities of this life.

The source of the idea that “God is love,” is 1 John 4:8, yet beyond that one line, there isn’t much evidence of that. The line has been blown way out of proportion in my opinion. According to everything else in the Bible, God is a person or being with desires, plans, and wishes of his own; he’s not a generic entity such as Love. You asked, “Should religions and spirituality be interpreted as love?” Why? Religions are there to explain the world, and if the people in a certain area don’t see love as the highest ideal, then that’s not going to be reflected in their religion.

Much of your question is also based around an old theological trap called “The Problem of Evil.” You may have heard it before, but here it is. It’s from Christian theology, but it applies to Islam and most other god-centric religions:

1. God is all-knowing and all-powerful.
2. God is perfectly good, wanting only the best for us.
3. There is evil and suffering in the world.

Do each of those statements look true to you? They should.But taken as a whole they contradict each other. If God is good and wants the best for us, then how can Evil exist? Either God cannot cannot defeat evil or he won’t for some reason. If he cannot, then #1 is wrong. If he will not, then #2 is wrong.

Buddhism, as in many other things, is a bit different than all this. Whether or not you believe in the more religious flavors of Buddhism, they all place an emphasis on this world. You are supposed to do your best to follow Buddha’s Path now, not after death. By doing so, we build a better world right here. This is one reason Buddhism is so vague on Nirvana or “Heaven,” no one knows what it really is, and we’re not that attached to getting there (if you think of it as a place at all). It’s not the goal that really matters, it’s the life and the practice that matter.

Right Now.

Daily Buddhism

Buddha the Hindu and Jesus the Jew

6 Comments

This question and yesterday’s are very similar, even down to some of the wording, but there is enough difference between them that I thought it would be good to address them separately.

Question:

I’ve been following your podcast, daily mails and website for a while now and I was reading about the Jehovah Witness question – I then had a look at the answers and generally it set me off wondering. There seemed to be much talk about belief and it sounded a little bit like: “my belief is better than your belief” – but surely this is not the point of Buddhism? It’s about the path, the journey (as the old hippies would say) not the goal – isn’t that the major difference between most religions and Buddhism? Most seem to have some kind of “rewards system” be good, meek, steadfast… and you’ll go to heaven whereas in Buddhism the aim is about the here and now, it’s about seeing reality clearly and unencumbered by our filters. I know there at things about nirvana, a release from the wheel, a better re-incarnation, but these are remnants of the Hindu influence in Buddhism – I don’t think the Buddha actually taught any of that?

Answer:

I covered the answer to the first half of your question in yesterday’s post, so I am going to skip over that part today and focus on the last part of yor question.

I don’t know if you can just throw out everything that came from Hinduism just because Buddha didn’t specifically teach it. It was always there in the background of his mind, even if he didn’t overtly support it. I know there were some parts with which he disagreed, but we can’t really know today what parts he silently supported.

It’s essentially the same as the situation with Christians and Jews; Jesus was a Jew, and he taught in the synagogue. He had some radical ideas, yes, but it was still basically Judaism. Only later did people start looking at his teachings as a whole different thing. As time passed, what Jesus was said to have taught grew further and further away from basic Judaism. Even today there is a lot of debate about which parts of the Jewish Bible (Old Testament) are to be kept by Christians or thrown out. There seems to be a lot of picking and choosing going on, all with only very shaky scriptural support.

I suspect it’s the same with Buddhism; As time passes, people are “steering” Buddhism further and further away from Hinduism. I’m not saying this is a good or bad thing, as religions change and adapt all the time. I personally “steer” or adapt Buddhism into a more Westernized framework every day with every article I write. Obviously, I don’t see that as wrong. Returning to your point, we cannot really know Buddha’s thoughts pertaining to Hinduism. There are some writings that say he disagreed with some of the Hindu practices, but there’s no way to know who wrote them or when. We pretty much have to take the words reported to us today as Buddha’s words, whether or not he actually said them.

But that doesn’t really matter. I don’t care what Buddha said or didn’t say, and neither should you. One thing that he said (or was claimed to have said) was:

Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.

Did he really say that? I don’t know, I wasn’t there. But it sounds true. It seems honest. It’s certainly reasonable. I’ll keep it.