Devas; on Sources

From the mailbag;

I'm relieved to hear that you're mens sana in corpore sano, Bhante.

That's a matter of definition, but thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt.

With the sudden halt in "blogging", I was rather concerned.

My only comment on this subject is: one thousand years is a very long time, and there is a gap of more than a thousand years between the death of the Buddha and the authorship of sources such as Dhp-A (viz. the commentary to the Dhammapada) or the Jataka as we now have them.

There is, perhaps, no other religion in the world so befuddled as is Buddhism regarding the huge spans of time that separate the various texts called canonical. There are certainly striking differences between "Buddhist cosmology" as it was imagined in 600 B.C. vs. 600 A.D. --and most Buddhists are either unaware of (or doctrinally predisposed to ignore) the stark difference between these textual sources. In Thailand, there is a stark difference again between 600 A.D. and the cosmological texts of the 14th to 18th centuries.

E.M. makes some good points; we should always take the commentaries cum grano salis. (see I can use Latin too)

The only quibble I have is in his use of the word canonical. Neither the Dhammapada stories nor the prose parts of the Jatakas are considered canonical. The material which is considered canonical can pretty much all be dated to the first century after the Buddha. I.e., the time of the second council. (The big exception would be the Kathu Vatthu of the Abhidhamma; although some other material also may be a bit later. I have my doubts about some passages in the Digha, for instance.)

The commentaries as we have them are attributed to Buddhaghosa, the great scholar monk born in North India but working in Sri Lanka c. 400 AD (or 900 years give or take after the Buddha) However, he is not traditionally considered the author but the translator of these. The story is that there were at one time early Pali commentaries which had been lost by Buddhaghosa's time. However, there still remained extant Sinhalese versions which Buddhaghosa back-translated into Pali; a language that, although already "dead" would have been more widely known in the Buddhist world (cf. medieval Latin in Europe)

How much of this material is original, and how much Buddhaghosa's extrapolation or incorporation of later sources is unknown. But I have read that no stories or proper names are found in the commentaries that can be dated later than King Asoka's reign, for what that's worth.

As for the Jataka tales; the canonical bits, reportedly uttered by the Buddha, are entirely in verse and don't make a lot of sense without the explanatory stories (which is usually all you would see in modern "selections") Sometimes the stories appear to be ingenious attempts to weave odd verse fragments into a coherent tale; other times they flow more naturally, fleshing out a story already evident in the verse.

Furthermore, it may very well be that some of the Jatakas are actually pre-Buddhist folk-tales, perhaps very ancient indeed, given a light Buddhist gloss much as Beowulf was lightly Christianized. A small number of Jatakas appear to reproduce the imaginative geography of the Ramayana, where the island of Sri Lanka is a fabulous abode of monsters. That would be quite an anachronism in Buddhaghosa's time.

This is not to say that I'm a skeptic. On the contrary, like the Buddha and Anaximenes, I believe that the world is shaped like the flat lid on a steaming pot, that India is a giant island supported by an ocean, supported in turn by steam, with the latter billowing steam suspended in the void.

Supported by a giant elephant, which stands on a giant turtle. Don't ask what the turtle stands on; it's turtles all the way down.

Seriously though, there is an interpretation of this cosmology that makes sense. See the fascinating book "Hamlet's Mill." which deals with ancient astronomy. Our ancestors were not so stupid as some people like to think. Mt. Meru, the World Mountain, is in this interpretation, a colourful metaphor for the Axis Mundi, which is the imaginary line from the geographic north pole to the pole star; i.e. the rotational axis of the earth. It is not at all certain that any educated people since neolithic times believed literally in a flat earth.

In any case, E.M. ought to be more consistent with his sources. The cosmological geography he cites is commentarial, and not attributed directly to the Buddha.

Of Devas

The reason I haven't been blogging lately is because I've been helping teach a retreat at IMS, which is coming to an end so I'll have time and energy to spare for a bit.

One of the things we did this time, was to chant the Dhammacakkapavattana Sutta every evening in Pali. Those familiar with this text will know that it includes near the end a list of various deva realms. This naturally got some of the retreatants curious, and some were asking questions about the various realms.

The cosmology of Buddhism is a side-alley of the Dhamma that has always fascinated me. Depending on how you count them there are five or six realms of rebirth, or thirty-three stations of existence, or three planes. The territory of the upper realms is divided between the sensual heavens, the fine-material or Brahma realms and the formless abidings.

Then there are all the fabulous beings which exist in some way on this earthly plane; yakkhas, nagas and bhumma-devas.

There isn't any one good source for a detailed road-map of the heavens; stories and anecdotes are scattered through out the canon, but especially in the Dhammapada commentary and the Jataka tales.

Various questions arise whenever this topic comes up. The first and most obvious question is also the most tedious - are they real? First of all, you tell me, what does the word "real" signify? There is a strong sense in which this mundane earthly world is a pure mental fabrication - at least the one we actually live in and experience. We get signals in the form of sense data from some hypothetical "out there" and our perception parses them and creates the world we actually inhabit.

Buddhism is essentially interested in the interior landscape, which is all we can ever really know. The world "out there" is basically a moot topic, and of little interest. Theravada has pretty much always accepted that there is an exterior world, but not all Buddhist schools have agreed. Yogacara had a mature ontology that is purely mentalist; i.e. only mind exists (hence this school is also called Citta-matra "mind only?)

Given the dubious credentials of the concept "real" to start with, it is clear that the Buddha definitely taught that the deva realms are "real." In fact, the acceptance of "spontaneously born beings" is given as one of the factors of mundane Right View. (Devas do not reproduce sexually but appear spontaneously - the lower sensual heavens do have sex, but just for fun.)

I must admit having little patience for the view that would reduce the devas and brahmas to "psychological archetypes." Assuming one has no direct knowledge of these realms, it follows that they may or may not exist. We have no objective evidence one way or the other (although to one with faith, the word of the Buddha ought to count for something.) Hence belief in these realms becomes almost an aesthetic preference. I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would prefer to believe in a flat-land even if they can't see the third dimension. I hope this isn't too much of a spoiler, but that's essentially the point of Yann Martel's brilliant little novel, "The Life of Pi."

So let's leave that stale chesnut aside, happily assume the devas are real, and ask "where are they then?" Various possibilities present themselves; the deva realms might be present on some kind of other plane not understood by physics. Or they might simply be real three-dimensional worlds displaced from us by the fourth dimension. Or, they might actually be other planets in a different phase of evolution.

This brings up an interesting area of speculation. It is well known that ancient Indian cosmology posited a universe of multiple world-systems. To the modern mind, this correlates easily with our conception of the universe. However, I have never found an ancient text that unequivocally associates the various other worlds with the visible stars. Did they make the connection?

There is one fascinating bit of lore in the Sadhina Jataka (no. 494). In this tale, the righteous king Sadhina is fetched by Matali, the charioteer of the gods, to visit Tavatimsa Heaven. Matali takes the king on a tour of various realms on the way, which prompts Sakka, king of the gods, to declare "Doesn't Matali know that the lives of men are short?" and he sends a message to bring him along quickly. The king spends a year in heaven feasting with the gods and returns to earth, only to be arrested in the palace grounds as a trespasser. It seems that seven hundred years have passed on earth, his great-great-great etc. grandson is ruling on the throne and Sadhina is unrecognized. The really telling detail is that the time-shift seems to have occurred during the journey rather than while in heaven; hence Sakka's concern about the shortness of human life. Does any of this ring a bell?

War and Other Follies

The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them. - George Orwell

My post about the bombing massacre of Afghan villagers has set off a bit of flurry in the comment section. It's good that people are thinking about these things.

I'd like to step back a little from historical and political specifics and look at the general ethical issues around war, nationalism, projection of power (groping here for a value neutral word for imperialism), and violence by both state and non-state actors.

Buddhism is probably the most pacifistic of the major world religions (although it must be admitted that Jainism takes ahimsa or non-harming even further.) There is no teaching of "just war" to be found in the Buddha's teachings. On the contrary, war is ascribed to a foolish quest for "sensual desires" in the Mahadukkhakkhanda Sutta. (In other words, a theory of economic causation - control of land or resources) The ideal king, the mythical Wheel-Turning Monarch, conquers the whole world without violence.

Furthermore, the Buddha has said that "hatred is not overcome by hatred, hatred is only overcome by love, this is a law eternal." And the First Precept is to refrain from harming and killing. No exceptions are made as in some other moral codes which distinguish between lawful killing and murder.

And yet, you may say (and rightly so,) Buddhist kings and Buddhist states have gone to war and continue to do so. This doesn't negate in the least the moral principle, it simply shows that human beings of any faith often fall short of the highest ethical principles. There cannot be any holy wars in Buddhism. Although, alas, the Sinhalese have at times attempted to frame their perennial strife with the Tamils in almost those terms, this is a gross distortion of the teachings and doesn't negate the general principle. Scriptural justification for war can be found in the Old Testament and in the Koran but not in the Nikayas.

War can be defined as the organized application of violence by a state to impose it's will on another state or other organized groups (like a rebel movement.) War has a nasty way of inverting all our normal moral instincts. In war-time, hatred of the enemy is encouraged (see all the very nasty propaganda put out by all sides in WW2 for example,) murder and theft become legitimatized, as does rape in practise, although this is not advertised for home consumption. In war, the most bestial behaviour is praised as "noble and brave."

The longer a war goes on, the more the moral standing of the belligerents is brutalized. In 1940 the RAF avoided bombing targets in Germany that might damage private property. By 1945 they were ruthlessly fire-bombing whole cities. A dark moral abyss is entered where right and wrong are inverted. This moral blindness is so strong that even today, sixty years on, it is controversial to state the obvious and call the fire-bombing of Dresden an atrocity.

As Orwell noted, there is an overwhelming tendency not so much to justify the atrocities of one's own side but to overlook them. To take notice of them is "not supporting the troops" or "siding with the enemy." To state a simple point of fact can become politically charged. For example - to state that the United States of America is, at this present moment, the single biggest committer of war-crimes on the planet is plainly and simply an objective truth. But imagine the reaction when this is said. Some will try and justify Abu Ghraib and Fallujah, but more will simply deny that they ever really happened.

At the root of this moral blindness is what H.G.Wells way back in the early years of the last century called "the false god" of nationalism. Once a group of people identify themselves as a nation, and take the next step of identifying their nation as chosen or special or best then it is easy to justify attacks on lesser nations who are not chosen or special or best.

What is, after all, a nation? At the bottom it is nothing real, it is a mutually agreed convention. A mental formation in Buddhist language. I live near the Pigeon River. On the drive into Thunder Bay, the road runs along the banks for a space. The Pigeon happens to be the international boundary in this part of the world. Sometimes when I'm in a car with someone I'll casually point out that the other bank is Minnesota. It's odd how the viewers perception, his sanna, shifts. Canada and America exist only in the viewers mind. The earth and the river and the trees don't know which country they're in.

But this unreal mental convention is taken so seriously that people are willing to die, and to kill to defend it. On the road crossing over the Pigeon are two little shacks set up and manned by people whose work is to defend this imaginary line. And should you ignore this line, you do so at your own peril. An imaginary, unreal line, but one taken with the utmost seriousness.

Over this utterly imaginary phantasm of a nation is constructed an entity that has at least a social reality - the state. What at bottom is a state? It is a mutually agreed monopoly of violence. The Agganna Sutta of the Digha Nikaya relates a fascinating myth which is a somewhat Hobbesian version of the social contract -

Then those beings came together and lamented the arising of these evil things among them: taking what was not given, censuring, lying, and punishment. And they thought: "Suppose we were to appoint a certain being who would show anger where anger was due, censure those who deserved it, and banish those who deserved banishment! And in return we would grant him a share of the rice." So they went to the one among them who was the handsomest, the best-looking, most pleasant and capable, and asked him to do this for them in return for a share of the rice, and he agreed.

For the parliament of Canada to be in session, the Royal Mace must be laid out on the table in the aisle. (Other countries have similar ritual fetish-objects) What is a Mace? It's a big heavy club designed to bash someone's skull in. It's presence symbolizes the power of the state embodied in parliament - the monopoly of violence. This is the meaning of sovreignity. In a state of nature, all beings are sovreign, i.e. free to indulge in violence. In a civil society, the right to inflict violence is limited to the agents of the state; i.e. the army and police. One of the words in Pali for royal authority is danda which literally means a stick.

It may be a practical compromise; there are immoral and amoral people about and it's not a bad idea to have a police force to protect the law-abiding. But let's not fetishize our mental and social constuctions. To worship either a nation or a state is deeply ignorant and idolatrous. Rite-and-ritual clinging. Rites and rituals may be socially and psychically useful at times, but to validate them as real is superstition. To die, or to kill, for them is plain madness.

Reply to a Critic

I have to respond the following posting from the comments, re: my post on the recent destruction of an Afghan village by the USAF;

It is very current and fashionable to blast American foreign policy in the West (however, you might want to thank America for that freedom). But while the most foreign aid to Afghanistan was flowing from the most hated nation, what were Buddhist Asian countries doing? Certainly, the millions of moolah towards lifeless artifacts couldn't be more counter-productive in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.

Air-strikes may not fit into the Buddhist scheme but to prescribe an immaculate outlook for the Afghan plight and a defeated solution to their debauched nation would also be unfitting. Preemptive attacks on these Islamic militants will persuade them to rethink the consequences to their techniques. I ask, even without the use of violence, how would Buddhists stamp out terrorism in Afghanistan? Running for the hills to Pakistan or Tajikistan may give the despot a smile, but what the subjugated Afghans?

Where to begin? This post is so full of historical inaccuracies and plain non-sequiturs that it's hard to find a point of entry. So let's take it in order;

It is very current and fashionable to blast American foreign policy in the West

That might be because US foreign policy has been a series of unmitigated disasters ever since Bush was inaugurated. It is not a matter of mere "fashion" to deplore a war of naked aggression against a helpless country, justified with a propaganda campaign of pure falsehood. It is not mere "fashion" to stick up for international law. It is not only "fashion" to be appalled by mass detention without trial, torture and the de facto abrogation of the Geneva Conventions. It is not only "fashion" that makes the rest of the world despair as the world's most powerful country, and formerly a respected international citizen, refuse to participate in every attempt at a sane international order - from the International Criminal Court, to the Kyoto accords, to the land-mine treaty and even the convention against child soldiers. No, it isn't fashion, it's sanity.

(however, you might want to thank America for that freedom).

Point of historical interest - I live in Canada. We don't owe our freedom to America in any way shape or form. I suppose you may be referring to WW2, which many Americans believe was won single-handedly by John Wayne. Point of fact; Russia more than any other country ought to be credited with beating the Nazis. The western front was a side-show.

Another point of historical fact to consider is the number of countries which lost their freedom by US covert or overt action. Iran in 1953 and Chile in 1973 spring to mind. There were others, mostly in Latin America. This side needs to be put into the balance.

But while the most foreign aid to Afghanistan was flowing from the most hated nation,

The idea that the USA is a generous and unappreciated donor of foreign aid is a favourite shibboleth of the American right. Unfortunately, it's not based on reality. The US is very near the bottom of foreign aid as a percentage of Gross National Income, and is no where near the UN target of .07 percent. See graph. And this doesn't take into account that 3-4 billion of the US annual aid total goes to Israel, which hardly qualifies as a starving nation.

Moving on;

what were Buddhist Asian countries doing? Certainly, the millions of moolah towards lifeless artifacts couldn't be more counter-productive in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.

I agree that there is no point in restoring the Bamiyan Buddhas.

Air-strikes may not fit into the Buddhist scheme but to prescribe an immaculate outlook for the Afghan plight and a defeated solution to their debauched nation would also be unfitting. Preemptive attacks on these Islamic militants will persuade them to rethink the consequences to their techniques.

You are certainly right that air-strikes don't fit into any Buddhist scheme, and I don't think any Buddhist can with good conscience justify them at any time. In this latest carnage, over one hundred villagers lost their lives, many more lost their homes and every thing they have. Can this possibly be justified? You may say that sacrifices have to be made for freedom (a dubious concept in the Afghan context, but let this pass for the moment.) Perhaps. But surely only those who are making the sacrifice have the right to decide when and how to make it.

Air strikes are the most cowardly possible kind of warfare - no risk for the aggressor, sure destruction indiscriminately doled out to the innocents and the guilty on the ground. I cannot see any moral difference between air war against a village and terrorism, in fact when you get down to it, it is a form of terrorism - state terrorism. At least the suicide bomber has a kind of misguided courage.

Those Afghan villagers didn't ask to give their lives and property in support of our war aims. The whole idea of western countries coming in and telling the poor natives what's best for them is nothing more than the old colonial project re-packaged. Well, that project has never worked in Afghanistan - ask the Brits, ask the Russians. I doubt it will work this time either.

And by the way, the concept of "pre-emptive" war is indefensible both ethically and legally.

I ask, even without the use of violence, how would Buddhists stamp out terrorism in Afghanistan? Running for the hills to Pakistan or Tajikistan may give the despot a smile, but what the subjugated Afghans?

Easy - stop invading other people's countries, overthrowing their governments and ripping off their resources. You'd be surprised how fast the recruits for terrorism would dry up. You might want to look up the Kutadanta Sutta of the Digha Nikaya for some practical tips.

What are we doing over there?

There were some new developments in the last week or so in Canada's intervention in Afghanistan. We had the first ever combat death of a female Canadian soldier, a sad triumph of equality I suppose. P.M. Harper held a ludicrous six-hour parliamentary "debate" on extending our mandate - an issue of such importance ought to have proper hearings and long study, not a feel-good exercise like that. Even so, he only barely managed a majority with a few votes from the Liberals, the other parties opposing.

And the latest - after an intense fire-fight with the Taliban involving Canadian troops, the Americans came in with jet fighters and Apache helicopters and bombed a nearby village where the retreating Taliban were thought to be hiding. The village, it seems, was destroyed (to save it?) and there was heavy loss of civilian life. (Numbers are disputed, as always in these things, but may be a hundred or more)

A number of serious concerns arise from this incident. First, Canada is supposed to be in charge in Kandahar province. Well, it turns out we're only in charge as long as the Americans say so. The Canadian commander has denied calling in the air-strike and blames it on "higher levels", meaning Americans.

So much for any effort the Canadians have been making in establishing rapport with the locals.

The proponents of Canadian involvement say that the purpose is to help the Afghans by building schools and so forth, and that because of the Taliban presence, military force is needed to protect the reconstruction effort. If so, air-strikes which destroy entire villages are completely counter-productive, both in physical and political terms.

We have to ask, do the local people want us there or not? (I don't care what Karzai says) I don't think this question is being addressed. If not, then this is just another colonial exercise of the powerful West telling the "backward" East what's best for them.

If we must be there, we should establish clear rules of engagement and if we are in charge in the operational area of Kandahar, as advertised, then that ought to mean that the Americans are barred from blundering in there with their heavy-handed fire-power whenever they want. If they won't agree, we should say "G'day" and leave them to it.

Will Harper take the American military and political leadership to task on this outrageous brutality? Not likely. Canadians need to pay more attention to foreign policy before we get dragged into another bloody Bush quagmire.

Formless Meditation - Clarification

This from the comments; referring to my previous post Meditation on Voidness

this is interesting.
*how* does one go from focusing on bit parts of the body (and sensations) to something like boundless space? (which is where this gets waaay too spacy for me)

it seems to *invite* a loss of focus...

if i can't perceive it, should i imagine it?

In the series of contemplations outlined, the meditation on boundless space is a critical link. Space is, technically, still within the purview of the material. In other words, it is a physical property, whereas Mind, the next stage, is not. And yet Space shares some characteristics with the formless - it is empty, boundless and insubstantial. In the Sarvastivada Abhidharma, space is classed as unconditioned, although both Theravada and Einstein would disagree.

The switch from meditation on earth (and earth element) to space is done like this; visualize earth-element, gradually extending your field of awareness until you are contemplating the whole of this planet (paying attention only to earth; never mind the pesky little things crawling around on the surface). Hold this whole globe of solid, impenetrable earth-element in your consciousness for a while. Now - remove it and pay attention only to the space that the earth takes up.

Since space has, by it's nature, no boundaries this should naturally dissolve into boundless space.

Remember, this series is accomplished by progressive selective non-attention. Space is what is left when you remove earth. That's really all there is to it.

Ajahn Sumedho sometimes talks about trying to be aware of the space in a room, as opposed to the objects. This is done with a kind of foreground-background switch and can help to get the "feel" of contemplation of boundless space also.

Some Links

Fermi's paradox solved. (i.e why we haven't met any aliens yet)

Buddhist Economics

Anschluss anyone? A friend of mine commented recently that living in Canada now feels like living in Austria in 1938. Seems a tad over the top? Check out this on what the wonks are calling "deep integration."

Buddhist History - reference

Book Review - War for Civilization by Fisk

I've just finished a very excellent book - Robert Fisk's "The Great War for Civilization."

Robert Fisk is a foreign correspondent for the Independent. He's covered every war in the Middle East since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (remember that? remember when the mujjahadien were the "good guys"?) I first discovered his work in the lead up to the American invasion of Iraq, when I went online looking for hard news, without the patriotic b.s.

The "The Great War for Civilization." is a huge tome, 1200 pages. Fisk covers in depth Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, the various Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, Algeria and more. The book ranges from vivid first person accounts of battles in the horrendous Iran-Iraq war to political analysis of the arms trade to the psychology of the suicide bomber to very good historical background on topics like the Armenian genocide and the effects of the Treaty of Sevres.

Fisk knows what's he's talking about - he's been there. And he's smart, literate and solidly grounded in the history and geography. It's impossible to write about politics, and especially the Middle East, without bias. So what's Fisk's bias? This quote from his introduction should tell you;

...Soldier and civilian, they died in their tens of thousands because death had been concocted for them, morality hitched like a halter round the warhorse so that we could talk about "target-rich environments" and "collateral damage' - that most infantile of attempts to shake off the crimes of killing - and report of victory parades, the tearing down of statues and the importance of peace.

Governments like it that way. They want their people to see war as dramas of opposites, good and evil, "them" and "us", victory or defeat. But war is primarily not about victory or defeat but about death and the infliction of death. It represents the total failure of the human spirit...

Fisk is a biased writer - he's biased toward the common people who just want to live their lives peacefully, and he's biased against all posturing conquerors and rulers and especially against their hypocrisy and lies.

What's more, he's a damn good writer; a crisp vigorous prose of a kind that reminds me somewhat of Hemingway. If you want to get some good solid background on the Middle East and try to sort out the craziness, you couldn't find a better read. And I bet you'll enjoy it too.

Buddhist History

Also, can you recommend one or several books on early Buddhist history and/or the development of Mahayana and what we now call Theravada? Summer reading season is upon us, and I need some recommendations.

The best historical introduction I've found is Peter Harvey's "Introduction to Buddhism" which is used widely as a first year college text. The chapters on the history of early Indian Buddhism are quite good on the councils, the arising of the various schools and the later gradual emergence of Mahayana.

If you want something weightier to chew on, A.K. Warder's "Indian Buddhism" remains a classic. I think it's still in print. You'll find all the minutiae about various early and medieval philosophical trends.

If you want to look at some interesting original source material, try and get a hold of a copy of the Katha-vatthu, "Points of Controversy" in English translation. The only english version I'm aware of is published by the Pali Text Society. This is a late Theravada book of debated doctrinal points in a point, counter-point form. It actually reads like usenet, except more polite.

Canada Census - Final Word

The census man came today and I filled out the form straight. On further investigation, I concluded that countmeout.ca is overly alarmist. I'm still not enthusiastic about out-sourcing part of the job to an American arms-manufacturer but the facts are that Lockheed -Martin is only providing the hardware and software and the data will remain in Canada. I'll know if I've been naive if in some brave new world order my interrogators in Gitmo quote my census data back at me.

Mahayana/Theravada - a short note

The most unique characteristic of the Mahayana is the Bodhisattva concept. In many different schools of Mahayana, practioners take Bodhisattva vows. There are various forms of these vows, but the essential point is that one vows "not to enter final nirvana until all beings are liberated."

It may be a surprise to some, but there is a bodhisatta path in Theravada. (Pedantic linguistic note: whereas, scholar-types tell us that contrary to appearances, bodhisatta is not the pali equivalent of sanskrit bodhisattva, I've never seen that explained and they look like equivalents to me.)

However, the concept is quite different from the Mahayana formulation. In Theravada, a bodhisatta is one who is practising for Buddha-hood. A follower of the path can make a resolve to follow one of three destinies; to aim for arhantship, pacceka-buddhahood or full samma-sam-buddhahood. In actual practise, very few Theravadins take a bodhisatta vow. The road to buddha-hood is considered much longer and more onerous. Only someone motivated by a great compassion would forestall their own liberation for the hundreds of life-times required.

Perhaps that is the historical germ of the Mahayana idea; which certainly places a central emphasis on compassion. The concepts are quite different, but I think we can see a direct line of descent here.

Another important point is that, in Theravada, such a vow is not considered complete or binding until one makes it in the presence of a living Buddha, as Gotama did before Dipankara Buddha many aeons ago. Some say this is the meaning of the epithet "Bhagava" or blessed; that a Buddha was blessed in the distant past by another Buddha.

Falun Gong

You may recall that when Pres. Hu Jintao of China met with Pres. Bush of America, the two gentlemen were rudely interrupted. Of course, the protestor was hauled away. (Ironically, Bush had just been bloviating on his favourite theme of Freedom)

What was the fuss about? The lady is a member of the Falun Gong. This is a new sect that has proven widely popular in China. A bit too popular for the boys in the Communist Party's liking. At one time, membership in Falun Gong exceeded that of the Party itself. So it was banned, and has been suffering persecution for years.

What the protestor, Wang Wenyi, was trying to express was a very serious allegation. If true, and it looks like it might be, this is a terrible development. Many overseas Falun Gong are charging that Chinese hospitals are now harvesting organs from Falun Gong prisoners for sale to wealthy overseas clients.

There's a fair bit of evidence to back it up. Investigators have run a bit of sting operation, phoning the Chinese hospitals known to do organ transplants for foreigners. Here is one of the recorded exchanges;

Case No. 2 (a hospital in Shandong Province)

Investigator: a kidney from a person who practices Falun Gong is disease-free; do you have any of those types…

Doctor: Umh…We have more and more such kind now, and in April we will sure to get even more.

Investigator: Why there are more in April?

Doctor: I cannot not tell you about it, because it relates to…it doesn’t mean…We don’t need to explain to you about it because it cannot be explained…

More of the same can be found here.

For China to be harvesting organs from executed criminals is nothing new. That's bad enough, but if they are now killing people whose only crime is practising a kind of Qi Gong, and making a few yuan off their parts, that's unspeakable.

You might think about that next time you're loading up on cheap consumer crap at Wal-Mart.

Another Take on the Census

The other side of the Canada census debate, an article in rabble.ca by Murray Dobbin. Maybe so, but if I might venture an irreverent (maybe irrelevant) comment to Mr. Dobbin. This kind of earnestness is why the Canadian left never gets anywhere. Take all the fun out of it why don't you?

Canadian Census

The Canadian government is counting toques again. But it turns out that they've out-sourced the data handling to Lockheed Martin of the USA.

There's a few issues with that arrangement. Lockheed Martin makes some very nasty stuff which irresponsible rogue organizations like the USAF use to blow up things and kill women and children. Then there's the whole issue about sending all our data to be processed by an organization with close ties to the whole USA national security apparatus. The new head of the CIA pretty well admitted that he hasn't a clue about the Fourth Amendment and thinks he can snoop into anything he likes. Not that they're going to really care how many kids you got, but it's the principle of the thing. You don't want to be encouraging these people.

Then there's the loss of jobs here at home. Can't we tote up our own damned forms?

But somebody's come up with a brilliant, and very Canadian, suggestion to throw a bit of a spanner into the military-industrial works. Countmeout.ca has a proposal for patriotic citizens opposed to this sell-out. Obey the law; which requires you to fill out your form completely and honestly. But mess it up enough to force them to hand process the paper; write some of your answers upside-down. Write outside the little boxes. Etc. Check out the web-site for more suggestions. Sounds like good clean subversive fun.

You Say Nirvana, I Say Nibbana

(Let's call the whole thing off...)

A reader has asked me to explain the differences between Theravada and Mahayana. Reading the following, you should bear in mind that my knowledge of Mahayana is limited, and that, let's face it, I'm biased.

You should also bear in mind that Mahayana is a catch-all category which includes schools as diverse as Zen (in several forms), Pure-Land (ditto) and Nicheren. Many of these schools are as different from each other as they are from Theravada. What's more, Theravada itself comes in different flavours, primarily along national/ethnic lines, although the differences aren't so great.

Historical - The Buddhist community began splitting into distinct sects after the Second Council; one hundred years after the Buddha's Parinirvana (death.) The initial split was between the Sthaviravadins and the Mahasangikhas. The former were the traditionalists, and the spiritual ancestors of Theravada. The latter were actually the majority at the Council (Maha-sangikha means "the big group") They were not (yet) Mahayana, but developed in that direction over the centuries.

There survives two very different accounts of the Second Council; which seem to represent the two factions. One version is found in the Theravada Vinaya texts and describes the split as being entirely over points of Vinaya (disciplinary rules for monks) with the Mahasanghikas being those who wanted to loosen up the rules and the Sthaviravadins being those who wanted to retain the purity of the Buddha's law.

The Mahasangikha version, which survives only in Tibetan translation, makes out that the split was over issues of doctrine, not mentioning discipline at all. Perhaps it was a bit of both. Theravada to this day is more insistent on orthodoxy in Vinaya than in Sutta interpretation, at least in Thailand. So it is perhaps not surprising that they found such innovations as the "two-finger allowance" (eating after the sun's shadow had passed mid-point by the width of two fingers) and the "salt-horn allowance" (storing salt for use with the meal in a horn) as more siginificant than odd theories on the nature of the Buddha and the Arahants.

Because that is what the contested doctrines in the Tibetan version are concerned with. There was steady tendency in the schools derived from the Mahasanghika faction to elevate the Buddha to god-like status and to downgrade the status and attainment of the arahants.
This is seen in (later) Mahayana texts like the Vimilikirti Sutra where Sariputta is reduced almost to a figure of fun; a foil for the superior Mahayana wisdom of Vimilikirti.

But the full-fledged Mahayana didn't appear in India until at least three centuries later. It is hard to date precisely because it's formation as a distinct school (or group of schools) was gradual, and because chronology was never a strong point of Indian civilization.

It is important to note also that the Sthaviravada itself split into various schools and that the Theravada was only one of them. It was at no time the dominant school in Northern India but was firmly established in the island kingdom of Sri Lanka, which historical circumstance allowed it alone of the early schools to survive the Muslim onslaught starting around 1000 AD.

Textual - The Theravada maintains as canonical a large collection of books in the Pali language. Scholars agree that most of this material can be safely dated to at least the Second Council time. Theravada holds that these texts alone are genuine Budhha-word.

The Mahayana has a large collection of additional sutras in Sanskrit. These began appearing around 100 BC (at least four hundred years after the Buddha). Many of these texts contain new doctrines not found in the Pali. Orthodox Mahayana belief is that the Buddha gave these discourses to a select group of disciples to pass on in secret until the time was ripe to reveal them. Caveat Emptor.

These texts include the Prajna-Paramita literature, the Lotus Sutra, the Vimilikirti Sutra and many many others. There does not seem to be any well-defined closed canon as in the Theravada.

Doctrinal - Many of the core Buddhist teachings are common between all schools - The Four Noble Truths, the Eightfold Path, the Dependent Origination. The principal point of divergence is in the goal of the path.

The early Pali texts always speak about the attainment of arahatta as the goal. The arahant is one who has destroyed all defilements, and thereby gained an unshakeable vision of the Unconditioned (Nibbana.) After death, the arahant is not reborn. "The task is done, the burden laid down." The realization of Nibbana is the same for the Buddha and for the arahants. The Buddha is special only in that he is one who has attained perfection in all the paramitas. He also has a greater depth of vision, for example being able to fully recall all his past lives. The Buddha also will not be reborn.

The Mahayana critique is that this amounts to a selfish goal - you get yourself out of here and leave the rest of us to muck about, thanks a lot. So they developed the concept of a Bodhisattva - one who deliberately chooses to be reborn into this world to help others. From this difference, other ideas derive. For instance some schools of Mahayana add a complex array of Celestial Bodhisattvas to the cosmology - beings like Manjushri, Bodhisattva of Wisdom and Avalokiteshvara, Bodhisattva of Compassion.

Nomenclature - There remains to this day a big confusion over the terms Hinayana and Theravada. These are not synonyms.

To begin with, the term Hinayana is perjorative, and was coined to be so. Hina doesn't just mean little; it means something like inferior or lesser. The early teachers of the new doctrines coined the terms Hinayana and Mahayana to assert the superiority of their beliefs. The Greater and the Lesser Vehicle.

Another important point is that all the early schools were categorized as Hinayana in Mahayana polemics, not just the Theravada. This has led to at least two problems.

One issue that creates difficulties between the schools is that at lot of Tibetan literature contains criticisms of the errors of the Hinayana. Now, when the ancestors of the Vajrayana were starting up in India, the "Hinayanists" they encountered would have been mostly Sarvastivadin, not Theravadin at all. Fast forward to the 20th and 21st centuries and the dawn of political correctness and many contemporary Vajrayana writers decide to be polite and use "Theravada" instead of "Hinayana" but otherwise leaving the critique the same.

I always cringe a bit when I read some well-intentioned Vajryana writer asserting that "Theravada" understands the emptiness of individuals (anatta) but not the emptiness of all dhammas (sunnata). There are in fact several passages in the Pali Canon that teach just that. I don't know for sure what the Sarvastivadins said about the matter, but we don't hold to what the Vajrayanas say we do. It is to be hoped that greater contact between the schools will correct this in due time.

A lesser problem is one that primarily concerns scholars of Buddhist history. What word do we use as a category name for all the pre-Mahayana schools? Traditionally we have used "Hinayana" but this is to use the insulting title given by their intellectual rivals. Some scholars have suggested "Sravakayana" (way of the disciples) but this is confusing because the term has a technical meaning in Theravada already. One suggestion, which I believe originated with Dr. Sugunasiri, is "Adhiyana" which means Early or Original Way.

There is more than could be said on this topic, a lot more, but this is already a very long post. I may blog some more about the various schools.

Check out this Link!

There is hope in the new generation. A fifteen year old in Alabama, of all places, has produced some really first-rate peace videos. I'm impressed by the simple purity of her message. Check them out, and send a message of support to the author while you're on her site.

Tough on Crime?

The Buddha's teachings were first and foremost concerned with transcendence; getting out of this mess entirely. But he didn't neglect to apply his wisdom to more mundane concerns; personal, relational, even social and political.

He told one Jataka story about a foolish king and his wise counsellor. Seems that the kingdom was having a bit of a crime-wave; banditry, looting and so forth.

The king wanted to send in the army, crack a few skulls, hang a few miscreants as a deterrent. You know the score.

The counsellor said this wouldn't help in the long run. Better, he said, to see who wanted to take up farming and grant them land, who wanted to work in the civil service and give them good wages, and who wanted to start a business and loan them capital.

They tried that, and you know what? End of problem.

Seems like Canada's new gov't likes the king's plan. PM Harper has introduced his "tough on crime" proposals. Mandatory minimum sentences, more jails, less parole.

These kind of plans go against all the real-world criminology. A guy from the John Howard Society was on the radio and made a good point; this kind of assumes that a potential criminal is making a rational cost-benefit analysis before he does the deed. It's also a sad fact that jails as presently constituted mostly just make bad people worse. Universities of crime.

Unfortunately, these kind of knee-jerk proposals are popular with a lot of the public. And they really have nothing to do with reducing crime, they're just simple vengence. Any forward thinking proposals like teaching prisoners practical skills are always shot down with the argument that we're "molly-coddling" criminals.

It's dissappointing to see this kind of stupidity still happening.

We Get Mail

(see relevant comments)

E.M. has questioned whether Caesar really did burn down the library of Alexandria. Maybe, maybe not, but suspicious looking latin types were seen hanging around the grassy knoll (or am I thinking of another book depository?) Heck, maybe it was Al Quaeda. Or Saddam Hussein with a secret time-machine. Yeah, that's the ticket.

E.M. also took umbrage at my reference to the "muddy hell-realm of Flanders" claiming that "some of my best friends were born and raised in Flanders, and they insist that the mud is not really so bad, and the inhabitants are not, for the most part, demons."

No doubt things have improved since my grand-dad, Thomas Hughes, vacationed there in 1916, courtesy of HM Gov't. I remember asking him once what was the worst thing about the war, and he said, without hesitation, "the muck." When you consider that the chaps in the next ditch over were trying to kill him with artillery, machine-guns and mustard gas, that's saying a bit.

Quilt Fundraiser

One of our local supporters has made a very beautiful Dhamma themed quilt and is offering it for sale to raise money to support the hermitage. You can find out more here - Dhamma Connection.

Seal Hunt Article

As most of you know, I write a regular column in the Toronto Star. It's always interesting for me to see which topics generate the most public feedback. My latest screed was on the seal hunt and animal issues generally. It got lots of feeback, almost all positive.

Anything to do with animals always seems to stir things up. The one I did on the spring-bear hunt was another one which got lots of comment, although that was split pro and con.

The next most active response was to my article on the gay marriage issue.

If the Star ever needs a big boost to circulation, I'll do one on homosexual bears.

Iran

Lots of speculation about whether the Americans (or the Israelis) will hit Iran, perhaps even with nuclear weapons. The real question is, can they be that crazy?

One line of thought is that the Bush people put out the nuclear story to set up public expectations. The idea is that if they then go in for conventional bombing, instead of being outraged, people will breathe a sigh of relief.

Anyway, having been burned with the WMD boogy man once, we are sensible to be skeptical. Who said "Fool me once, shame on you, Fool me twice and---uh---uh---can't fool me." ?

The real reason Bush wants to take out Iran has nothing to do with nukes.

Canadian Politics

PM Harper's government has taken a couple of measures to keep troop casualties off the public radar. The flag on Parliament Hill will no longer fly at half-mast after a death of Canadian soldiers and media will no longer be allowed to photograph the return of the bodies to Trenton base.

It's hard to avoid the conclusion that they are playing from the Bush team P.R. playbook. Why not? They're fighting their wars.

And mimicking the US way of doing things is nothing new for this lot. The farce of a non-voting parliamentary hearing for the new Supreme Court appointee; Harper's surprise visit to the troops in Afghanistan; his made-in-the-USA crime policy; tax-cuts; opposition to Kyoto even the Conservative proposal for an elected Senate. Notice that all their "reforms" make us more like Americans.

I'm old enough to remember when the Conservatives stood for the British connection and accused the Liberals of wanting to Americanize us. I guess they always shilled for the Empire.

Changing gears a little bit; this brings up the whole hoary topic of Canada-US relations. Something Americans never think about but Canadians agonize over continually. A little history; this country started (at least the English bit) as a conservative revolt against the American revolution. The first English settlers in Ontario came in as United Empire Loyalists, none of that Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness nonsense for us. Pass another cup of that lovely English tea, tax-stamp and all. God save the King.

The Americans tried to wipe us out in 1812. That war is mostly a foot-note in American histories, but for a long while in Canada it was the formative national narrative; a heroic epic of resistance to the republican hordes. I don't know what kind of politically correct treacle passes for Canadian history in schools these days, but when I was but a lad (back when rocks were soft) the main topic on the curriculum was the war of 1812. Which we won. Episodes and names from that conflict were drilled into our impressionable little skulls; Lundy's Lane, Laura Secord, the burning of the White-House.

Note on the last; British regulars came ashore in Chesapeake Bay, marched inland, briefly held the city of Washington and torched the president's house. However, most Canadians to this day seem to believe it was colonial militias who did it.

So what's our attitude toward the Americans today? We need to distinguish first off between the general question and the specific one relating to the present administration. Bush couldn't get elected as ward alderman anywhere in Canada. I doubt he could get a job at Tim Hortons.

On the general question; the best way to understand it is to look at Canadian attitudes toward international sporting events, especially hockey tournaments. There's nothing we like better than soundly trouncing the Americans, it's much more satisfying than beating anyone else. However, and this is worth noting, if the Canadians are eliminated from play, our sympathies switch and we generally root for the Americans against everyone else.

Bush once said that Canadians and Americans were like family. I guess so. They are like the big brother. He plays his stereo too loud, he's a jerk and a dumb jock and he tries to hog all the dessert at dinner. He's always picking fights with the neighbour kids, and besides which we're sick of wearing his hand-me-downs. But he's still our brother. And he does have a cool record collection.

Two Links

One uplifting, one depressing. Which one will you click first?

Depressing

Uplifting

Babylon Bush-Whacked

Along with all it's other tragedies and obscenities, war can bring destruction of priceless and irreplaceable treasures; part of the human legacy lost forever. The burning of the Great Library at Alexandria by Julius Caesar's troops; Napoleon's officers using the Sphinx for artillery practise (hence the ruined nose), the British shelling the Parthenon during their intervention in the Greek War of Independence; the list of such military stupidities is a long one.

Apparently as a species we're slow learners. The Americans, it seems, after the invasion of Iraq thought that the site of ancient Babylon would be a nifty place to build a military base. They've pretty well wrecked the place by driving big trucks around, landing helicopters, dumping gravel, even using archaeological debris to fill sand-bags.

You have to wonder what they were thinking. Is American education so bad that not one of the officers involved knew what the hell they were churning up. Didn't anyone say, "hey, this may not be such a good idea guys?"

A friend of mine has a theory which he claims explains unbelievable stupidities like this. He says that in the grand cosmic plan, this is the "special needs" planet. You get born here if you're "developmentally challenged." Keeps the rest of the universe more orderly. Hard to refute sometimes.

Links to the story of how the cowboys trashed Babylon;

from the Guardian
from the New Scientist

Afghanistan

(Warning, rant to follow. )

At the very end of the nineteenth century the Dominion of Canada sent 7,400 young men to the veldt of South Africa. Of these, 224 were killed. This was a war fought solely for the imperial ambitions of the British Empire, of which Canada was a part. A generation later we sent 626,000 men into the muddy hell-realm of Flanders, losing 61,663 of these. Once again the war had nothing to do with Canada, but was fought between rival European imperial systems. Our Prime Minister, Sir Robert Borden, a good God-fearing capitalist Tory said at the outbreak of war that Canada was "ready, aye ready."

At the start of the 21st century has the spirit of the country's policy changed all that much? Aren't we still acting as the junior partners in other people's imperial wars? Of course the empire is under new management now; the new guys don't go in for so much pomp and circumstance and don't seem to know how to run the show as well as the sahibs did once they get there.

Canadians are by and large uninterested in foreign policy, unless it involves a lot of skating and slap-shooting. Witness the almost complete absence of any reaction to the former Martin government's role in the US engineered coup in Haiti. The Americans didn't like the president, Aristide, because he showed signs of actually wanting to give his people some protection against the sweat-shops run by US corporations there. Never mind he was the people's choice, democratically elected and all. Bang, bang you're out.

And Canada's in like a dirty shirt helping with troops to shore up the new regime, and give the whole affair a spurious air of international legitimacy. We're like the annoying obsequious side-kick of the class bully.

Now Harper, another God-fearing capitalist Tory but new-school, with a predatory neo-con edge, is in charge. He's made a big deal about "improving relations with the Americans" but his first visit to the Imperial capital was a big flop from Canada's point-of-view. No deal on soft-wood lumber (in fact a Canadian back down), no deal on the new passport regulations that will cripple the Canadian tourist trade, no nothing.

Big surprise? Just look at the way the Bushies treat their poodle Blair over in the old Imperial capital. These guys don't make deals, they lay down the law and lesser breeds fall into line.

So, getting to the meat of the rant, what are we doing in Afghanistan? Wouldn't have anything to do with a pipe-line for Caspian gas now would it? Oh, yeah it's about democracy. That's the new buzz word for the Empire. So long as you vote for the guy they want. Or can be made to seem like you voted for the guy they want. Democracy in Afghanistan is about as likely as snow in Tahiti.

It came out this week that when Canadian troops take prisoners in Afghanistan they hand them over to "Afghan authorities." Presumably for a nice hot cup of cocoa. A military spokesman said this was in respect of Afghanistan's sovereignty.

Several questions arise from this scenario. Why are we going along with the charade that Afghanistan's government is sovereign? (or Canada's for that matter, but I digress.) What do you think happens to the poor sods when the "Afghan authorities" get hold of them? Can Canada's military be liable as accomplices to torture?

If we are going to be fighting as junior partners in Imperial wars, why can't we do what we did in every other war and set up proper P.O.W. camps, and run them according to the Geneva convention? Do we have to sink into the same moral sewer as Abu Ghraib?

The US is holding thousands of people in a new-school gulag archipelago from Guatanamo Bay to Bagram to shadowy locations in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. What is the legal basis for their detention? Just the president's say-so as far as anyone can see.

If any semblance of legality were involved these prisoners would be sorted into three categories. Those taken in combat would be awarded P.O.W. status and treated accordingly. Those involved in criminal acts, including terrorism, would be properly charged by the relevant authorities in the jurisdiction were the crime was committed and given a fair trial. The rest, probably the vast majority, would be paid compensation and set free.

If Canada had any back-bone, we'd insist that something like this be done before we sign up on any more campaigns against the Boers (or whoever is annoying the Imperial power by rudely sitting on natural resources). But, hey, aren't the Leafs on tonight?

What? Not like Spam?

Some lame-brain has been spamming this blog. I've seen this crap on other blogs too - "Hey, Great Blog! You might want to click here for free software, blah blah."

So I've enabled the word verification option. My apologies but I think the annoyance of typing in a nonsense word when you post is probably less than wading through spam when you read the comments.

Last Post on Narnia

I've finished the Narnia books and want to make a few more observations.

The very last book in the series "The Last Battle" is basically an account of the Narnian apocalypse. The world ends, Aslan the Lion-Christ winnows the wheat from the chaff and all the good creatures go to a heaven Narnia for evermore.

C.S. Lewis was not only a good story-teller, but an interesting theologian. He makes heaven to be a "realer" version of Narnia (and likewise the earth's heaven is a realer version of earth.) One of the characters, a professor, references Plato in an aside. The mundane Narnia and Earth are called the Shadowlands. The children get to visit a heavenly England.

This is an intriguing take on the Christian idea of eternity. Nevertheless, even as clever a heaven as Mr. Lewis' perforce seems rather insipid to a Buddhist. It's all green grass and lolly-pops, for sure, but it's still all conditioned isn't it? The idea of conditioned existence prolonged for ever, even in a perfect Narnia, has a horrific edge if you think about it.

Notching down from the metaphysical a bit; I've commented before on Lewis' use of language and I'd like to cite one example. Remember this is from a children's book written in the fifties.

The children are about to leap into a churning waterfall in the heaven-Narnia;

"Isn't it wonderful?"said Lucy "Have you noticed one can't feel afraid even if one wants to?"

"By Jove, neither one can." said Eustace after he had tried.

That kind of syntax must be what comes of teaching Latin and Greek in the schools.

Meditation on Voidness

Lately I've been experimenting with the Meditation on Voidness from the Cula-Sunnata Sutta. I've also taught it as a guided meditation to groups and people seem to get something out of it so long as they don't let themselves get lost in speculative thought (trying to figure it out)

This is a wonderful practise which has received very little attention. Here are instructions in a nut-shell.

The meditation proceeds through a series of contemplations. The whole trick of making it work is to remember that nothing new is added at any stage. On the contrary, each stage is a successive subtraction. You advance through the stages by a process of selective non-attention.

1 - Begin with contemplation of village - this is a simple mindfulness exercise. Be aware of your surroundings, as they actually are, the room, the furnishings, any other people. Don't analyze or judge or compare. Just hold the surroundings in mindful awareness. When this is established, extend your imagination beyond the visible surroundings to take in the immediate area, the street etc., extending only as wide as is comfortable for you.

2 - Next, move on to contemplation of forest. (In scriptural useage village is a word for the whole human constructed world, forest for the natural environment.) Simply remove all human constructions from the previous mind-field and focus only on the natural world, the plants and trees especially. Remember, selective non-attention. You don't add anything, you subtract. The "forest" was a part of the first contemplation, now you make it the foreground by non-attention to "village."

3 - Next, by selective non-attention to the living world you move on to contemplation of earth. By non-attention to the living growth, become aware of the wide earth-element underlying things. Be aware in the imagination of the hills and valleys, bowls for any nearby lakes, etc. Allow your field of imaginative awareness to expand until you are holding the whole globe of this planet in awareness.

4 - Next, by non-attention to earth one should become aware of space. At first, this will be the space occupied by the earth. Removing the earth from awareness, space becomes the foreground. (Again note it was present all along - we subtract and do not add) Space by it's nature has no boundaries, so the idea of an earth-sized area should quickly dissolve into boundlessness. Hold the awareness of boundless space.

5 - Your consciousness is now filling boundless space. Okay, stop noticing space and only pay attention to the boundlessness of consciousness. Mind without limit.

6 - In the next contemplation, we stop paying attention to boundless mind and let the mind rest in nothingness.

7 - If you're able to take it this far, eventually even nothingness starts to seem "busy". In the next step we remove the concept of nothingness from our field of awareness and rest in the field called "neither-perception-nor-nonperception." Don't try to figure it out. The name is meaningless really, it's what's left when you remove nothingness.

After holding this for a while, return to the body with some mindful breathing before getting up. Good luck with this if you are inspired to try it; let me know if it works for you.

Don't Kill the Cute Ones

Pop-quiz; which one is cuter? Which one suffers more at the hands of man? Which one do you give a damn about?
Let's face it, there's a world of hypocrisy surrounding this whole seal-hunting business. Agreed, it's horrid and barbaric and unneccessary and should be banned. But I can't help wondering why there isn't a hundredth part of the outrage over the much crueler practises of modern factory-farming.

Did you know that pigs are the most intelligent mammals outside of the primates? If you have the stomach for it here's a video clip of where your morning bacon comes from. Real hell-realm stuff. You can also check out this piece by Mark Morford on the seal-hunt double-standard. If you're not familiar with his work, he's one of the cleverest and wittiest columnists out there. A modern Swift.

Technical Difficulties

You may have noticed I haven't posted in several days. There's a good excuse beyond simple laziness this time - our internet connection was down. We have a strange mix of technologies here and this time it shut us down.

We are off the grid - our only electronic link to the outside world is via a satellite dish on the roof of the cabin. This is a log cabin built in the 1930's by a Swedish settler. A little history - this area of Canada (NW Ontario) was the last area open for home-steading, which continued well into the 20th century long after all the good land further west was settled. (Or stolen to put it more accurately) It's all bog and bedrock here is why.

Look at the workmanship on the corners; check out these dove-tails. This was done by a gentleman named Ragnor Skogman who was still around when I first moved up here in the early 80's. I don't know exactly where he is now, but if he took a human rebirth he'd be about twenty now and I hope he's having lots of fun.

Now check out the tool he made those dove-tails with. That's it in the second photo, hanging in a place of honour on the side of the cabin. That's right, Ragnor hewed the logs with a broad-axe.

The cabin was built to government specs. You had to clear one acre and built a twenty by twenty building to get clear title. There isn't an inch extra. The acre is now a mowed field. I doubt it was ever very productive. We only have about an inch of topsoil.

I should also note that the cabin was built right on the ground. In the early eighties Kema Ananda, founder of the Arrow River Community Center (now Forest Hermitage) renovated the building and put it on cement blocks. These tend to float about a bit when the ground heaves in the spring.

Not a problem really until we fast forward to the 21st century and put a satellite dish on the roof. (Powered by solar) This is aimed at a geo-synchronous satellite 35,000 km up. A small shift this end is a wild swing on the other end. The repair guy said it had shifted between and eighth and a quarter of an inch. If I wasn't getting stupid in my old age I'd do the math, but I bet at the high end that translates into tens of miles.

Anyway, moral of the story - if you don't want troubles like this pick a century and stick with it. Given my druthers, I think I'd take the fifteenth.

Anyone Remember Kosovo?

We live in an age that is increasingly coming to resemble George Orwell's 1984 of perpetual war. One thing peace-loving people must guard against most is the assault of the war-mongers on our minds. War propaganda is a fine art. The enemy must be portrayed as evil incarnate, even if, especially if, they are innocent victims of our aggression.

The British in WW I printed drawings of German troops marching with bayoneted Belgian babies. Before Hitler's invasion of Poland, the German press was full of atrocity stories of hapless German farm families being killed and burnt by Polish mobs. And who can forget the infamous "Kuwaiti Incubator Babies?" (If you don't remember, you owe it to yourself to click the link.) The Weapons of Mass Deception are almost too obvious to mention in this context, although it worked well enough at the time.

One episode in recent history where the propaganda seems to have fooled most people at the time, and in fact they mostly remain fooled, is the Kosovo War of 1999. Clinton's War. The official line, dutifully pushed by most media, was that this war was a purely humanitarian effort to save the Kosovar Albanians from genocide. Milosevic was portrayed as a Hitler-like demon. (Funny how all our enemies are painted with the same comic moustache sooner or later.)
No VIrginia, if you read it in the Times, it ain't necessarily so. Anyone with critical faculties intact ought to have been suspicious at the time. Wars are expensive operations, fought for real politik reasons of strategic and economic advantage, and NATO is not a charitable organization. It's now pretty apparent that the atrocity stories were exaggerated, if not wholly cooked up. The trial at the Hague was a quasi-legal circus, but even so Milosevic was running circles around the prosecution until they muzzled him.

Now his more than slightly suspicious death. Conveniently just before his defence team was going to subpeona Bill Clinton. Milosevic's death is a good opportunity to re-examine the myths and propaganda surrounding this whole sorry episode. A good place to start might be Nebojsa Malic's sharp piece on Antiwar.com.

Narnia Continued

Thanks for all the comments about Narnia. I'm into the third book now. (The Horse and his Boy) One slightly disturbing aspect is a racist undertone. I say "slightly disturbing" because, unfortunately, it was all too common in books of that era. The hero of the book is a young Narnian boy who was shipwrecked as a baby in the southern empire of Calormen. The Calormenes are described as haughty, cunning and cruel. And swarthy of skin.

"This boy is manifestly no son of yours, for your cheek is as black as mine but the boy is fair and white like the accursed but beautiful barbarians who inhabit the remote North."

There is also the militarist angle which showed up in the other books, a playing out of the good vs. evil dualism implicit in Lewis' version of Christianity.

But it's a literary angle that I'd like to blog about; I find it irresistible to compare Lewis' Narnia to Tolkien's Middle Earth. The two men knew each other, were in fact close friends and members of an informal literary society called the Inklings. They would read manuscript chapters to each other and no doubt influenced one another's thinking. There is some obvious similarity of both style and substance (although it is only fair to compare the Narnia books to the Hobbit so far as style goes - both being intended for the young.)

One striking difference is the much higher degree of verisimilitude and internal consistency in Tolkien. The Narnia stories I've read so far show a lot of quite loose continuity. For example, in the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe much is made of the visiting English children being "children of Adam and Eve" and the various talking animals, satyrs and nymphs of the world apparently regard humans as quite an oddity.

Now, in the Horse and his Boy, there seems to be a whole race of (beautiful white) Narnian humans amongst the other creatures.

Also, the geography of Narnia is sketchy at best, and there is certainly no attempt at developing languages or real histories for the various races. Tolkien's world, on the other hand, was worked out in painstaking detail. In fact, Tolkien was a linguist and his first creation in the oeuvre were the languages of the elves and Numenoreans, which he did as an exercise in linguistic structure. He then began speculating about what kind of people might speak these languages, and worked up the SIlmarillion as a result. The published books came later, and were fitted into a pre-existing history and geography.

Narnia, on the other hand, seems almost an afterthought. A colourful backdrop for fairy stories with a Christian message. Tolkien too, was a Christian, but his message is much less overt (and perhaps even less orthodox and more pagan in spirit.) Some critics of Tolkien have indeed charged him with not including a religion for his world. This charge seems to me totally unwarranted. The men and elves of Middle Earth were so close to the gods (the Valar) that no formal religion was needed.

Changing gears a little, it's also occurred to me to wonder whether the Narnia movies coming out just now aren't possibly a Christian counter-stroke to the success of the Harry Potter books.

Notes on Narnia

When I was a lad (back when rocks were soft) one of my favourite fiction series was the C.S. Lewis Narnia books. Hearing that there is movie series coming out piqued my curiosity to pick them up again. So far I'm through the first two in the series (the Magician's Nephew and the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe)

It's kind of a strange experience to revisit Narnia after more than four decades of life experience. The books bring up a number of reflections;

First, pedagogical; the level of vocabulary and complex ideas are surprising in a children's book. Did C.S. Lewis just not know how to write for children, or was the education system just that much better in 'forties? One suspects the latter, because not only myself but many children of my generation and older read the books with great delight and I don't remember being baffled by them.

Second, literary; C.S. Lewis is a good writer. He has an elegant way of putting things and a wry sense of humour that shows through again and again. I've read many of his works for adults, including his science-fiction series beginning with Out of the Silent Planet and the same good style shows up there too. (I'll take the opportunity here to plug my own Letters from Mara, which are a Buddhist spin on Lewis' Screwtape Letters. By the way, Letters from Mara is forthcoming as a Wheel Book from BPS)

Third, spiritual; it's no secret that Lewis was a devout Christian, although judging from his works perhaps a wee bit heterodox. The Christian symbolism in the first two books is pretty evident. Aslan the lion is the Christ of Narnia, he is even killed and rises from the dead to save the world.

I'm all for inter-faith dialogue and all that, but don't have any time for the position that "all religions teach the same thing underneath." Some aspects of the Christian mythos in the Narnia books just can't be translated into a Buddhist framework. There is the creationist angle in the Magician's Nephew when Aslan calls the world of Narnia into being by singing, but we can let that slide.

A more practical concern is the inherent dualism of good and evil that drives the plot. There is the good lion and all his good creatures on one side and there is the evil witch and her hordes of demons and spooks on the other. Good and evil, to this sort of Christian, are inherent qualities of being. Buddhists don't like using those words. The closest equivalent is the classification of ethical states into kusala and akusala, which translate most literally as skilful and unskilful.

There is a curious sutta in which Moggallana has an encounter with Mara and in the course of their discussion it comes out that Moggallana himself had been the Mara of a previous world-age. Since the Mara is the closest Buddhist equivalent of the Devil, it transpires that even the Devil in Buddhism is not beyond redemption. This is not the case in orthodox Christianity where the damned are damned forever. (We can add that rebirth into the Buddhist hells is also a temporary state, not eternal damnation.)

Furthermore, this dualism of good vs. evil presupposes the necessity of a struggle, even to the death, with the forces of darkness. This sets up a convenient framework for fiction, but has disturbing implications for real life. In the Narnia stories, Aslan leads the good creatures in an actual battle against the witch and her minions. The protagonist, the English boy Peter, is given a sword by Father Christmas no less and slays an evil wolf with it.

This theologically sanctioned warfare may seem harmless in the context of Narnia where talking animals and other odd creatures are battling goblins and monsters, but it can and does play out in the real world too. All the various crusades were driven by this idea. During the Albigensian crusade in France against the heretic Cathars of Languedoc, one of the French generals asked a bishop how his men could know who to spare when massacring a captured town. (He was concerned that some good Catholics remained among the Cathars.) The bishop's reply was "Kill them all, God will sort them out."

This isn't just an historical relic either, but is a powerful force in the world today. Just witness the rhetoric used by the Bush administration with all their talk of "evil-doers" vs. "good-guys." When the enemy is an irredeemable orc, the Geneva Conventions don't apply.

Notice for Local Readers

As Ajahn Kusalo has already left, and I will be away for ten days, the Saturday night pujas are cancelled on the 18th and the 25th. They will resume on the 1st of April. Thanks.

The Abhidhamma of Hunting

Tom made some cogent points in his comments on my "Deadeye Dick" post. It was certainly not my intention to post a defence of hunting. It's just that I am not so judgemental as I used to be. All kinds of people don't live up to the precepts in all kinds of ways, and it's probably better in general to work with people where they're at and hope they'll improve. Is the person who occassionally hunts or fishes any worse than the occassional drinker or someone who indulges in illegal downloads of music?

Tom is quite right when he says that the act of killing is always wrong. According to abhidhamma theory, we would call it an "akusala kamma," or unskilfull act. That is, one stemming from an unwholesome mind-state and leading to a bad destination. Again according to the orthodox theory; killing an animal stems from the root of ill-will.

I had an interesting discussion once with a fellow monk who had hunted as a layman. (I never have, only fished a very few times and didn't like it.) He maintained that the root in the case of most hunters is really greed. He said when he hunted it was greed for venison which motivated him. I put up a stout defence of the orthodox theory at the time, but now I'm not so sure. Other men I've known have said their motivation for hunting is desire for some particular meat, such as moose (which is admittedly delicious) or pheasant.

The last-ditch defence of orthodoxy would be that there must be at least one mind-moment of ill-will when the trigger is pulled; one hates the deer for running off with all that yummy venison I suppose. I would question Tom's assertion that hunting is "for the fun of killing." It may be so for some pathological types, not mentioning any vice-presidential persons by name, but I don't see that in the guys I've known over the years who go hunting.

And I think it is hard to refute the argument that hunting is far less cruel than factory-farming.
The industry's practises these days are an absolute moral abomination.

One final issue; I don't but the hunter's argument that their activities are neccessary to control the numbers of species like deer. This is true only in the immediate short term and is a symptom of very bad wildlife policies, must of which are driven by the hunting lobby. Predator species like wolf are controlled or even eradicated. Up until fairly recent times there used to be a bounty on wolves in Ontario, and there is still an open season. There is really no reason to kill predator species at all. If we let the wolves alone they'd control the deer just fine without us.

Which brings up the point that most wild animals end up as somebody's lunch whatever we do or don't do.

Meet the Neighbours

In my front yard yesterday afternoon. The post is part of bird-feeder. This is one reason I really like living here.

Of Fonts and Colours

There's some controversy brewing in the comments about whether white-on-black or black-on-white is better. I thought of putting up a poll, and may do so yet if I can find a free service that doesn't use pop-ups. Anyway, thanks for the input.

My own feeling is that some colour other than white is a better background. White screens are by definition putting out maximum light and are hard on the eyes. In the end I may go with black text on some pale coloured background.

On the use of fonts; serif fonts were invented as a practical way to extend the life of block print in the old days of moveable lead type. If, for instance, the cross-arms of a lower case t started to wear out, a sans-serif t would look like an l. The serifs on the end, being relatively bulky, would wear out last and the vertical stroke would at least have two little dots on either side which the eye would fill in. So they're kind of redundant with computers.

Also, serif fonts always remind me of school books and newspapers. They seem somehow more academic and serious. Sans-serif can sometimes seem light and even trivial. It's all a matter of taste I guess.

Hockey Night in Kandahar

Canadian troops are starting to take casualties in Afghanistan. We have to ask if it is worth it. The new Conservative gov't is refusing a debate in parliament, saying it would be "bad for the troop's morale." The foreign minister also said "Canadians don't cut and run." The rhetoric could have been written by a Bush staffer. (The last gov't wasn't perfect, but one thing I miss is the ability to feel smug about how at least we weren't as bad as the Americans.)

The Buddha said something very interesting about war; he said "men strap on armour and wield swords against each other for sensual desire's sake." In the case of all these new colonialist wars in the Middle East; that holds very true. The sensual desire is energy to run our autos and heat our homes.

Bringing democracy? Give me a break. The western powers are getting less democratic by the day with their Patriot Acts and secret trials. (And we have made in Canada versions here.)

In Iraq of course, it's about the oil stupid. The Afghan war has been out of the spotlight until recently and the polite cover story seems to have held up with the public better. But what you see on CNN ain't neccessarily the whole picture. The stark fact is that this territory needs to be held because it is the only viable route to bring Caspian gas to market.

There are also some specific questions that Canadians need to hear answers to. Are we turning over prisoners of war to the American military, which does not respect the Geneva Convention? If we must have troops there at all, why aren't we working with the United Nations instead of putting them under the banner of the US Operation Enduring Freedom? (Don't you love the Orwellian panache of those guys?)

Anyway interested in some background can read a pdf file published by the Canadian Peace Alliance.

Mea Culpa

From my inbox

Venerable Ajahn Punnadhammo:

I was hoping to have you answer some questions for me, which are unrelated themselves but have both demanded answering in my mind. I do thoroughly enjoy reading your blog, and check it frequently for updates, but find myself naggingly questioning the appropriateness of a Theravada monk to be commenting on those things which you do. No doubt this has been addressed to you before, and you may have even spoken of the question on your blog in the past, but I am a new reader as of the published Tricycle article on Buddhist Blogs, and am curious to read your response to the issue. I did a few minutes of quick research into the patimokkha, and was quite astonished to see that there are indeed no rules at all which specifically restrict the speech of a Bhikku, but I might point out that in the Nikayas certain topics seem to be looked down upon, though no formal transgression or punishment is detailed.

"Whereas some priests and contemplatives, living off food given in faith, are addicted to talking about lowly topics such as these — talking about kings, robbers, ministers of state; armies, alarms, and battles; food and drink; clothing, furniture, garlands, and scents; relatives; vehicles; villages, towns, cities, the countryside; women and heroes; the gossip of the street and the well; tales of the dead; tales of diversity [philosophical discussions of the past and future], the creation of the world and of the sea, and talk of whether things exist or not — he abstains from talking about lowly topics such as these. This, too, is part of his virtue." DN 2

I think I can safely say I have never used this blog to talk about garlands and scents. More seriously, I have two things to say in my defence;

First, as the emailer goes on to say;

Accesstoinsight.org also provides this useful commentary on the matter - "Conversation that does not deal with the Dhamma, though, is termed "animal talk" (tiracchana-katha) in the Canon, and there are several passages (e.g., Pc. XXI.1; LXXXV.1; Mv.V.6.3-4) that criticize members of the group of six for engaging in animal talk: worldly talk about "kings, robbers, and ministers of state (politics); armies, alarms, and battles; food and drink; clothing, furniture, garlands, and scents; relatives; vehicles; villages, towns, cities, the countryside; women and heroes; the gossip of the street and the well; tales of the dead; also philosophical discussions of the past and future (this is how the Sub-commentary to Pacittiya 85 explains 'tales of diversity'), the creation of the world and of the sea, and talk of whether things exist or not." The Sub-commentary notes, though, that to discuss any of these topics in a way to foster an understanding of the Dhamma — e.g., discussing the impermanence of worldly power — is not considered improper.

I believe that politics can be a proper subject of comment for a bhikkhu provided his effort is directed towards Buddhist virtues such as peace, compassion and contentment with little.

Secondly, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. I am only human and sometimes I'm in a mood and edge over the line. In general, I don't think it helps one's spiritual life to be overly rigid and narrow. It's all a question of finding the balance (Middle Way.)

And let me add a third; there is a vinaya rule against looking into another monk's bowl to find fault.

Blog Format

Thanks for all the input I've received on the format of the new blog.
A number of people have pointed out the white-on-black style of this blog is hard on the eyes. Although my first impression was how cool it looked, I do have to concur. At some point hopefully soon, I'm going to sit down over a cup of coffee and re-jig the CSS for the page (which BlogSpot lets you do) and come up with something better. Any more suggestions would be useful at this point.

PS - a few people have suggested I turn on the word verification option to stop spam. I will do so if spam starts to become a problem. Until then, why burden the user with it?

PPS - one person asks for a bigger font-size. I sympathize, but you can always increase or decrease the displayed font-size yourself, unless you are browsing with Explorer. And why on earth would you want to do that?

Deadeye Dick goes Hunting

When Dick Cheney shot that guy in the face last week, they were hunting pen-raised quail on a so-called "game farm." This isn't hunting, it's pure gratuitous slaughter.

The first precept of Buddhism is non-harming so good Buddhist don't hunt. I used to be pretty militantly opposed to all forms of hunting. But living in an area where it's part of the culture, and getting to know a few decent people who hunt I've softened my views somewhat. Thoughtful hunters make a couple of arguments that are hard to counter. First off, if you are not vegetarian you are eating meat that came from some living being. A wild deer or moose suffers a lot less than a factory-farmed pig or chicken. So hunting is kinder to the animal than farming (or more accurately, less cruel.) Second, these days agri-business (as it's more accurately called than "farming") pumps so much crap into the "product"; anti-biotics, growth hormones, even brains fed to herbivores until it (surprise) caused a horrible wasting disease. The only way to get healthy meat is to kill a wild animal.

We could add to these the social fact that hunting is a traditional part of many marginal economies. And in Canada that is not just the natives either, in many parts of the country wild game is an important part of the diet for the rural poor and has been for many generations.

Nevertheless, these defences only hold good in the limited area of food hunting. Also many, probably most, hunters have some sense of sportsmanship. Using bait is considered unfair, for instance.

Some forms of hunting are absolutely indefensible on moral grounds. Trophy hunting for one; people who take down a moose or an elk for the "rack" or a bear for the pelt for instance. I heard the other day that it used to be common practise in BC to dump moose carcasses in swamps after removing the rack. This was at one time a legal and accepted practise.

Bear hunting as it is practised around here fails on both counts. It is utterly unsportsmanlike because the bear is baited to approach an elevated blind. And it is wasteful because usually the only thing the hunter wants is a pelt as a trophy to put in his den.

Hunting penned animals on a game farm is also without any redeeming merit. I wonder what the fat quails Cheney blasted were fed on?

It is a disturbing thought that some people would find an afternoon of shooting helpless birds amusing. It is even more disturbing when these people are among the most powerful in the world.

Play the Dick Cheney Hunting Game online.

Read the Humane Society statement on canned hunts.