Fundamentalism and Triumphalism

We hear a lot about religious fundamentalism these days. I suppose we are stuck with the term, but it is actually used imprecisely. Fundamentalism, according to one dictionary definition is "strict maintenance of ancient or fundamental doctrines of any religion or ideology." This in itself may not necessarily be a negative thing. Fidelity to a tradition and it's teachings is one legitimate approach to religion. It may be thought by some to be narrow, by others to demonstrate an integrity and clarity of thought.

However, what is often called "fundamentalism" these days is probably better called "triumphalism." This is the view that one's religion is absolutely right, all others are wrong, and usually leads to the conclusion that force is justified to promote one's beliefs. The Buddha condemned this kind of thinking; "this is right, all else is wrong" as leading to disputation and conflict. We can certainly see that today.

The triumphalist imperative pollutes any religion it touches. While it seems more natural to arise in mono-theistic religions ("my god is bigger than your god") sadly even Buddhism doesn't escape. We had the sorry story this week of fundamentalist monks in Sri Lanka breaking up a peace rally with fist-fighting. How anyone can defend this behaviour as consistent with the Buddha's teaching is beyond me.

There is also a Hindu fundamentalism, whose deeds included the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi and the wrecking of the historic Babri mosque in 1992 (which sparked bloody communal riots.) These type of actions are hardly compatible with the Hindu ideal of ahimsa. (harmlessness)

We hear a lot about Islamic fundamentalism (or Islamo-fascism in the fanciful neo-con lexicon.) Often the discussion simplifies complex and contradictory movements within modern Islam, which seems to be in a period of ferment and renewal not unlike the Protestant Reformation of 16th Europe. That period too, had it's "mad mullahs," it's iconclasm and it's struggle to come to terms with a changing world.

Certainly groups like the Taliban, with their ultra-strict moral codes violently enforced, and their wanton destruction of imagery like the Bamiyan Buddhas, and their valorization of war and conflict, qualify as "triumphalist." Some among the Shiites also have a dangerous fascination with apocalyptic thinking; awaiting the end of this world and the coming of the twelfth imam.

The Christians also have a powerful fundamentalist (or triumphalist) wing, especially in the United States. Like their Muslim shadow-selves, they have a very strong belief in the imminent "end of days." It's kind of scary when people who think the end of the world is a good thing are close to the policy making apparatus of major powers.

There is also a Jewish fundamentalism that complicate the Middle-East problem by seeing a religious sanction for occupation of the whole of Palestine to the Jordan. Some of them even want to re-construct the Temple of Solomon, which would involve destroying the Al-Aqsa mosque. To them, a minor detail. To the rest of the world, a major conflagration.

(I'm not aware of Taoist or Jain fundamentalism - maybe I'm just not informed)

These fundamentalisms feed off each other; they need each other to thrive. Where would the Christian Right in the US be without the "evil axis" of "Islamo-fascism" to rant against? Where would the Islamic hard-core get their juice without the "Great Satan" or the "Zionist entity?"
The Buddhist fundamentalists in Sri Lanka are largely a response to the very aggressive and unethical proselytizing of Christian fundamentalist missionaries.

Too bad we can't all just get along.

Arrow River Announcement

We are having the Annual General Meeting for the Arrow River Forest Hermitage, all friends and supporters of the hermitage are welcome. Date and time; 1:30 PM Sat. Sept. 9th. There will also be a pot-luck and BBQ at 11:00 AM. Please RSVP if you are intending to participate in the lunch.

Not Enough Dead Arabs?

A truly frightening glimpse into the neo-conservative mind-set is Norman Podhoretz's piece in the New York Post, featured on Uruknet; Too Nice to Win?

Apparently, Israel's problem is that it is just too darned soft-hearted;

If Lebanon's 300-plus civilian casualties are already rocking the world, what if it would take 10,000 civilian casualties to finish off Hezbollah? Could Israel inflict that kind of damage on Lebanon - not because of world opinion, but because of its own modern sensibilities and its understanding of the value of every human life?

What's more, Norman has a little friendly suggestion for the US in Iraq;

What if the tactical mistake we made in Iraq was that we didn't kill enough Sunnis in the early going to intimidate them and make them so afraid of us they would go along with anything? Wasn't the survival of Sunni men between the ages of 15 and 35 the reason there was an insurgency and the basic cause of the sectarian violence now?

Thanks, Norman, we'll take that under advisement for our next invasion. He also indulges in a little bit of historical perspective;

Could World War II have been won by Britain and the United States if the two countries did not have it in them to firebomb Dresden and nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Bad examples, Norman, both of them. The war in Europe was pretty much won when Dresden was firebombed, a gratuitous act of carnage probably meant to scare the bejeezus out of the Russians more than anything else. And as for Hiroshima, John Denson makes the case better than I can, in this excellent essay on the Hiroshima Myth.

Why should we care about the murderous ravings of some crank? Who is this Norman Podhoretz anyway? According to his bio in Wikipedia, Podhoretz is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Project for a New American Century, and a 2004 recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom. He's one of the leading ideologues of the whole Clash of Civilizations/ World War IV mythology.

Apologia

My apologies for blogging so much about the Lebanon war. I know there are some who feel that a bhikkhu shouldn't be commenting on "politics." They have a point, but my feeling is that this episode goes beyond politics and is part and parcel of the great moral crisis of our times. Our world seems to be spiralling down into a new barbarism with only the ethic of "might makes right."

Make no mistake, those who engage in this acts of wanton slaughter are making very heavy karma for themselves. And the same goes for all those overseas who give their vocal support to the perpetration of war-crimes. Anyone, and there are many, who makes excuses for the carnage of Qana is morally bankrupt. Their consciousness is filled with unwholesome dhammas of hatred and delusion.

The hypocrisy of the omnipresent Israeli spokespersons who "deeply regret any loss of civilian life" is pathetic. Air-strikes on apartment blocks (and Qana was not the only one by a long shot) are justified by Hizbollah rockets having been launched in the vicinity. Even if true, and that is debated hotly, this does not qualify as an act of self-defence. Let's call it by it's true name; revenge. The launchers used by Hizbollah are truck-mounted, they are mobile, and by the time the Israeli air-force arrives they are long gone.

The primitive, dark ethos of tribalism and an eye-for-an-eye govern this vicious conflict on both sides. If it seems like I've mostly criticized Israel, it's because on the best unbiased look at the evidence, this war was started by Israel, whatever their protestations. And the damage inflicted by Israel is a few orders of magnitude greater than Hizbollah is capable of. But both sides are hitting civilians. Both sides are using banned weapons; Israel has dropped cluster bombs and white phosphorus while Hizbollah packs their rockets with ball-bearings.

America is to blame too, for supplying and bankrolling the Israeli war-machine. And Canada's government is acting as cheer-leader (although most Canadians are appalled.)

What has been accomplished by this nasty little war? A beautiful country wrecked and poisoned with depleted uranium. A further radicalization of the Muslims world-wide. No doubt an upsurge in antisemitism as well. If, as I strongly suspect, the real aim of the Israelis is to seize the water of the Litani, they will likely fail in that objective as well. That would mean an ongoing occupation against a hostile population and another Iraq, another Gaza. The Americans haven't gotten much benefit out of Iraqi oil even yet.

What is needed now is some real statesmanship, but I don't see much hope of that. The world seems to be governed by nasty, bigoted little men.

What Should Israel Do?

A couple of posters to the comments have asked, basically, what can Israel do?

With an earnest wish that the people of the Middle East, all of them, Israeli, Lebanese, Palestinian, Jew, Arab, Shiite and indifferent find a way to live their lives in peace and harmony; if I were in a position to be able to talk straight to the Israeli leadership and people, here is what I would suggest;

1. First and foremost, stop lying to the world and possibly to yourselves. The number one cause of all the trouble is the occupation of the territories conquered in '67 and all it's attendent evils; walls, apartheid roads, curfews, home-demolitions and most of all the intrusion of settlers. Israel is principally to blame for the situation and is therefore in a unique position to solve it. Stop portraying yourselves as victims, it ill becomes you. Arab terrorism has come about because of Israel's policies; it is a result, not a cause.

2. Start talking to your Arab neighbours instead of bombing them. The Council of Arab States proposed a sensible settlement in 2002, which Israel has so far ignored. Basically it is the old formula of land for peace. It is at least worth talking about, isn't it?

3. Israel should announce it's own goal of achieving a just peace, and hold up the offer of giving back the Occupied Territories. And this should be a genuine offer, to get out of all the West Bank. None of these carping caveats about keeping "major settlement blocs." The settlements are illegal and have no business being there in the first place. (And before anyway says Oslo was such an offer, they should read up on it a bit more.)

4. Israel should demonstrate good faith by immediately announcing a total freeze on new settlements. Further unilateral gestures could include opening all of the West Bank to free internal movement (no checkpoints except at the border with Israel) and withdrawal of the IDF from all areas not absolutely essential to security. Mostly, find ways to make the lives of ordinary Palestinians a little less hellish.

5. Open an international conference to discuss the eventual disposition of Jerusalem as some kind of international zone with protection for all religions.

6. Recognize the democratically elected government of the Palestinians, Hamas or not, and start talking to them.

7. Eventual peace would mean total withdrawal from all occupied territories. All the settlements must go unless the settlers are willing to become Palestinian citizens, and live under Palestinian rule and protection. Israel would still have something like twenty percent more Palestinian land than allowed for by the partition of 1947, but I think the world is willing to wink at that. If any land must be retained for the purposes of secure frontiers, then the Palestinians must be compensated with transfer of other lands; likely from the Galilee which was supposed to be theirs anyway.

With sixty odd years of bitterness behind them, it may be difficult for the parties to easily agree. But the alternative is an endless cycle of violence. The stark fact is that Israel can never in a thousand years fight it's way to lasting security. Negotiation and a willingness to right past wrongs is the only hope for the Jewish state in the long run.

Welcome Aboard, eh!

It's nice to be able to congratulate the Parliament of Canada for doing the right thing for once.

HH the Dalai Lama is being invested with the honour of becoming an honorary Canadian citizen.



(PS, no disrespect meant by the graphic, but I couldn't help myself!)

Karma and Right View

I often get asked questions about karma. It is instructive to consider where the questioner is coming from. In particular, a common type of question revolves around the mechanism of karma. Some people assume that there must be some conscious agent that judges and metes out karma. This line of thought belongs to the Eternalist view. Others reject the idea altogether, because they just can't imagine a mechanism; the whole thing seems superstitious. This line of thought belongs to the Annhilationist view.

Dealing with the Eternalist first; part of the problem comes from the sloppy use of language when we refer to "good" and "bad" karma. This is not in accord with the Pali which classifies volitional action as "kusala" and "akusala", skilful or unskilful. That puts a whole different slant on things. There is no one to judge your actions as good or bad; they are just inherently skilful or not. It is a mistake to think of karma as some kind of cosmic or divine law-code. It is a law, of a sort, but more akin to the Law of Gravity than the Criminal Code. It is best to think of karma as an unfolding of natural law.

This then raises the objection from the Annihilationist; where is the mechanism for this law? He cannot accept that an action done today may have effects years hence, evcn in a subsequent life-time. This objection comes from a deep-seated materialist bias. Given the assumptions of materialism, then it is insurmountable. But abandon those assumptions and it melts away like dew.

Materialism has been the dominant paradigm of science for at least two centuries. It assumes that matter is the only ontological Real. Mind is considered nothing more than a process of physical interactions.

This is a strange hypothesis, one held by many with dogmatic fervour. It is strange because if you consider the case, it is obvious that the only thing we ever really know or experience directly is our own minds. The material world we access only through our sense doors and the light of consciousness. Materialism denies what is immediately known, and gives exclusive reality only to that which is inferred.

The Buddha was certainly not a materialist, a view which he specifically denounced. He also said that Mind is the forerunner; i.e. Mind is the primary Real.

Given that assumption it is not hard to see how karma works. In the abhidhamma, karma is explained in terms of balancing voltional and resultant mind-moments. For every skilful moment of volition there will be a profitable resultant experienced as sense-impression at some later time.

Given that Mind is primary, if the material universe needs to adjust itself to accomodate these mind-moments, then it does so. We make the world with our minds.

This is not an issue peripheral to the Buddhist Path either. The most common formulation of Right View is as follows;

There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are priests & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.

Right View, remember, is the first of the Path Factors. I think the Buddha gave this doctrine such central importance precisely because the proper understanding of karma (and rebirth) is essential to find the Middle Ground of the Dependent Origination and to gain freedom from the shackles of the Wrong Views. If one is stuck in either Eternalism or Materialism (Annihilationism) one simply cannot correctly apprehend the void nature of the dhammas and escape from suffering.

Israel hits UN post

Anyone concerned about human values and peace should speak up clearly against what Israel is doing to Lebanon and Gaza. As if things weren't bad enough already, Israel has crossed yet another moral and legal boundary by bombing a UN observer post, killing four unarmed observers, including one Canadian.

Kofi Annan has stated that the attack was deliberate, and it sure looks that way. This was not one stray bomb. Israeli artillery shelled the post for six hours, despite ten telephone calls from the UN team to the Israeli military telling them to cease and desist. The observers were holed up in a hardened bunker, and in the end the Israelis took them out with a precision guided bunker-buster missile. This would require deliberate targetting. Nor is it credible that Israeli intelligence would not know, from the outset, where all the UN posts were located.

The response of our stirling leader, PM Harper, was to defend the Israeli military;

We’re going to want to get all the information before making a judgment,I can tell you that I certainly doubt that [Kofi Annan's allegation] to be the case given that the government of Israel has been co-operating with us in our evacuation efforts and our attempts to move Canadian citizens out of Lebanon and also trying to keep our own troops that are on the ground involved in the evacuation out of harm’s way.

He also pledged to work with the Israeli authorities to get to the bottom of it. Yes, Steve, I'm sure they'll be very helpful. And he had the temerity to put some blame on the UN for leaving the soldiers in "harm's way." In their hardened bunker, with a direct line to the Israeli command, doing the job they were sent there to do.

An Israeli army spokesman was interviewed on CBC radio and when asked specifically about the phone calls, he didn't answer at all but launched into a lengthy rant about the "war on global terror" including the fantastic allegation that Hizbollah, unless stopped now, would soon be lobbing missiles into Europe.

He also stated that this war was forced on Israel. What's that about the first casualty of war? The fact is that the two Israelis captured by Hizbollah were on the Lebanese side of the border.
Entering another country, in uniform and under arms, is an act of war. The incident merely provided a convenient pretext for a campaign which had been in the planning stage for at least a year.

By 2004, the military campaign scheduled to last about three weeks that we're seeing now had already been blocked out and, in the last year or two, it's been simulated and rehearsed across the board."

More than a year ago, a senior Israeli army officer began giving PowerPoint presentations, on an off-the-record basis, to U.S. and other diplomats, journalists and think tanks, setting out the plan for the current operation in revealing detail. Under the ground rules of the briefings, the officer could not be identified.

It is just common sense that a campaign of this magnitude couldn't be launched at a moment's notice.

Getting back to the UN post; if the attack was indeed deliberate (and it is very hard to escape that conclusion) then that raises the obvious question; why would Israel want to get the observers out of South Lebanon?

Could it be that they have something to hide?

According to Human Rights Watch, Israel is now dropping cluster bombs on Lebanese villages, and have already killed and wounded men, women and children. Meanwhile, the Lebanese Minister of Health says wounded children are suffering from the impact of white phosphorus. The Lebanese president repeated the claim yesterday. As Israel pushes further into Lebanon, it continues to target civilians, in one incident blowing up a house and killing the family inside. A Times reporter has told ABC news that he has witnessed the deliberate targeting of civilians

This is beginning to look a lot like ethnic cleansing.

But an F-15 is so much shinier than a car-bomb

A related thought I've had about this conflict and the tepid response from the international community and western media to Israel's aggression and the destruction of Lebanon. In a recent post I suggested imagining any other state had done this to it's neighbour. Let's take this one step further; imagine a very well organized and funded terrorist organization had carried out a campaign of bombings delivered by trucks or suicide operatives which, over a period of two weeks, had destroyed power-plants, roads, bridges, petrol stations, factories, private homes and apartments, airports and docks right across some state or country.

Imagine further that the announced reason for this campaign of atrocity was to secure the release of some of their members jailed by the state in question.

The US State Department defines terrorism as follows;

The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant^/*/ targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

(The asterik after "non-combatant" is explained in a foot-note of some length to stretch the term to include soldiers not currently involved in combat operations. )

Invasion of another country, and bombing of it's facilities is surely "politically motivated violence." Why isn't the IDF branded a terrorist organization by the US State Department? (Other then sheer hypocrisy of course)

The key is in the phrase "by sub-national groups." The horror and outrage over terrorism is generally so much greater than the horror over war, not because it is any worse. On the contrary, states tend to have much greater resources for inflicting carnage and suffering than any terrorist cell.

No, the reason goes back to what I've blogged about the nature of the state before. The horror of terrorism comes not from the violence alone, but from the fact that some group has dared to breach the state's sacred monopoly of the use of force.

I used the word "sacred" advisedly. The state is, according to the social contract theory of Hobbes and of the Agganna Sutta, nothing more than a big bully which the people have appointed to keep the other bullies in line. This way of thinking is not congenial to kings and presidents though, and there has been a steady effort over the centuries to sacralize the institution. This is done in various ways; many ancient and even medieval monarchies claimed descent from a god or a god-like human. (cf. the Holy Blood and Holy Grail and it's pop-culture clone, the Da Vinci Code - other examples would be Romulus and Remus and the mythologized George Washington)

At the real human level, there is no ethical difference between a suicide-bomb and a rocket launched from an F-15. Attempts by war apologists to obfuscate the difference fail miserably, and come across as obscene. The families who have lost members to an Israeli air-strike and those who have lost them to a Hizbollah Katyusha feel the same pain.

It's high time we held all parties to the same standards.

-----------------------------

Afterthoughts (and links)

It's important to realize that not all Israelis support this aggression. See the web-site of Gush Shalom, an Israeli Peace Movement.

A good article on the Semantics of War; death delivered by euphemism.

The news may be depressing, but some people find a silver-lining.

Statement of the Buddhist Peace Fellowship on the crisis.

What is More Priceless?

When the Sakyans and the Koliyans were on the brink of war over water rights to the Rohini River, the Buddha stepped between the rival armies and asked them, "What is more priceless, water or blood?" and averted the conflict.

This wise admonition suddenly takes on a new relevance. Some bloggers have made a very good case that the real reason for the Israeli aggression against Lebanon is water. (thanks to Cannonfire and Rigorous Intuition for pointing this out)

Israel is in desperate need of fresh water, a commodity in short supply in the region, and has a history of disputes with Lebanon, relatively well supplied, over water rights.

Now the whole thing makes sense. Governments, as a general rule, never state the real casus belli out loud. The ostensible provocations from Hizbollah never accounted for Israel's systematic destruction of Lebanon's infrastructure. The goal of crippling the Lebanese state so that Israel can make a de facto annexation of the south, including the Litani does.

Watch Lebanon collapse back into a chaotic failed state, a fate from which it appeared to be emerging, and Israel announcing the need to retain the south, at least to the Litani, and possibly including a buffer zone on the north, for "security reasons." (the 21st century port-manteau excuse for any atrocity.)

Israel's Destruction of Lebanon

Israel is systematically destroying Lebanon's infrastructure, bombing roads, bridges, power stations and even privately owned factories, seemingly in an attempt to cripple the Lebanese economy.

The production facilities of at least five companies in key industrial sectors - including the country's largest dairy farm, Liban Lait; a paper mill; a packaging firm and a pharmaceutical plant - have been disabled or completely destroyed. Industry insiders say the losses will cripple the economy for decades to come.

"I think the picture will be much worse than we can possible imagine when the whole thing ends, but the direct damage from yesterday's attacks to the industrial sector alone will take years to recover from," said Wajid al-Bisri, the vice-president of the Lebanese Association of Industrialists (LAI).

The number of dead civilians is already over threee hundred, including scores of children.
What can one say about this orgy of destruction and death?

UN Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour has warned that Israeli leaders might be liable to war-crimes prosecution.

By contrast Canadian PM Stephen Harper has called Israeli actions, "a measured response."

Is this a measured response to the capture of three soldiers, or this?

Let's make a little thought experiment; let's imagine any other country was doing to it's neighbour what is Israel is doing to Lebanon? Wouldn't there be immediate calls from all quarters to cease and desist, threats of sanctions or even "regime change?"

Has the world no moral spine, or are we all just so blase about human suffering now?

What criticism there is of Israel from world leaders tends to be muted, calls for "restraint". Please don't kill quite so many of them.

There was an Israeli defence official on the radio making excuses. Hezbollah hides it's weapons in clinics and schools and private homes. And the inevitable "we deeply regret any loss of civilian life." This is the same crap the American military uses every time they kill a bunch of innocent people; they must have the same PR firm.

And what possible excuse is there for the destruction of Lebanon's infrastructure. This is not only clearly a war-crime of major proportions, it is not only totally disproportionate to the supposed offense, it will not only result in even more death in the long run...it is also extraordinarily stupid.

Lebanon was on it's way to becoming a prosperous, stable democracy (anyone else remember the "Cedar Revolution?") Sure, the state was too weak to restrain Hezbollah but what condition will it be in after this? Israel will end up with a disastrously failed state for a northern neighbour and thousands more recruits for the suicide bombers.

And the incident that started it all? The capture of three Israeli soldiers? It now appears that they were on the Lebanese side of the border when it happened.

Buddhism and Anarchism

E.M. wrote in the comments;

Interesting to see contact between Buddhists and anarchists in this forum; there really isn't much mutual awareness between the two. Perhaps Bhante will, in future, write a column on "Buddhism and/or/as Anarchism"?

Anarchism as a political philosophy has always intrigued me. In large part because the Anarchists seem to be the only ones who think and speak clearly about the nature of the state. Unfortunately, I don't think they always think clearly about the realities of human nature. Kropotkin wrote a great little book "Mutual Aid" where he argued that altruistic behaviour is natural for humans, and even animals. His argument was largely anecdotal, collecting stories of people and animals behaving unselfishly. No doubt he hit on an important truth; compassion and loving-kindness are part of the human make-up.

Sad but true, except for the arahants ( a rare breed), we are also deluded and defiled and one could just as easily collect a book full of anecdotes of human folly, cruelty and treachery.

I see anarchy as an ideal state; not to be attained in reality. It would work if humans were sensible, they wouldn't even need to be perfect I think, just sensible and kind. I'd go futher and say that sensible people would just naturally live in a happy anarchy. Government, as I understand it, is a necessary evil. Because, as a species we are not always sensible or kind.

In the Agganna Sutta (Digha 27) the Buddha laid out a mythological history of the human species to explain such things as the origins of the state and the caste system. In part at least, this was his way of deflating the pretensions of the brahmin caste. This mythical history turns our modern myth of progress and evolution on it's head; this is a story of steady decline; we didn't evolve from lower forms, we devolved from higher ones.

This devolution is described in several phases, each fall triggered by the defilements of the beings. The part of the story of interest here is the establishment of government. Here is the relevant passage (from M. Walshe's translation)

Then, Vasettha, one greedy-natured being, while watching over his own plot, took another plot that was not given to him, and enjoyed the fruits of it. So they seized hold of him and said "You've done a wicked thing, taking another's plot like that! Don't ever do such a thing again!" "I won't," he said, but he did the same thing a second and a third time. Again he was seized and rebuked, and some hit him with their fists, some with stones and some with sticks. And in this way, Vasettha, taking what was not given, and censuring, and lying and punishment too their origin.

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, the most pleasant and capable, and asked him to do this for them in return for a share of the rice and he agreed

"The People's Choice" is the meaning of Maha-Sammata which is the first regular title to be introduced. "Lord of the Fields" is the meaning of Khattiya, the second such title. And "He Gladdens Others with Dhamma" is the meaning of Raja the third title to be introduced. This then, Vasettha, is the origin of the class of Khattiyas, in the accordance with the ancient titles that were introduced for them. They originated among these very same beings, like ourselves, no different, and in accordance with the Dhamma, not otherwise.

So the Buddha's theory of government was basically of the social-contract type. In the pristine state of nature, before greediness arose, there was no government and no need for one was felt. Notice one interesting detail; it wasn't just the stealing that the people perceived as a new evil, but the censuring and punishment as well. They didn't want to have to do these evil things, so they appointed one amongst themselves to take on this onerous task for them.

This election by the people was an important part of the Buddha's argument, because it directly criticized the Brahminical theory that the castes were inherently appointed by Brahma from the beginning. (In their creation myth, the brahmins emerged from Brahma's brow, the Khattiyas from his arms, the Vessas from his belly and the Suddas from his feet)
In Western history we had the "Divine Right of Kings." These ways of thinking gave the state or the king a special, inherent status and a sacred right to rule. This the Buddha denied by describing the state as something the people themselves created for their own purposes. And something created specifically to keep the "evils" of censure and punishment contained to a specialist class.

As a side-note, it's somewhat amusing that the very first election was made with such irrelevant factors in mind as who was the "best-looking." Richard Nixon sweating and shifty-eyed vs. JFK with his gorgeous head of hair.

The last paragraph may be a bit obscure. Maha-Samatta, according to a note by Walshe, was the title of the legendary first Solar King who founded the Sakyan race. Khattiyas were the warrior-noble caste in ancient India, and the rulers. Raja came to mean king in the monarchial period, but originally meant any one having sovereignty; i.e. a citizen in a republic. (Not everyone in the early republics were of the citizen class of course) Sovereignty, briefly defined, means the recognized right to use force upon others; legitimate violence.

One last note on the text; when the Buddha says this is "according to Dhamma, not otherwise" I think that Dhamma means according to natural law, as opposed to the brahminical idea that the establishment of government was a metaphysical act, an intervention by deity, outside of and above ordinary nature.

With that as background, I'd like to get back to a statement I made at the beginning; that anarchists are the only ones who speak clearly about the nature of the state. I would like to make one important point here; most political theory tends to assume that it is the state which grants rights to the citizens. Nothing could be further from the truth. No state in history has ever done that, nor is it even theoretically possible. The state exists specifically to limit the individuals rights, which are absolute in a state of nature or anarchy.

The best states have historically propounded "Bills of Rights" and so forth. But these are not gifts to the people. They are simply promises made by the state not to take certain rights away. The first ten amendments to the American constitution (remember that? it's kind of an obsolete 18th c. thing, doesn't much apply now) probably the best of these various Bills of Rights ever written, makes this explicit in the language; "..congress shall pass no law..." or "...the people's right shall not be infringed..." (quoting from memory, may not be exact) I think the founders of the American republic were conscious of this idea when they wrote it. Jefferson once said, "that government is best which governs least."

Of course, government has a natural tendency to accrue power and authority to itself. The power elite has never actually liked the social contract idea. In a monarchy, they sacralize the person of the monarch. In republics, they sacralize the abstract entity known as the State. This is taken to an extreme in Fascist systems. Symbolic emblems of the state take on a quasi-magical resonance; roman eagles, fasces, swastikas, hammers-and-sickles, stars-and-stripes. The idea that the state exists as a convenience for the people is lost and now the people become tax-payers and cannon-fodder to feed the hungry maw of the state.

I guess when they asked that big good-looking guy if he'd like to earn a little extra rice, it seemed like a good idea at the time.

Middle East backgrounder

From the Comments;

I called my local mp Joe Preston consevative and stated the point of war crimes and his secretary remined me of ww2 crimes and that Isreal has a right to defend.

[context; the Conservative gov't of Canada has voiced unconditional support for Israel's invasion of Lebanon and Gaza]

You should have asked him to remind you what exactly the people in Gaza and Beirut being bombed had to do with the holocaust.

This comment of your MP points out the very great difficulty of talking rationally about the Middle East. For a number of reasons, cultural, historical but most cogently, religious, very few commentators on the Israel/Palestine conflict are able to attain sufficient detachment.

Because this land is the cradle of the three great monotheistic religions, it is almost impossible for devout followers of those faiths to step back and consider the facts of the case as if Israel was just another country. Jews and Christians see it as part of divine plan; God gave that real estate to the Jews and anything they do to defend it is okay by God. Or at least some Christians, and some Jews. There are many secular Jews, some Zionist and some not, and there are some Orthodox Jews who regard the state of Israel as a blasphemous usurpation of God's authority.

(This is why any talk of a "Jewish conspiracy" is just nuts; there's an old Jewish saying, get four Jews together and you'll have five opinions.)

Likewise, it is mostly the evangelical Christians who are vehemently pro-Israel. Their "logic" is that the Jews return to the Holy Land is necessary for the coming of Armageddon, when their loving God will rain fire and brimstone down on the heathen for seven years, something they earnestly wish for. They can't be easily dismissed as cranks, either, because they are so politically powerful in the United States, Israel's chief sponsor and protector.

On the other side, Muslims (and again we need to say some Muslims) regard Israel as a satanic intrusion into their culture area, and see a divine duty to wipe it out.

Well, I'm a Buddhist and none of those holy lands, holy books or divine injunctions means squat to me. (To paraphrase a very old joke, why can't the Jews and Arabs just behave like good Buddhists?) So maybe I can try and see things from a neutral perspective.

Leaving aside the current crisis for the moment, let's consider the overall picture, trying to treat Israel not as a special divinely inspired realm, nor as the embodiment of evil incarnate, but as just another state; one among many.

The issues around the foundation of the state of Israel are complex. It is not true that Palestine was, as early Zionist rhetoric claimed, "a land without people for a people without land." There were inhabitants; both town-dwelling and nomadic (Bedouin). There were also a minority of Jews who had been there time out of mind, and who sometimes regarded the Zionist newcomers as trouble-making interlopers.

The early Zionists didn't think in terms of displacing the Arabs. If Palestine was not empty by any means, it wasn't overcrowded either and there was land to buy. Trouble began in the thirties, when Palestine was under a British mandate. The British had been playing a duplicitous double game ever since the Balfour declaration, which contradicted promises made to the Arabs. Actually, it was a triple game, because they also made a secret pact with the French to carve up the Middle East regardless of either Arab or Jew. (Maybe even a quadruple game, because they also did a dirty on the French and took the Mosul region; perfidious Albion.)

The British never had a consistent policy in Palestine, and fed expectations on both sides. As more Jews emigrated there to escape an increasingly dark fate in Europe, the Arabs took fright, fearing a demographic revolution that would leave them a minority in their own country. There were riots, sometimes with fatalities. There also emerged a new, harder Zionist movement that spawned terrorist gangs like Irgun and Stern. The first terrorists in the modern Middle East were Jewish. Their targets at this stage were mostly British soldiers and administrators, not yet Arabs. (The very first terrorists in the Middle East were probably the Ismaili Assassins of the 11th century. Those guys were scary)

When the Brits did their usual colonial cut-and-run leaving the natives to sort it out (as they did in India) all hell broke loose. The nascent United Nations had imposed a partition plan, but neither side was happy with the boundaries. There are conflicting accounts of the Israeli War of Independence, it's hard to cut through the rhetoric. It is true that the Arab states, themselves newly independent, launched a war of aggression seeking to destroy the fledging Jewish republic. But it is also true that Jewish terror gangs, with the complicity of the army, perpetrated a number of atrocities against peaceable Arab villagers, most notoriously at Deir Yallon, in what must be called ethnic cleansing.

There are also issues of historical controversy around the outbreak of the 1967 war; Israel it is clear fired the first shot, but their claim is that it was a legitimate act of pre-emption. The Arab states, headed by Egypt at this juncture, probably did intend to attack. They had certainly taken some hostile actions like blockading the Gulf of Aqaba.

The result of this war, of course, was that Israel was now in possession of additional territories; the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan heights, Jerusalem and the Sinai (the last was later returned to Egypt in a deal that got Sadat assassinated by one of his own crazies; a typical danger for peace-makers in the Middle East)

Without getting into the whole history of the occupation, one salient development needs to be stressed. The Israelis have throughout this latter period been moving settlers into the West Bank (and for a long while, also Gaza). The settlers, understandably resented by the local inhabitants, have required protection by the military occupation regime. This protection has included heavy-handed military repression, the confiscation of lands for buffer zones, the building of Jewish-only highways and most recently, a massive concrete wall. Palestinian resistance has ranged from unarmed mob action (intifada) to small guerilla bands to outright terrorism against civilian targets.

Some of the ethical issues are debatable, but the legal ones seem clear enough. The Israeli occupation, per se, is not illegal under international law. This was territory occupied in a defensive war and need only be returned after a valid peace-treaty. (One problem is who to make the treaty with; Jordan was the last state with legitimate sovereign rights to the West Bank and they have since renounced it). However, and this is the crux of the whole problem, the way the Israelis have handled the occupation is totally illegal. Under international law, it is not permitted to introduce your own people as settlers into an occupied region. Furthermore, the occupying authority has responsibility to protect the indigenous inhabitants and look after their welfare, something Israel has manifestly not done.

It seems clear to me that in the overall long-term the number one cause of instability and tension in the region has been the introduction of the settlers into the West Bank. Had Israel not done this, a decent peace with the Palestinians could have been achieved long ago. While we're on the topic of legalities, it should be said that the Palestinian response has not always been legal either. Resistance to occupation, even armed resistance, is generally considered legal but terrorist acts against civilians is not.

But here is where the baneful effects of religion come in. Many Israelis would have been happy to negotiate a trade of the territories for peace, but the settler movement is religiously inspired. They called these lands Judea and Samaria and base their claim to them on the Torah. Many, probably most, of the settlers are religious extremists. Why else would someone want to go live in an armed camp surrounded by hostile neighbours?

As mentioned, other factors make it difficult to consider Israel/Palestine in the cold light of reason. The long shadow of the holocaust, the exaggerated hype about "Arab terror", the prevalent media bias (at least in America) towards Israel. But religion has to be the number one obstacle to honestly considering Israel and it's actions as if it were just another state.

The United States has a large measure of responsibility. By giving Israel unconditional support and huge subsidies they have let her get away with literally murder. However, in the United States, far more than in any other modern democracy, the text of the Bible is still a major factor in decision making.

PS (July 16) Thanks for the comment which pointed out a sloppy error on my part, now corrected. It was of course Anwar Sadat who negotiated a peace treaty with Israel and was subsequently assassinated, not Mubarak.

------------------------------------

Reference - a good source for the religious war aspect is Karen Armstrong's Holy Wars.

Links - Tikkun Magazine - a progressive, sane and humane Jewish voice with good commentary on the Middle East.
Lebanese Bloggers - for an inside look at the current crisis

Middle East

For anyone interested in sanity, peace and truth, the news out of the Middle East is even more depressing than usual. The current round of blood-letting can be traced back to the Palestinian election of a Hamas government to replace the hopelessly corrupt Fatah. Israel refused to accept this election, and for all the Bush regime's palaver about "spreading democracy" in the Middle East, neither did the United States and their usual coterie of sock puppets (sadly now including Canada.)

For a year and a bit, the Palestinian side behaved with remarkable restraint; maintaining a unilateral cease-fire. The Israeli government however, did not.

But Israel's offensive did not start last week. The three-month-old Israeli government is responsible for the killing eighty or more Palestinians, some of whom were children, in attacks aimed at carrying out illegal extrajudicial assassinations and other punishments.

What broke the dam of violence was an Israeli naval shelling of a beach in Gaza, killing two and wounded many more.

Hamas shot back, firing their ineffective home-made Kasam rockets into Israel. They also captured one Israeli soldier, and this has become a major item in the propaganda war; overlooking the fact, of course, that Israel has thousands of Palestinian prisoners, including a good portion of the elected legislative council. I don't recall our PM mentioning this when he called on Hamas to release their prisoners. And by the way, Israel has refused all offers to negotiate a prisoner exchange.

Then Israel retaliated, throwing their modern land and air war machine at the desolate and impoverished Gaza strip. There's no point trying to put a pretty face on it, this Israeli action breaches several of the international laws of war. Israel has hit power and water plants. The destruction of civilian infrastructure is war-crime. So is collective punishment.

Now Lebanon is getting pounded as well. How many casualties will there be before this madness ends?

The sad irony is that none of this is in Israel's own best interests. The only way forward for the Jewish state, it's only real hope for long-term survival is to make peace with it's neighbours. Unfortunately, the Israeli peace movement, which at one time looked like gaining strength, is increasingly marginalized. The hawks feel emboldened, I think, because of the current regime in Washington. And we all know about that lot.

The deeper roots of this whole mess are twisted and complex, more complex I think than partisans of either side want to admit. The UN partition plan of 1947 was really the only sensible solution then, but neither side wanted to accept it. Any sensible person can see that the only long-term solution now is to go back to something like it; Israel ought to abide by international law and get out of the occupied territories completely. Jerusalem ought to be made an international city, like Danzig between the wars.

But unfortunately, I don't think sensible people are running the world right now.

The current danger is the conflict escalating to bring in other states; Israel has already made over-flights of Syrian territory and Iran has stated that it will retaliate if Syria is attacked. This could conceivably bring in the USA on one side and Russia and maybe even China on the other.

You know what? This samsara really sucks.

Fear and Fearlessness

In a recent post, I wrote something about how we need to be vigilant to avoid being manipulated by fear. In this post, I'd like to explore a little about the Buddhist teachings around fear.

To start with, it has always struck me as curious that fear is not listed in any of the standard lists of defilements; it is not classed as a hindrance (nivarana) nor a taint (asava) nor a root defilement like ignorance, ill-will or desire. In fact, it is not even listed in the abhidhamma among the cetasikas (mental factors) unless we count hiri (moral dread) which is not at all what we usually mean by fear.

Why is this? It can only be that fear is a complex mental state composed of other factors, or perhaps reducible to other factors. I have heard, for instance, fear described as aversion projected into the future. This captures one important aspect of fear; it is a mental state that is not grounded in the now. In the present moment, there is nothing to fear. We fear what may be coming; the approach of unpleasant sensation (dukkha vedana).

Doesn't it always reduce down to that? We fear many things, but if we examine the reasons why we fear them, it is always because we imagine that they are going to hurt. This is the exact flip side of desire; we desire many things but in the end, it is because we think or imagine that they will yield us a hit of pleasant sensation (sukha vedana.) Sukha and dukha truly make the world go round.

Fear also has an aspect of ignorance. Often we fear most that which we don't know. But there is a deeper aspect here too. Fear is always related to the self. One fears loss or damage to the self or that which belongs to the self. Since the self is an illusory mental construct, there is really nothing to fear. Indeed, one of the qualities of the arahant is that he or she is abhaya, free from fear.

So insight into the true (void) nature of phenomena brings fearlessness. Metta, loving-kindness, is also given as a powerful antidote to fear. So is sila, or virtuous behaviour. One of the benefits of keeping the five precepts is freedom from fear. Once, I was in a jungle area of Thailand, being driven along with four monks and a layman to a forest monastery. The truck got stuck in the muddy road and the driver opted to stay with his vehicle and wait for rescue, and the rest of us walked the few miles left. It was just getting dark. The layman had previously in his life once made a living as a hunter in the jungles of Malaysia. As a result of that karma, he saw the darkening forest as a place of fear and dread and was afraid the whole time. None of the monks seemed to be concerned.

There is one sutta where the Buddha talks about fear and dread specifically; the Bhayabherava Sutta, MN 4. There, he lists 13 causes of fear, among them sensual desire, lack of mindfulness and "being a drooling idiot." (click on the link to read the whole list) His suggested antidote is not to surrender to the fear. If the "fear and trembling" comes upon one while walking to and fro, one should continue to walk to and fro until the fear subsides. Likewise if it comes on one while sitting.

This can be taken at face value; don't change the posture if fear arises, don't run away. But it can also be understood on a purely mental level - don't run away from that which you fear, but face it full on. One writer on Dharma (E.E. Harding) put it like this; "the way out is down and through." Running away (suppressing) only strengthens negative mental states.

(A short digression; when I first came across this sutta I asked one of the elder monks whether the advice not to change postures would apply to other defilements as well. He thought about it a moment, and said I don't think it would always work. "I'll just continue to lie here until the sloth and torpor subsides.")

Another place fear appears in the canon is in the Vinaya texts where the Buddha counsels the Sangha against making such decisions as electing sangha officers based on desire, ill-will, delusion or fear. This can be extrapolated to a general principle for making decisions in life.

The final reference that comes to mind (and I am probably not being complete by any means) is in the list of Insight Knowledges. This the description of the states the mind passes through on the way to full awakening, as insight matures through the practise of vipassana. One of the later stages is called Knowledge of Fearfulness. This is when the mind encounters, possibly for the first time, the naked reality of samsaric existence. The horror of seeing clearly how everything, one's mind, one's body and the external world, is in a constant state of break-up and destruction can lead to an experience of fear. Some meditators go through this quickly, and come out the other side. Others get stuck for a long time. The difference is whether one has the steadiness of purpose to keep going. "The way out is down and through."

If this is true, it's really creepy

Is Barbara Bush the love-child of Aleister Crowely? Unlikely as it seems, Cannonfire makes a good case, and the resemblance in the photos is uncanny.

Power of Nightmares

My latest Toronto Star column is out; Public Discourse is Dominated by Fear, in which I argue that the public is being manipulated by fear. I've already received critical email saying that I'm being "unrealistic" and

With all due respect to those who believe in the peaceful teachings of Buddha, Christ, et al., such teachings have done little to stem the violence over the centuries - Hitler, Pol Pot, Kim Ill Sung, Osama bin Laden, and many others were stopped by firm and powerful military action.

One reply to this would be historical; the only 20th century war in which the western democracies were involved that can even remotely be seen as a war to stop an evil tyranny is WW2 and even that case is problematic. After all, the war was started by Britain and France in 1939 to save Poland, but the end result was that Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe passed from Nazi to Soviet tyranny. And, as I've argued before, the time to stop Hitler peacefully was 1919. Given the excessively punitive Treaty of Versailles, Germany was bound to come under some kind of extremist government sooner or later. You cannot destroy the economy and infrastructure of an advanced industrial society and not expect political dysfunction.

Which brings us to Iraq. The lead up to that war was a classic case of fear propaganda. Remember the mobile anthrax vans, the secret nukes ready-to-launch in 45 minutes and all the rest of the male bovine excretement?

Of course there's nothing new in this, except maybe Colin Powell's Power-Point show at the UN. Hitler used similar methods. Getting back to 1939, the German press was full of scare stories about the "Polish threat" and even blood-curdling accounts of Polish terrorism against peaceable German civilians in East Prussia. Most Germans were probably taken in. After all, in 1939 the Volkische Beobachter was the "mainstream media."

If you want a good overview of the use of the cynical use of terror by politicians, you couldn't do better than checking out the three-part BBC documentary; Power of Nightmares. This is an excellent historical overview of the parallel rise of Islamic Fundamentalism and Neo-Conservatism, strange shadows of each other. The neo-cons, who are powerful in the Bush and Blair regimes, are followers of an eccentric academic philosopher, Leo Strauss, who taught at the U. of Chicago back in the 40's and 50's. As portrayed in the documentary, he basically taught (like Plato) that elites have a duty to lie to the masses for their own good, otherwise they will just get lost in idleness and won't be motivated for civilization advancing projects. There was a small cabal of these neo-cons powerful in the Reagan whitehouse who pushed the myth of a devastatingly powerful Soviet war-machine, at a time when the real Soviet Union was barely held together with baling wire.

The same group is even more powerful in the Bush administration, and without even a putative Soviet boogeyman to fuel the industrial-military complex they had to come up with something. That's where the world-wide Islamic terror conspiracy comes in. Except, according to the documentary, it doesn't.

Al Quaeda is a myth, according to the video. There is no world-wide co-ordinated conspiracy, just disconnected groups of disaffected individuals. The video doesn't get into the back-story of 9/11 much, but there is more and more reason to suspect that what you read in the Times ain't necessarily so either. And let's not forget this image, could be straight out of a James Bond movie, but instead by very soberly promoted by Donald Rumsfeld on national TV. (In the video you can see him saying, "and there isn't just one of these, there's dozens of these.")

So we're all being scared into giving up our civil liberties and send our soldiers off to fight wars of occupation here there and elsewhere. But then, Oceania was always at war with Eastasia, wasn't it?

Arrow River Announcements

There will be a day of Mindfulness held at the Arrow River Hermitage on July 22, from 7 AM to 9 PM. All are welcome to attend.

Also, the Arrow River Newsletter is out. You can get either a hard copy or an e-copy by sending an email to the editor at riverdhamma@sympatico.ca

Conference News; Women's Ordination

I've been back from my travels in the United States for a couple of days now. Weather is beautiful, the hermitage hasn't burned down in the meanwhile and there's a big pile of firewood delivered and waiting for the saw. Took my first dip in the Arrow River too, it's a short season for river bathing here, unless you're a total masochist, so I like to take the chance while it's on.

One of the stops on my journey was the Bhavana Society in West Virginia, for the monastic conference. This is an annual event for Buddhist monks and nuns of various traditions to get together and compare notes. It's heartening to see that the traditional monastic form of Buddhism is so well established in North America.

One development over the last decade or so has been the growth of women's ordination. There were three theravada bhikkhunis at the conference; the women's order is now pretty much established in Sri Lanka and making inroads into Thailand.

There was a presentation by Bhikshuni Thubten Chodron, an American woman ordained in the Tibetan tradition regarding the efforts to get the female order going in that school. I hadn't realized it was such a complex matter.

A little history; when Buddhism split into eighteen schools in the period after the Second Council, that also meant eighteen ordination lineages. At least three are still extant; the Theravada lineage of course remains unbroken, at least on the male side, as this is the only one of the original eighteen schools still in existence. The recent restart of the Theravada bhikkhuni order was seeded with Dharmaguptika nuns from Taiwan.

The Dharmaguptika lineage seeded the Mahayana orders of East Asia before it's founding school died out in India. Chinese Bhikkhus (monks) and Bhikkshunis (nuns) are ordained in this lineage; which interestingly enough, was originally transmitted out of Sri Lanka at a time when Dharmaguptika was present there alongside Theravada. This lineage is the only one that maintained an unbroken female ordination transmission.

The Tibetan monks are ordained in the Mulasarvastavadin lineage, at one time a very strong school in Northern India. Like the Theravadins, the female line was broken at some point. The recent small numbers of women ordaining in Tibetan schools have all been ordained in the Dharmaguptika lineage, like their Theravada sisters.

Now, it seems, the Tibetans are looking into the minutiae of Vinaya to see if there are ways and means to restart the Mulasarvastavadin female ordination, so that the bhikshunis will share the same samvasa (community for ritual purposes) with the bhikshus. The current controversy rests on the question of whether it would be legal under Vinaya for monks alone to ordain nuns.

This is all a bit more detail than most readers would be interested in, but is still a pretty rough simplification. So, whenever anyone asks why there aren't more female monastics in Buddhism, the answer is; we're working on it.

It's All Relative

If the life of a man is short, why does the king keep Sadhina in heaven for a year?

(mu?)

Does there have to have been a time shift? Is there enough in this quote to understand what bell should be ringing or do I need to consult an expert (off to Wiki!) to get some history/depth on this?

Einstein's twin paradox.

Life of Pi

I would really like the Life of Pi reference unpacked a little more. I was at Trent University doing a Canadian Literature class when it was announced that Yann Martel (a Trent alumni) had won the Booker. There was some hasty deletions from the syllabus to fit in Life of Pi.

I've actually wondered what other people make of this remarkable book. I haven't found any really interesting critical commentary yet. For what it's worth, here's a little of my take on this quite remarkable book.

Spoiler Warning - skip this post if you haven't read the book and don't want to have anything given away.

I think the theme of "Life of Pi" is the importance of faith. It isn't explicit, or in your face; it's delightfully sneaky in fact. It's also a refreshing departure from most books of religious/spiritual allegory in that it isn't really pushing any particular agenda in particular. This is clear from the wonderful insouisance of the hero, Pi, in simulataneously believing in Hindusim, Islam, Catholicism and later, scientific materialism.

Rationally, this doesn't make any sense whatsoever, as the priests and imams point out in the beach confrontation scene. But Martell's point, as I read it anyway, is that faith trumps rationality as a spiritual virtue.

Often we confuse faith (pali: saddha) with dogmatism. Pi blows this away. He's full of faith, but there isn't a bit of dogmatism or fundamentalism in him.

Martell's primary argument for faith is developed slowly and only becomes somewhat explicit at the end. This argument is a novel one; at least I haven't seen it before. It is primarily aesthetic. The detective at the end sees two possible scenarios; either the boy's story is true and he survived for months on a raft with an adult tiger or he survived in a much less inspiring, even sordid manner. There is no real proof of either scenario. The choice is left up to the reader.

And here is where Martell's sleight of hand comes in. You, the reader, silently make your choice. Rationality would have to say the other story is more likely, but I think most readers whose hearts are not stone cold will quietly root for the fantastic tiger story. Why? Isn't the choice entirely aesthetic? When you get down to it, isn't our choice of what to believe in always aesthetic in the end?

In another place in the book Martell makes another astonishing claim; he has his character Pi opine that atheists are men of faith as well, but agnostics are not. He can't find it in him to sympathize with their point of view. The atheist has made his aesthetic choice, the agnostic is unwilling or unable to do so. The atheist then, lives in a universe that he finds beautiful and inspiring. The agnostic just waffles about in uncertainty. (remember: in Buddhism skeptical doubt is a hindrance!)

I found that sentiment surprising, but I immediately found it agreeable too. There are those who want to promote a Buddhist agnosticism, even though the Buddha called this view "eel-wriggling" and decried it as stupid and cowardly. Agnostism is a refusal to dare to make the necessary leap of faith which leads to spiritual awakening. The agnostic is one who clings forlornly to the branch of rationality and is unable to cross the stream to the far shore. (Of course, faith must be balanced with discriminatin wisdom, but that's a topic for another day.)

Faith, in my reading of Martell, could be defined as an intuitive leap of the heart towards the beautiful. Mathematicians, I think, can understand that the beautiful (or "elegant") is also an indicator of the true.

Another way of putting this; what kind of universe do you want to live in?

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.