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.