Mar 10, 2006
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.
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.
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
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;
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.
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.
Mar 5, 2006
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?
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.
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.
Mar 1, 2006
Milarepa Movie
There's a movie about Milarepa. You can download images and a trailer at their website. The imagery looks spectacular.
War Crimes and Apologists
ne of the most savage aspects of modern warfare must surely be aerial bombardment of cities, with the consequent loss of civilian life. This feature of modern war is another reason to doubt the myth of progress. Pre-modern wars were fought by soldiers, more or less face to face. Civilian casualties were few. Nowadays, civilian casualties often out-number military ones. Example - Iraq.
A disturbing part of this is the moral blind-spot towards bombing. We've seen it in all recent wars; Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan. Civilian infrastructure like dams and bridges are routinely destroyed, with no regard for casualties, which are dismissed with the demeaning euphemism "collateral damage." In Serbia, the US bombed a civilian radio station, in Iraq a water treatment plant. And this doesn't address all the people killed in accidental misses; smart bombs are just hype, they can't be properly targeted from the altitudes routinely flown. How this is morally better than terrorism is beyond me.
It's a cowardly form of warfare, when you get down to it. The military "exports" the risk to the hapless civilians, whom their propaganda claims to be "liberating." An ugly business.
There were attempts to outlaw aerial bombardment of civilian centres. The League of Nations passed a unanimous resolution to this effect in 1938. Fat lot of good that did.
We won't advance morally as a species until we face our history squarely. For instance, consider the fire-bombing of Dresden during the closing days of WW2. (Something I've written about before.) There remains a strange reluctance to admit that the Allies were capable of committing atrocities too.
A recent article by Deborah Lipstadt is a case study of this moral blindness. She makes a big issue out of disputed numbers; as if 25,000 (her lower estimate) were okay. Lipstadt details some things that might have been military targets in Dresden; most importantly the railyards through which the Germans were moving troops. The bombing of Dresden was not a limited strike at such targets, but the systematic and deliberate destruction by fire (the literal meaning of holocaust) of an entire city. No where does she explain why it was necessary to fire-bomb the town itself. In fact, she doesn't address the use of incendaries at all.
The first step towards a truly sane and peaceful world is to address the moral issues without prejudice. So long as we justify atrocities committed by "the good guys" we are going to go on committing them.
A disturbing part of this is the moral blind-spot towards bombing. We've seen it in all recent wars; Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan. Civilian infrastructure like dams and bridges are routinely destroyed, with no regard for casualties, which are dismissed with the demeaning euphemism "collateral damage." In Serbia, the US bombed a civilian radio station, in Iraq a water treatment plant. And this doesn't address all the people killed in accidental misses; smart bombs are just hype, they can't be properly targeted from the altitudes routinely flown. How this is morally better than terrorism is beyond me.
It's a cowardly form of warfare, when you get down to it. The military "exports" the risk to the hapless civilians, whom their propaganda claims to be "liberating." An ugly business.
There were attempts to outlaw aerial bombardment of civilian centres. The League of Nations passed a unanimous resolution to this effect in 1938. Fat lot of good that did.
We won't advance morally as a species until we face our history squarely. For instance, consider the fire-bombing of Dresden during the closing days of WW2. (Something I've written about before.) There remains a strange reluctance to admit that the Allies were capable of committing atrocities too.
A recent article by Deborah Lipstadt is a case study of this moral blindness. She makes a big issue out of disputed numbers; as if 25,000 (her lower estimate) were okay. Lipstadt details some things that might have been military targets in Dresden; most importantly the railyards through which the Germans were moving troops. The bombing of Dresden was not a limited strike at such targets, but the systematic and deliberate destruction by fire (the literal meaning of holocaust) of an entire city. No where does she explain why it was necessary to fire-bomb the town itself. In fact, she doesn't address the use of incendaries at all.
The first step towards a truly sane and peaceful world is to address the moral issues without prejudice. So long as we justify atrocities committed by "the good guys" we are going to go on committing them.
Bamiyan Buddhas
BuddhistChannel has a good article on the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas.
The writer seems to criticize UNESCO for not wanting to rebuild the statues, a project that would cost an estimated $30 million. Actually, I'm with UNESCO on this. The statues are gone. Their destruction was worse than a crime, it was an act of monumental stupidity. But they cannot be brought back; modern replicas would be just that, replicas. And would the replicas include the eyes, which were excised by a previous generation of bigots? But mostly, there must be a better use of UNESCO's money.
One aspect of this story that interests me is the estimated cost; this translates into a major engineering problem. And yet ancient artisans managed the job with hand-tools. Like I said before, progress is a myth.
The writer seems to criticize UNESCO for not wanting to rebuild the statues, a project that would cost an estimated $30 million. Actually, I'm with UNESCO on this. The statues are gone. Their destruction was worse than a crime, it was an act of monumental stupidity. But they cannot be brought back; modern replicas would be just that, replicas. And would the replicas include the eyes, which were excised by a previous generation of bigots? But mostly, there must be a better use of UNESCO's money.
One aspect of this story that interests me is the estimated cost; this translates into a major engineering problem. And yet ancient artisans managed the job with hand-tools. Like I said before, progress is a myth.
Feb 27, 2006
Buddhist Prophecies
A couple of learned responses to my Apocalypse Not posting. Thanks people, much appreciated. To ahistoricity; the source for my "linguistic diversion" was "Gem in the Lotus: The Seeding of Indian Civilization" by Abraham Eraly. A very good recent history of ancient India. I'll accept your correction about Judaism, at least in so far as the mainstream of the religion. But there does exist a quite dangerous fringe who want to rebuild the Temple. The fact that the second holiest Mosque in Islam presently sits on the site is, to these guys, a mere annoyance that a few sticks of dynamite could put right. (A bigger obstacle might be getting a Red Heifer to sacrifice, but there's always genetic engineering.)
E.M. opens a discussion of what could be called a millenarian strain within Buddhism. This is an interesting line of inquiry. There are scriptural supports for an historical/prophetic narrative (see especially the two suttas of the Digha Nikaya, the Agganna Sutta and the Cakkavatti Sutta) The prophetic narrative has at least four separate but overlapping strains;
The Cyclic Arising and Falling of the World - Everything is impermanent, including this earth and world-system. It arose at a certain moment in the past, evolves through various stages, and will at least come to an end; in this cycle through fire. The details of this cosmological narrative make an interesting study, but a few things should be noted which differentiate it from the narratives of the theistic religions. Firstly, it is a cycle. There is no ultimate beginning or ending. There is no final apocalyptic climax, just a clearing of the decks for a new world-system much like the old one. Secondly, it is not seen as some grand divine plan but just the unfolding of natural law; there is no real plot in samsara. We are not developing to some final triumph of good over evil. Thirdly, the end even of this world-system is not traditionally seen as imminent, but is safely put off thousands of years in the future. Fourthly, the end is not something any Buddhists have ever desired or sought to manifest.
The Coming Buddha One coming event that many Buddhists do look forward to is the arising of Metteya (or Maitreya) Buddha, the next or coming Buddha. In the Theravada reckoning he will be the last Buddha of this world-system, but still a few thousand years away, and a few thousand more before the end. In some times and places, the concept of the coming Buddha has become a significant aspect of Buddhist practise and belief. Some modern Buddhists, especially in Sri Lanka, believe that we are now in an age of such decline of the Dhamma that it is no longer possible to attain the path-and-fruit so that the best we can aspire to is rebirth in the time of Metteya. This idea may have some resemblance to the Messiahs and Mahdis of the theists but again we should note the differences; Metteya is not seen as the final culmination of history; he is one Buddha in an infinite series. Nor has his expected appearance ever appeared imminent or caused millenarian movements as we have seen time and again in Christianity and Islam. Judaism has been a bit more restrained in this regard, but there is the strange case of Sabbatai Levi.
Admittedly, there are at least three or four pretenders currently claiming to be Maitreya, but that's really a New Age thing and none of them are taken seriously by any Buddhists.
As a last note, I recently heard a joke poking gentle fun at those Buddhists who put all their aspirations in the future Buddha. Q. What is the first question people will ask Metteya when he comes? A.- The next Buddha, what's his name?
The Wheel-Turning Monarch Most of you will probably be familiar with the story that the infant Siddhattha was destined to be either a Buddha or a Wheel-Turning Monarch. There is also the Cakkavatti sutta referenced above which details the myth of the Wheel-Turner. He is a great and wise world-ruler who arises at long intervals to usher in an age of righteousness. He conquers the whole world without shedding blood and has a number of magical signs associated with him; most notably, the appearance of an eight-spoked wheel in the sky over his palace. This wheel travels with him and awes rival kings to submit to his authority.
The scholar S.J. Tambiah has made a study of how this mythology has under lain the monarchies of S.E. Asia, both as ideal and as rationale. (See World Conqueror and World Renouncer) This concept was also critical for understanding the Ashokan Empire.
The Age of Decline Finally, one aspect of Buddhist prophecy very central to all these narratives is that this current time is an age of slow but inexorable decline. At the time of the arising of a Buddha, there is a brief Golden Age when many beings with excellent karma are reborn at once. Many of these attain Nibbana in the first generation and are removed from the world. Those who are almost as refined may take a few more lifetimes, but by the time we get to a period long after the Buddha, all that are left are sorry specimens like ourselves. Lifespans, morality, wisdom, all decline steadily until everything bottoms out in a dark period when humans will revert to an animal existence with a lifespan of ten years. According to one traditional reckoning we are about half-way down the slope already.
This myth is in direct contrast to the western myth of progress. This isn't as popular, perhaps, as it was in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, but still has its adherents. Personally, I don't find the myth of progress very convincing. The twentieth was the worst century ever; at least the first half. The twenty-first is sure off to a rough start also.
I know someone will object that lifetimes are actually getting longer, but are they? You sometimes hear that people in pre-modern times had a life expectancy of thirty or forty. This leads many writers to assume that old people were very rare, but this isn't supported from contemporary accounts. What seems to have been the reality is that infant mortality was very high; highest in the early industrial period actually. If you factor out infant deaths, people two or three hundred years ago probably lived at least as long as we do.
We really have no way of accurately knowing what lifespans were like in ancient times. There are many passing references in the Pali Canon which would lead one to believe that one hundred was considered the normal human life expectancy at the time. Certainly, in morality and wisdom, we are no better than the ancients, and probably a damn sight worse.
E.M. opens a discussion of what could be called a millenarian strain within Buddhism. This is an interesting line of inquiry. There are scriptural supports for an historical/prophetic narrative (see especially the two suttas of the Digha Nikaya, the Agganna Sutta and the Cakkavatti Sutta) The prophetic narrative has at least four separate but overlapping strains;
The Cyclic Arising and Falling of the World - Everything is impermanent, including this earth and world-system. It arose at a certain moment in the past, evolves through various stages, and will at least come to an end; in this cycle through fire. The details of this cosmological narrative make an interesting study, but a few things should be noted which differentiate it from the narratives of the theistic religions. Firstly, it is a cycle. There is no ultimate beginning or ending. There is no final apocalyptic climax, just a clearing of the decks for a new world-system much like the old one. Secondly, it is not seen as some grand divine plan but just the unfolding of natural law; there is no real plot in samsara. We are not developing to some final triumph of good over evil. Thirdly, the end even of this world-system is not traditionally seen as imminent, but is safely put off thousands of years in the future. Fourthly, the end is not something any Buddhists have ever desired or sought to manifest.
The Coming Buddha One coming event that many Buddhists do look forward to is the arising of Metteya (or Maitreya) Buddha, the next or coming Buddha. In the Theravada reckoning he will be the last Buddha of this world-system, but still a few thousand years away, and a few thousand more before the end. In some times and places, the concept of the coming Buddha has become a significant aspect of Buddhist practise and belief. Some modern Buddhists, especially in Sri Lanka, believe that we are now in an age of such decline of the Dhamma that it is no longer possible to attain the path-and-fruit so that the best we can aspire to is rebirth in the time of Metteya. This idea may have some resemblance to the Messiahs and Mahdis of the theists but again we should note the differences; Metteya is not seen as the final culmination of history; he is one Buddha in an infinite series. Nor has his expected appearance ever appeared imminent or caused millenarian movements as we have seen time and again in Christianity and Islam. Judaism has been a bit more restrained in this regard, but there is the strange case of Sabbatai Levi.
Admittedly, there are at least three or four pretenders currently claiming to be Maitreya, but that's really a New Age thing and none of them are taken seriously by any Buddhists.
As a last note, I recently heard a joke poking gentle fun at those Buddhists who put all their aspirations in the future Buddha. Q. What is the first question people will ask Metteya when he comes? A.- The next Buddha, what's his name?
The Wheel-Turning Monarch Most of you will probably be familiar with the story that the infant Siddhattha was destined to be either a Buddha or a Wheel-Turning Monarch. There is also the Cakkavatti sutta referenced above which details the myth of the Wheel-Turner. He is a great and wise world-ruler who arises at long intervals to usher in an age of righteousness. He conquers the whole world without shedding blood and has a number of magical signs associated with him; most notably, the appearance of an eight-spoked wheel in the sky over his palace. This wheel travels with him and awes rival kings to submit to his authority.
The scholar S.J. Tambiah has made a study of how this mythology has under lain the monarchies of S.E. Asia, both as ideal and as rationale. (See World Conqueror and World Renouncer) This concept was also critical for understanding the Ashokan Empire.
The Age of Decline Finally, one aspect of Buddhist prophecy very central to all these narratives is that this current time is an age of slow but inexorable decline. At the time of the arising of a Buddha, there is a brief Golden Age when many beings with excellent karma are reborn at once. Many of these attain Nibbana in the first generation and are removed from the world. Those who are almost as refined may take a few more lifetimes, but by the time we get to a period long after the Buddha, all that are left are sorry specimens like ourselves. Lifespans, morality, wisdom, all decline steadily until everything bottoms out in a dark period when humans will revert to an animal existence with a lifespan of ten years. According to one traditional reckoning we are about half-way down the slope already.
This myth is in direct contrast to the western myth of progress. This isn't as popular, perhaps, as it was in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, but still has its adherents. Personally, I don't find the myth of progress very convincing. The twentieth was the worst century ever; at least the first half. The twenty-first is sure off to a rough start also.
I know someone will object that lifetimes are actually getting longer, but are they? You sometimes hear that people in pre-modern times had a life expectancy of thirty or forty. This leads many writers to assume that old people were very rare, but this isn't supported from contemporary accounts. What seems to have been the reality is that infant mortality was very high; highest in the early industrial period actually. If you factor out infant deaths, people two or three hundred years ago probably lived at least as long as we do.
We really have no way of accurately knowing what lifespans were like in ancient times. There are many passing references in the Pali Canon which would lead one to believe that one hundred was considered the normal human life expectancy at the time. Certainly, in morality and wisdom, we are no better than the ancients, and probably a damn sight worse.
Feb 24, 2006
Apocalypse Not
The last time I blogged on the old site, I gave my first reactions to the mosque bombing in Samarra. Bad news for sure, with a whiff of apocalypse about it. Thinking more generally about the background, I think it shows up one of the key ways in which theistic religions are different from non-theistic ones like Buddhism or Taoism. That is their conception of time.
Theistic religions usually have a definite story-line for the universe with a clear moment of origin (creation) leading through some various struggles between good and evil, to a clear moment of ending (the millennium.) This was certainly the case with what may be the grand-daddy of the whole genre, Zoroastrianism where the whole of history is seen as a struggle between more or less equal Gods of good and evil. With a cataclysmic
(Odd linguistic digression: when the old Aryan tribes split into an Iranian (Iran = Arya) and an Indian branch they went their separate ways spiritually. And they took each others gods as devils and vice versa. The Zoroastrian good god is Ahura Mazda, and the servants of the bad god were devils. The Indians called one class of demons Asuras and their gods, of course, were devas.)
And what was true of Zoroastrianism has been true for the three great Semitic religions. Judaism is waiting for the Messiah, Christianity for the second coming and Islam, at least the Shiite form, for the Mahdi, the returned twelfth imam. Who, incidentally, is believed by some to be due to appear at the Al-Askari Mosque in Samarra.
It's hard to get away from this conception. Even Marxism, which Toynbee called the "fourth great semitic religion" is at heart a millenarian belief.
Buddhism, on the other hand, doesn't generally concern itself with beginnings and endings. (But then, there's the Tibetan legends about Shambhala) In fact, the Buddha said that questions about ultimate origins, or about the infinity or otherwise of the universe, were pointless and unanswerable.
Instead of a story with a definite plot-line, Buddhism has mostly seen the universe as a beginingless and endless cycle. Sometimes westerners criticize Buddhism as having a negative attitude toward the world. This is misplaced. Buddhism doesn't see the world as evil, but as pointless. The key concept is samsara as a wheel, endlessly turning. Sentient beings are much like hamsters in a wheel, running hard and going nowhere. It's all been seen and done before, countless times. Another aeon as a Brahma god, feeding on bliss? How utterly tedious.
The theistic universe is like a bad movie; utterly predictable. It starts out happy and innocent and then something goes wrong, somebody messes up and eats an apple they shouldn't. Then there's various adventures leading to a scary and exciting climax with lots of action where the good guys are almost wiped out but triumph in the end to live happily ever after.
This would only be an anthropological curiosity, except that there are people out there who believe this stuff with a passion. And some of those people have nukes.
The Middle East is a specially charged cockpit of apocalyptic potential. All the theistic religions, passionate about their own one true stories, have points of reference all over the real estate there. And then there's the Americans.
We should be careful about being too self-righteous. It isn't unheard of for Buddhists to act intolerantly or aggressively. But at least, we don't generally think the end of the world might be a good thing. I guess it would be as pointless as everything else.
Theistic religions usually have a definite story-line for the universe with a clear moment of origin (creation) leading through some various struggles between good and evil, to a clear moment of ending (the millennium.) This was certainly the case with what may be the grand-daddy of the whole genre, Zoroastrianism where the whole of history is seen as a struggle between more or less equal Gods of good and evil. With a cataclysmic
(Odd linguistic digression: when the old Aryan tribes split into an Iranian (Iran = Arya) and an Indian branch they went their separate ways spiritually. And they took each others gods as devils and vice versa. The Zoroastrian good god is Ahura Mazda, and the servants of the bad god were devils. The Indians called one class of demons Asuras and their gods, of course, were devas.)
And what was true of Zoroastrianism has been true for the three great Semitic religions. Judaism is waiting for the Messiah, Christianity for the second coming and Islam, at least the Shiite form, for the Mahdi, the returned twelfth imam. Who, incidentally, is believed by some to be due to appear at the Al-Askari Mosque in Samarra.
It's hard to get away from this conception. Even Marxism, which Toynbee called the "fourth great semitic religion" is at heart a millenarian belief.
Buddhism, on the other hand, doesn't generally concern itself with beginnings and endings. (But then, there's the Tibetan legends about Shambhala) In fact, the Buddha said that questions about ultimate origins, or about the infinity or otherwise of the universe, were pointless and unanswerable.
Instead of a story with a definite plot-line, Buddhism has mostly seen the universe as a beginingless and endless cycle. Sometimes westerners criticize Buddhism as having a negative attitude toward the world. This is misplaced. Buddhism doesn't see the world as evil, but as pointless. The key concept is samsara as a wheel, endlessly turning. Sentient beings are much like hamsters in a wheel, running hard and going nowhere. It's all been seen and done before, countless times. Another aeon as a Brahma god, feeding on bliss? How utterly tedious.
The theistic universe is like a bad movie; utterly predictable. It starts out happy and innocent and then something goes wrong, somebody messes up and eats an apple they shouldn't. Then there's various adventures leading to a scary and exciting climax with lots of action where the good guys are almost wiped out but triumph in the end to live happily ever after.
This would only be an anthropological curiosity, except that there are people out there who believe this stuff with a passion. And some of those people have nukes.
The Middle East is a specially charged cockpit of apocalyptic potential. All the theistic religions, passionate about their own one true stories, have points of reference all over the real estate there. And then there's the Americans.
We should be careful about being too self-righteous. It isn't unheard of for Buddhists to act intolerantly or aggressively. But at least, we don't generally think the end of the world might be a good thing. I guess it would be as pointless as everything else.
Brand New Start
I've received a lot of comments about my old blog over at tbaytel. "Why didn't you post my long rambling diatribe?" "Why don't you include permalinks, RSS, this that and the other?" "Get with the times already." Nicest thing anyone said was Buddhadhamma magazine calling my blog "quirky." OK, so here goes a new beginning. I'm trying out the blogger.com system to see how it flies. You can add your own comments directly, and will have grounds to gripe if I delete them. The posts are supposed to automatically archive themselves and there are all kinds of other neat gimmicks, I should say, features.
I don't see an easy way (as yet) to archive the previous posts - I've got them all on disk and could put them up as a stand-alone archive if anyone is interested.
This new start is part of a general revamp of the Arrow River site as we have finally gotten our own domain name: www.arrowriver.ca This is the fourth url we've had, and it should be the last - we can always move it over to a new host now without changing the address.
Anyone, how do you like the white on black minimalist look?
I don't see an easy way (as yet) to archive the previous posts - I've got them all on disk and could put them up as a stand-alone archive if anyone is interested.
This new start is part of a general revamp of the Arrow River site as we have finally gotten our own domain name: www.arrowriver.ca This is the fourth url we've had, and it should be the last - we can always move it over to a new host now without changing the address.
Anyone, how do you like the white on black minimalist look?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
![[alsmbowl]](http://arrowriver.ca/images/buttons/bowlbtn2.gif "donations always welcome")