Dhammika, Ven
1991:Good Question, Good Answer. Taipei, Taiwan: The Corporate Body of the Buddha Educational Foundation.
This organization’s idea of “this book is strictly for free distribution, it is not for sale” is an awesome philosophy and approach. This is the approach I have been trying to implement in my life because it is one of the most beautiful ideas out there. There were many typos. The author calls those who try to proselytize to you as “not really your friend”. To counter proselytize, he recommends using the “broken record” move. This is a technique my DARE instructor taught us. There is good discussion about Buddhism and belief in God. The author has some very good ideas about this matter. I loved reading the book. I wish it would have been longer and more in depth since it was a great quick read.
Dyer, Wayne
1995:Your Sacred Self: Making the Decision to Be Free. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.
This would be book number two of Dyer’s that I have read. As a general guide to spirituality, it is sound. Dyer explicitly states that the world would be better if we relied less on what he calls our ego and more on “our sacred self”. Many other spiritual thinkers, philosophers, psychologists, and motivational thinkers have expressed this same view. Certainly, as Dyer suggests egotism causes many problems, but if everyone became selfless, there would be just as many problems. People would and now sometimes do fight over who gets to be generous and selfless. I remember once my grandmother and one of her friends went shopping and eating. Instead of them arguing “You need to pay”, which would be selfish, each of them were insisting that they should be the one who pays and my grandma ultimately said, “Next time I won’t take you then.” The symbiotic relationships works best when some give and others receive at least part of the time. I did really like his explicit and implicit renunciation of evangelical Christianity, and he seems to accept just about every other form of spirituality. Sounds like a good spiritual approach to me. His second to last chapter, “From Toxicity to Purity” threw me off some. I was expecting a chapter discussing purity in the sense I know, which he would consider “purity of the body”, and perhaps some of what he considers “purity of the mind”, but the chapter was different than my main conception of purity, so it didn’t resonate with me as much as I thought it would, but it was still decent.
Forward, Susan with Donna Frazier
1999:When Your Lover is a Liar: Healing the Wounds of Deception and Betrayal. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.
I was searching the library for books on lying and truthfulness in general and this book, although geared toward lying in a specific context, was about the best find. It served both its particular purpose of describing relationship liars, and my purposes about the nature of truthfulness and lying in general well. The vignette/explanation and elaboration style much like Mary T. Browne’s, was a very effective move. Particularly engrossing was the chapter about sociopaths. Forward and Fraiser suggest that of all nutcases, sociopaths are the most terrible and irredeemable. The book was written to women, and it behaved as if men are the main ones who behave in these deceptive ways. Although I do acknowledge that in our society, due to social conditioning, women have special precautions, I believe it is sexist to write a book like this with the perspective which suggests men are the main liars and women the main victims of these lies. Women just like men do their own share of lying and it would have been better if the book was written from that perspective.
Goldman, Karen
1992:The Angel Book: A Handbook for Aspiring Angels. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
Cute, but I’m not sure how much spiritual value it has. It’s almost more like a poem than a spiritual book. It uses eloquent rhetoric without much substance. The book did not convince me that angels exist or even that it would be entirely desirable if angels do exist.
Gorden, Cheryl
1996:Home Schools: An Alternative. Mesa, AZ: Blue Bird Publishing.
If I have kids, I think I am going to homeschool them. This book further convinced me that homeschooling is the way to go. I learned from the interesting and useful information . It stimulated my thoughts, but whet the appetite for more. I work in the public schools and see the validity of some of these criticisms first hand. This book was pretty fair minded as it didn’t go out of its way to dis the school system just for the sake of polemics. It even suggested that homeschools be amicable to school systems.
Grieve, Donald, Ed.D.
1991:A Handbook for Adjunct/Part Time Faculty and Teachers of Adults. Cleveland, OH: Info-Tech, Inc.
Dated, but still great. Hopefully if I get to teach at the university level, I’ll be able to remember the good ideas in here.
Hanh, Thich Nhat
1995:Living Buddha, Living Christ. New York, NY: Riverhead Books.
On the back cover are words from Martin Luther King Jr., who died in 1968, in support of Thich Nhat Hanh. If King knew Hanh, then Hanh must be quite old since it sounds as if he has been in his business for a long time. The cut of the pages gave a subtle religious text type look. Hanh’s anti-alcohol view is extremely admirable. Buddhists that abstain from alcohol are doing something very smart. Hanh also tells a story about a Christian who claimed that an atheist like Hanh cannot value life. Hanh consequently explained how exactly he valued living. Hanh although a religious figure, is a great example of how atheists can live with a life of meaning, happiness, morality, and love, which too many Christians claim atheists cannot have. Other atheists have given other examples of atheists living good lives and now we have Hanh to serve as an example. Throughout Hanh suggests tolerance, a great virtue, which I am embracing more and more of as time goes on, is the way to go. On page 9, he says, “In a true dialogue, both sides are willing to change. We have to appreciate that truth can be received from outside of –not only within—our own group. If we do not believe that, entering into a dialogue would be a waste of time…We have to believe that by engaging in a dialogue with the other person, we have the possibility of making a change within ourselves, that we can become deeper.” That is a beautiful affirmation and description of true tolerance. That I love about Buddhism. On page 155, Hanh says, “If you are open enough, you will understand that your tradition does not contain all truths and values.” Right on! Unfortunately not enough people believe that. Although Buddhist, what he calls metaphysics is better than other types, I am still not completely comfortable with it. I don’t know about the Buddhist ideas of “emptiness” and “non-self”. They don’t fully resonate with me. I found the ending of the book to be on the weak side, but it was still alright.
His Holiness the Dalai Lama
1999:Ethics for the New Millennium. New York, NY: Riverhead Books.
On page xii, the Dalai Lama says “There is nothing in these pages which has not been said before”. I sure hope that would not be the case. If such is true, then such a book would not cut it in academia where the whole point of any research is that the research is in some way making an original contribution. I don’t believe that such was the case with this book. If everyone is unique, then it would naturally follow that everyone has something to say which he not been said before. He also says, “Not that the reader should suppose that I, as Dalai Lama, have any special solution to offer”. I doubt this.
It’s interesting that on page 5, he suggests that poor people have more peace than well off people, thus he suggests wealth may be more harm than good. I remember reading a sociological piece which suggested that up to a point, impoverished people aren’t as joyous as better off people. He does wisely denounce the overrated wealth.
I loved how he suggests that democracy was a failure. He didn’t hit us over our heads with the point, but he did throw it in there. On page 16, he said, “This is why the great movements of the last hundreds and more – democracy, liberalism, and socialism – have all failed to deliver the universal benefits they
were suppose to provide”. As a staunch critic of democracy, I applaud such a fundamental criticism by such a beloved figure. People need to ponder this because today people treat democracy as a cure all. People treat democracy as a sacred cow. People treat democracy as if it is perfect. But the Dalai Lama says it has failed!
Lately I have been pondering the definition of spirituality. I have received various insights about what spirituality is from people like Wayne Dyer and Charlotte Kasl. But one of the best definitions I have ever seen is the Dalai Lama’s definition, “Spirituality I take to be concerned with those qualities of the human spirit – such as love and compassion, patience, tolerance, forgiveness, contentment, a sense of responsibility, a sense of harmony, which bring happiness to both self and others” (pg 22), and even more concisely, “The unifying characteristic of the qualities I have described as ‘spiritual’ may be said to be some level of concern for others well being.”
I love how the Dalai Lama is down to earth enough to acknowledge his shortcomings and use them as illustrations of how to better one’s spiritual life
Throughout the book, he denounces “Aversive emotions”. This reminds me so much of what contemporary psychology does. I think perhaps these people attribute too much significance to “aversive emotions”. Certainly they can cause troubles, as they claim, but not as much as one might think. You might have health problems that stem from anger (and very likely you might not), but overall, there are a lot worse predicaments for life than too much “aversive emotion”. The Dalai Lama says anything in extreme is bad, even something good. Sure too much joy might cause a problem in your life, but really not a big problem at worst.
On page 97, he strongly criticizes anger claiming it is pretty much without virtue. I doubt that. Too me anger is a very positive force, perhaps, even more positive than negative. I love it.
On page 185, he provides a wonderful definition of honesty. He considers honesty to be “no discrepancy between the person’s external appearance and inner life.” Indeed, people who are like this are wonderful. It feels so good to be like that, which is one reason why he applauds this way. Sometimes, our external appearance is a matter of perception. Sometimes, people have an impression about you, then find out information about you which they do not like, and they think say, “I thought I knew you better” or something similar. Sometimes, when a person finds out more about you, and thus is shocked, it can not be your fault. Just because you do not show every side of yourself or fork over every detail; that does not necessarily make your deceitful or dishonest. I have a feeling someone would be shocked or at least surprised to see different sides of me. Perhaps any consequential alarming discoveries could be the other person’s fault, because they did not think I could be more dimensional than the view I presented to them. Hiding and not showing are not necessarily the same. If you are a public do gooder and commit horrible crimes in private, then perhaps your image is dishonest. Not everyone knows about my political polemicist side (among other sides), and see one side of me, such is that which is presented at work. Does this make me dishonest? Would I have to show every side of me at work too?
Fascinating but also a bit odd was his recommendation on page 193 that “married couples should have children unless there are compelling reasons not to. The idea of not having children just because we want to enjoy a full life without responsibility is, I think, quite mistaken.” I have mixed feelings about having children. He seems to be suggesting we MUST have kids. He really didn’t provide much support for this assertion. It does get me to think and it makes me wonder whether it is my duty to have children (if I am able).
On page 205, The Dalai Lama appeared perhaps a little satirical, which is certainly not typical of him, from what I have read and heard. He remarks that weapons would be more justified if the weapons could kill the bigwigs behind the wars rather than the peons being killed in it. Perhaps so.
On page 226, he describes why he chose the religion he has become famous for. “It suits my character, my temperament, my inclinations, and my cultural background”. He also states the wonderful idea that other people can find what suits the same for them.
Page 234 reminds me of the words of two famous atheists, which were put to music by Dan Barker. One is Tom Paine, “The World is My Country. To Do Good is My Religion”. The other is the original author whose name I forgot, said “So Many Gods. So Many Creeds. So many paths that wind and wind. When just the art of being kind is all this sad world needs.”
I like his brand of spirituality and the work he does. I think he would be decent enough to even like someone like me!
Jeffers, H. Paul
2005:Freemasons: Inside the World’s Oldest Secret Society. New York, NY: Citadel Press.
I checked this out once, and only got through a few pages, and then checked it out again. The book was interesting, though I would have preferred different emphases. The chapter “The Men Who Rule the World” should have been longer. I would have preferred an expose. Good Masonic books are hard to find, especially critical exposes.
Kasl, Charlotte
2001:If the Buddha Married: Creating Enduring Relationships on a Spiritual Path. New York, NY: Penguin Compass.
Thought provoking like few others, and even more powerful than simple motivational books because it encourages me to reflect upon the various facets of relationships. In my journal and in my head, I have recently thought heavily about the points Kasl makes in here and in her other works in the series. I would love to one day have a relationship built upon the ever solid foundations she presents in her top notch book. I love how this book causes me to think introspectively in such a deep way, and as she suggests relationships are about the growth of the self, and thus she suggests thinking about relationships enables us to think about ourselves as well. She values honesty and acceptance among other phenomenal virtues. A relationship organized along these principles is a relationship capable of doing wondrous deeds.
MacKay, Harvey
2004:We Got Fired! And It’s the Best Thing That Ever Happened to Us. New York, NY: Ballatine Books.
Inspirational books of this variety do me well. MacKay’s style is very lively. He chose a good cross section of people. Some of the people have excelled (after being fired) in fields I pursue, and others have excelled in fields, I may never pursue. Thus surely some of these tales contain lessons more suitable to me personally, but pretty much all of them have valuable lessons. The person’s lessons which hit home the most with me was our former governor, Jesse Ventura. I was already acquainted with his story, so hearing it wasn’t new, though MacKay’s exploration of Ventura’s life revealed some additional insights. I believe Ventura is a positive person and his interview demonstrated that quality in spades. At the end of each story, MacKay summed up the lessons and phrased them as witty pithy maxims, such as “Don’t tell the Ayatollah to shave his beard” for his son’s story. In between, the stories, MacKay reported facts and tales to buffer the points of these stories. MacKay seems like an open minded person who values people. There is only one criticism of any significance: my friend Tim once accused all motivational writers/speakers as being “charlatans” since he believes “they fill people up with vacuous nonsense”. I don’t believe motivational people deliberately mislead, though I do believe they are sometimes naïve and make blanket statements that may sound good but in reality don’t pan out. So many motivational speakers and writers try to convince us “If you are a good person, you will succeed”. Such is definitely not the case. For example, MacKay said “Frauds NEVER [emphasis added] make it to the finish line”. Sure, it would be great if that was true, but I can’t believe it is.