#buddhistethics

[jarukitti-2025]

The Blueprint for a Harmonious Life: Worshipping the Six Directions in the Sigālovāda Sutta (ai generated)

[shanteparadigm]

Leaving Shambhala, the organization

As we transition to the new year according to the Gregorian calendar, I am reflecting on what is helpful and what hinders my ability to work for the liberation of others and self. Here is a letter I just wrote to the NYC Shambhala Center Governing Council regarding my withdrawal of financial support for any Shambhala entity:

"Dear NY Governing Council:

I want to first thank you all for your hard work toward repairing trust and relative safely at the NYC Center. After a year of being a member at the Pittsburgh Center, I was happy to rejoin the NYC Center after Acharya Eric Spiegel left the directorship.

However, in light of the Sakyong’s recent letter and the Board’s support of his return to teaching Rigden Abhisheka and other retreat, I can no longer support any Shambhala entity financially.

I am quite angry and shocked, though not surprised. My ire is really directed at Vajrayana students and leaders who refuse to hold our teacher accountable.

The Vajra sangha is responsible for being the container of kindness and liberation to the mahasangha and we have failed that, spectacularly.

My withdrawal of any financial support to the Shambhala organization is one small way of holding myself accountable as I continue to work for the healing of those who have been harmed and those who have harmed others.

Though Shambhala withdraws "active authorization" of teachers who don't pay dues (another Ponzi scheme), I will continue to teach in other venues or other Shambhala centers or groups that wish to have me.

My heart is with you as Shambhala is in my blood and the NYC Center is in my heart, always

Happy New Year!"

[readandtread]

An Beginner (Secular) Buddhist Examination of Revolver (2005) PART ONE

As soon as I started reading up on the varying interpretations of egolessness aka not self, Revolver came to mind.

This is not unusual for me. My media soaked upbringing allows me to converse with close family members in nothing but movie quotes, a code derived from shared viewing experiences, family film night memories that I would not trade for loftier pursuits because they bring with them a feeling of togetherness, even if the experience of watching a film traditionally means focus away from another person.

I should perhaps have spent less of my university years watching movies, but in my race to appear suitably scholastic, it came to me late that I would have to fashion a life, forge new connections, myself, with the same degree of focus and effort that a higher education demands. Still working on it.

My parents were careful to engender a healthy scepticism for all types of media I consume, and university - the land of “investigate the legitimacy of your source material” encouraged the mindset. 

Written or spoken, words, full quotes, often pop into my head from other sources which either mirror the words I am hearing or reading in the present, or are of related significance to that which I am currently consuming.

Revolver, upon my first viewing years ago, was a victim of the ‘slick promo reel’; when I saw the trailer I remember being intrigued by the shadowy action feel, kind of a Usual Suspects vibe. I do not wish to discredit the awesomeness that is Usual Suspects as a film (despite the creepy undertones now present considering some of those involved in its creation). 

However, Revolver, while retaining something of the wicked-cool vibe that seems to follow Guy Ritchie/Jason Statham around like a good cologne, is a good deal more cerebral. Re-viewing this movie through the filter of recent Buddhist readings highlights what was previously only an intriguing accent among exceptional visuals, fairly violent even experimental imagery in places. Strip away what makes it simply a very entertaining watch, and the questions you might be left with if you just went into see an action flick, are exactly what make it seem to jumping up and down, waving its arms and squeaking about Buddhist ethics.

A Google search full of, as yet unread, articles/vids indicates I am not the first person to consider the ego/Buddhist references apparent in this film (unsurprising). Nevertheless, I’d like to take a crack at examining it myself without other sources influencing my view. I feel like the ‘not self angle’ is now glaringly apparent, but the emphasis on Buddhist ethics needs to be highlighted, especially from a secular viewpoint, without the agenda of promoting a specific philosophy or belief, but rather identifying with gentler optimism the wonder of finding such tenets in a mainstream movie. It’s Saturday night in late October, and there’s a quiet steady lulling rain outside. Allow me my warm fuzzies.  

This review will contain a butt load of spoilers, so if you haven’t seen the film, please go watch, possibly several times, THEN, read on.

Opening: 

Back view, Statham and guards, bright lit white hallway (heading toward enlightenment? kind of a clumsy inference considering the guards at his back). Basically stark, oppressive imagery, that quality prison feel. Interspersed with quotes. I looked it up, 

The Julius Caesar, Niccolo Machiavelli and Etiquette of the Banker ones seems legit (lot of second hand quoting that doesn’t directly reference the film, admittedly I didn’t dig further), and really, the most important for the theme heavily pushed in this film, but the internet, and myself, are rather suspect about the legitimacy of any of the other quotes, from tomes that don’t seem to exist, such as Fundamentals of Chess 1883, and 

 Ritchie sets up a seductive base by hinting at themes, hinting at aggressive, slick, smart action and a history stretching through the span of human civilization of figures and ideas important enough to be immortalized in print, about ‘how to play the game’.

Statham, the lead, continues with his prison release as the quote cards flash intermittently, it’s pouring rain, the outside world seems harsher, darker even than the prison he’s leaving behind when they first open the last door to freedom, and hey, anybody else think it’s nifty that for a moment as they open the gate Statham is standing under a white circular light on the wall behind him. evoking the imagery of Buddha, enlightened? Again, way too heavy-handed an interpretation this early in the film, but that’s what happens when you inundate yourself with a certain type of reading over a few months time. Kind of the cornerstone of traditional religions really, to have a mind primed to see significance in happenstance imagery, everywhere.

I consider Statham’s voice appropriately hypnotic for the important role it will play in the film’s narration and plot, but I find that mustache distracting, and not in a good way.

Statham’s first line of dialogue: 

“One thing I’ve learned, in the last seven years, in every game and con, there is always an opponent, and there is always a victim.”

We’ll need to come back to this later (as the film does, over and over) for its consideration of how clinging can make one a victim, how clinging to the image of self in stasis is an opponent to a better state of equilibrium, to true mindfulness, but, from the top, can we just identify how adversarial our lead is?!

 I mean, hey, he just got out of prison, he’s feeling wronged (again, Buddhism, from my readings, seems to indicate that this is wounded pride more than anything, and that is again, because we’re considering/protecting, an unchanging, removed idea of self without a consideration of the interconnected nature of life, the indifference of Nature, i.e. life is not fair, and spending our time wailing about it will not lead to peace of mind, we don’t need to let people walk all over us, but telling ourselves the stories over and over of how we have been wronged, and planning out vengeance does not make the world a better place or our existence a happier one), but this driven mindset is vocalized over his first moments of freedom, even as he lifts his head to feel the rain on his face, just as this first speech finishes, he’s not really allowing himself time to enjoy life, to consider letting go, letting the past be the past and forging a new future with the opportunity that freedom grants him. 

His first speech, by the way, concludes as:

“The trick, is to know when you’re the latter, so that you can become the former.”

Ah, yes, because it is totally possible to control all aspects of our existence.

Buddhist perspective? Having this mindset will make things harder on you. 

Though if you want to interpret it from the side of mindfulness, the trick is to recognize what trying to hold onto that stale self, that all important ego will do, to recognize what a shift in perspective, in thinking, in being aware of the thoughts as they appear, and distancing yourself from the ego’s grip, will allow you to momentarily grasp in your daily life. I’m fond of the idea that maintaining this removed state constantly is not really possible as you live your life, but it is always a possibility to step back from a situation, and recognize the pattern of your thoughts, how a change in thinking might improve things.

Introduction of Bad Guys [Ray Liotta - has the poor man every played anything else - well, I give him credit for playing, or perhaps, having the opportunity to play, a more layered version of the villain in this film, and honestly, by the end, he seems much more the victim - not necessarily because karma has come to visit him, but more because we see him as an object of pity, we see the petty things he chases have made him petty, and how locked in his self worth is to unenviable pursuits, unattainable goals]:

1)  soon-to-be- Casino owner  NAME? who’s nonetheless greedy for more (never satisfied with the material - not good, and a sign of a mind not on the Path, according to Buddhism), 

2) Paul, a second in command whose only form of agency is to be a sadistic creep. We’ll leave the problematic nature of the white bad guy having a black man who follows his every denigrating word without question as law for other cultural studies to pick apart.  

Title of film with thunder crash. Stylish. Having watched this film multiple times, do I as yet know why it is called that? No. Revolver is a gun. Revolving could speak to cycles of change, to the idea (not one my secular self gives much thought to) of rebirth. Again, to avoid influencing my own take on this film, I’ve yet to search whether Ritchie (or Luc Besson - the other credited writer - another stylish action movie guy) had a specific reason for titling the film thus.

Time jump, to two years later, when we finally actually hear what Casino owner’s name is: Dorothy Macha. Hopefully the guy didn’t turn into a villain just because he was bullied for having a traditionally female-gender signified name  - of course, this film has a lot of European influence - it’s possible I’m an ignorant North American who doesn’t recognize the history of certain names in other countries. For that matter, macha sounds particularly foreign to western ears, and a little digging suggests it might be related to magha, the pali word for ‘cloud’. While the word’s associations in pali, in Buddhism all appear to be positive (makha is part of the name of a Buddhist holiday/celebration), I can’t help but love the idea that Besson or Ritchie decided to name their villain ‘cloud’ either because he seems to be in a permanent state of ill-humour, or because he’s in a very fogged state of existence from a Buddhist perspective - always focused on the wrong things - not seeing true value in life.

Jake Green (Statham has now been introduced via Paul’s notice of his release) continues to narrate on the baddy-badness of Macha. Specifically calling him “a man responsible for the time I served.” I don’t know whether I should consider the choice of “a” over “the” more significant than the transfer of blame. Unless Green was completely framed - he needs to be taking some personal reponsibility for his prison sentence - and considering the characters we’ve met so far, it seems likely he was hanging around people and doing things likely to land himself in jail I suppose that’s a premature judgement on my part. Going back to a vs. the, there are two options, either Green was part of a larger conspiracy by other gangster types to get him incarcerated OR, Green recognizes Macha is not wholly responsible for the situation Green finds himself in. From a Buddhist perspective, that’s a good start. He’s still telling himself an unhealthy story about ‘who’s to blame’, but acceptance of personal fault, or perhaps even unavoidable happenstance, would be progress.

The succeeding dialogue suggests Green has a ways to go in letting any of this go, particularly the notion of Macha’s role in his own suffering.

“He has to pay us something doesn’t he?...He owes you and he owes me, now he has to pay. It’s cause and effect.”

Talk about flawed logic! Bad guy gets punished for bad thing sounds tasty, but Green’s attempt to extort monetary justice doesn’t seem like an equitable equivalent for 7 years in the slammer, nor does the world necessarily work that way - and indeed, as penal systems seem to turn out more hardened criminals (like Green himself) than rehabilitated citizens, perhaps the bad guy gets punished model needs to be reevaluated for the sake a of a better world in the future.

His brother’s perspective of the situation is healthier, and important. He’s concerned that Green is focused on vengeance, but also that he’s focused on material wealth.

“You’ve got more money than you could ever spend. It’s all you think about nowadays.”

  Green’s inner monologue, his ego (SPOILER!!!!), is relentless in its pursuit, despite his brother’s pleas.

“But he still has to pay. He has to pay something. Anything.” Our super confident, stylish lead sounds almost desperate. “I need to see him squirm. Every man has a weakness...” Yeah, pride! And wouldn’t you know it...Macha doesn’t like looking bad in public. Definitely all about appearance, ego. Kinda weird that wounded pride is smugly considered the bad guy’s Achilles heel considering Green’s is stinging too. It could be a considered an oversimplification to call it pride on Green’s side, as he did suffer 7 years in prison, but from a particularly cerebral Buddhist interpretation, wouldn’t it only be considered suffering if you allowed it to bother you like that? If you were at peace in your mind, living Right, would anyone have the power to make your life a prison? I’m afraid I’m not there yet, I would definitely consider prison suffering. But consider that after 2 years, wealthy, free Jake Green still needs to make Macha suffer, starts to sound a lot more like pride is the only thing still at stake.

Green’s claustrophobia has definitely got an artistic bent in this film. I sincerely doubt my mother could over come her problem with “tight spaces” if she subsumed her ego. 

Still, I’m only a beginner meditator, and I see its potential, even science sees its potential. Perhaps changing one’s mindset would alter the power of certain phobias.

Green doesn’t go into whether his issue with tight spaces predates his time in solitary confinement while incarcerated (discussion later in the film), because technically that would be straight up trauma. Though, again, Buddhism/meditation carries with it the idea of renunciation, letting go, and this might hold the potential to lessen such trauma.

Not certain whether “don’t like to feel trapped, never have, never will” is an indication of a pre-existing phobia. 

Very much interested in the succeeding voice-over by Green:

“Why should a man do, what he doesn’t like to do?” 

Why is it we get so set in the things we like to do and don’t like to do? Why do we spend so much time avoiding little things that would take little effort to ‘get it over with’, because we feel so wronged, so inconvenienced by having do them? Again, my reading suggests Buddhism sees this as the ego telling us we shouldn’t have to, we’re special, unique, and our time is wasted, we are wronged by having this put upon us. How much more equilibrium would we gain, by accepting the things we need/have to do, as something that has come into our life, that we can choose to do without complaint and thus foster more peace than discord.

“There’s always a choice.”

Green doesn’t strike me as big on acceptance. Not yet, anyway.

I’ll skip most of the smack talk between Macha and Green, I don’t think the pissing contest needs much elucidation, though in Macha’s verbal attempt to assert dominance over Green, the use of the phrase “man who needs a master” seems like lovely foreshadowing between two characters who will each find out they are men who are mastered over by their own egos, to two very different results.

The stairs sequence is glorious from a cinematic point of view, for this particular film review I’ll just say it eloquently spells out what unquestioningly following the urge of the ego will result in: literal downfall.

“Body’s not listening to the brain no more.” I think this just twigged on the aggregates of self to me. It doesn’t really have any solid reference within the film, but I’ve made a habit of ‘blaming my brain’ as if it were a separate entity on days when my thoughts are scattered,and being in dialogue with various  parts of my body when aches and pains spring up unexpectedly. It’s absurd to consider these components truly separate from each other, yet it is also impossible to nail down how they together make up that indefinable, unlocatable ‘self’ we cling to. I think this all speaks to the need for improved mindfulness, to be aware of how the self is fluid and changing, to be conscious of both thoughts and body, and in doing so, hopefully bring both into greater harmony.

How marvelous that Paul subsequently describes Green as lucky, having seen him win a substantial amount of money, but not seeing him take a tumble down the stairs. The modern flawed perspective on what makes a successful life.

We then get some of Macha’s insecurity, striking out at any possible threat, nervous despite his own “fat and comfortable” seat of power.

“That accident with his brother’s wife,” is particularly intriguing, because it suggests that in the earlier dialogue between Green and his brother, when Green insinuates that Macha owes them both, it is possible the brother should feel more wronged - as opposed to being in jail, his wife was killed. Yet he was the one counciling Green to let it go, recognizing the viper nature of Macha, thankful his brother is alive and out of jail, and successful, sees no reason to tempt fate, wants to be grateful for what he has, and accept what cannot be changed. 

“Following disaster like pain follows pleasure.” First of all, does that strike anyone else as a flawed simile? Pain following pleasure is a binary of opposites, yet the man with the card who now rescues Green a second time, thanklessly, is said to follow disaster, rather than prevent it, and as such would not be the opposite of disaster. Perhaps Green just doesn’t full realize his role yet....Also telling that Green’s worldview is charephonic, predicated on the pessimistic assumption that pain will always follow pleasure. Perhaps life can honestly be said to have a mix of both, but anticipating misfortune in the midst of pleasantness means an internal dialogue that never rests, always on guard, always missing the opportunity to be in the present moment.

The amount of time Liotta/Macha spends nude or semi-nude in this film seems like a combination of stripping away protective layers to get a more raw take on the character’s emotional state, see his vulnerability; and the metaphor of the Emperor’s New Clothes: Macha’s false confidence in the stability and worth of his empire, of his own power and importance.

There’s a famous quote out there somewhere about the ‘indifference of good men’, but I think this film’s unique ‘awakening of conscience in a bad man’ is an intriguing angle. At this point in the film a first time viewer might wonder what kind of hoodoo the man with the cards (the man holding all the cards? Ha! No.) is pulling to get what appears to be the bad guys’ best assassin to miss the lead.

Multiple viewings of this film make me wonder whether the later act of redemption on this character’s part was really the work of the film’s conscience/consciousness-made-flesh as the characters soon to be introduced seem to be, or more straight-forwardly, the assassin was having a change of heart subconsciously, and it affected his aim (as his ‘aims’ changed...Ha! Oh, I’m full of puns tonight) right from our first experience of him. Does his speech impediment (stuttering, but only at the start of sentences, a sort of evenness to it that reads as hesitation) represent a sort of inner turmoil?

More on that later, shutting this down before my eyeballs fall out.

[mentalramblingss]

This world is made of half pleasure & half pain. No matter what we do, we will experience some pain. If we allow ourselves to become attached to pleasure & become greedy for it, then that too will turn to pain someday. Greed has subtle ways of turning pleasure into sadness & drenching happiness with anxiety & fear. It is far better to allow life to flow where it must & not try to put our hands on every little thing we think we must have.