The unbelievable paranoid stupidity of this has to be read to be believed; some young kid loses his iPod in the toilet and all hell breaks lose.
I won't try and do a synopsis, the whole thing is incredible. Have we really come to this?
(thanks to Idleworm for the link; a great site btw)
Aug 25, 2006
Solar System Downsized
In a move said to be due to rising costs and increased competition, the solar system has been reduced from nine planets to eight. Officially, the system has said it regrets having to let Pluto go after billions of years of "exemplary service," but privately industry insiders have complained about Pluto's eccentric orbit, retrograde rotation and other anomalies. "Pluto doesn't even travel in the same plane as the rest of us, and sometimes he even slips inside Neptune's orbit. Let's face it, Pluto is just not a team player."The same insiders are quick to refute rumours that the re-organization is not complete. "Contrary to what you might have heard, we are not considering out-sourcing any of the inner planets to Tau Ceti."
Pluto, together with his long-time partner Charon, will continue to free-lance as a dwarf planet.
Aug 23, 2006
One More on Lebanon
Hopefully this will be my last post on the topic (unless they start fighting again then all bets are off.) But I would be remiss if I didn't steer readers toward this really fine piece of analysis;
Israel's Water Wars by Jason Godesky
The writer makes a very convincing case for what I've stated here before; it had nothing to do with the ostensible pretext of two soldiers captured; it was all about water. I'll say it again; all wars are about resources; land, oil, water etc. etc. There is always a much-hyped casus belli which is nothing but a propagandistic smoke-screen. Don't pay any attention to the little man behind the curtain.
Read the article if you still think this was a war of self-defence.
Israel's Water Wars by Jason Godesky
The writer makes a very convincing case for what I've stated here before; it had nothing to do with the ostensible pretext of two soldiers captured; it was all about water. I'll say it again; all wars are about resources; land, oil, water etc. etc. There is always a much-hyped casus belli which is nothing but a propagandistic smoke-screen. Don't pay any attention to the little man behind the curtain.
Read the article if you still think this was a war of self-defence.
Aug 22, 2006
Why Do We Believe Anything?
There is a very good essay on pharmaceuticals as a faith-based initiative (my phrase but I guess the author would concur) at the Dust blog. I pretty much agree with the Dust's perspective here, but that's not what I want to blog about. Instead, I'm intrigued by a question he asks in passing;
Most of what you think you know, you probably just believe. Most everybody these days believes, for example, in the heliocentric model of the solar system. But very few could come up with cogent arguments as to why the earth moving around the sun and not vice-versa is the real model.
People believe all kinds of things less rational than this, and with less reason. Creationism, materialism, grey aliens, perpetual motion, the Rapture, the benefits of Free Trade; heck, I'm told some people still believe the official version of 9-11.
People who believe any of these things, or their equally faith-based opposites, or anything else at all, can come up with all kinds of rational arguments, and snippets of evidence, to back up their beliefs. Cruise around the internet and you won't take long to find heated debates on stuff like creationism vs. evolution, with carefully constructed arguments on both sides. But here's the really intriguing thing; almost no-one seems to ever change their position based on these arguments. The best constructed arguments on the other side just force a true believer to refine his or her own counter-arguments in an endless dance.
I would like to suggest that evidence and logical reasoning are only called in after the fact, to justify and bolster a belief. In most cases, they really have nothing at all to do with why we believe what we do.
So why do we believe what we believe? I would like to suggest that the real unspoken criterion of all beliefs is aesthetic. We believe what we believe because it is more beautiful, or more elegant than the available alternatives. We feel intuitively that if x is true then the universe is a more satisfying place. This makes belief a matter of taste. Some people revel in the cold, stark vision of materialism. Others go for the warm fuzzies of eternalism.
To go back to the example of the heliocentric solar system; it would be theoretically possible to construct a completely geo-centric model that fits all the observable data equally well. The only problem is that it would be horrifically complicated. This was in fact the reason the geo-centric model was abandoned in the first place. As more data came in, the astronomers had to keep adding epicycles upon epicycles. What really makes my case is that at the time when Copernicus's theory started to gain general acceptance, the geo-centric model, with all it's centuries of accumulated tinkering, actually fitted the known data better (mostly because Copernicus still assumed circular orbits.) The helio-centric model was adopted not because it fit the evidence better, it didn't. It was adopted because it was more elegant.
So it's all a matter of taste. At least, that's what I believe.
it would be nice if we all came to deeper understanding of just how we “came to believe” the things we believe.Everyone believes something. Some of us can manage, like Alice, to believe five impossible things before breakfast. Others like to imagine they are "without beliefs" (even "Buddhists without beliefs") but that's a dodge, a fancy card-trick. Agnostics and skeptics are as much rooted in belief as Southern Baptists or Wahabbis. Just different beliefs; in particular the materialist world-view, or at the very least the reality of the external world.
Most of what you think you know, you probably just believe. Most everybody these days believes, for example, in the heliocentric model of the solar system. But very few could come up with cogent arguments as to why the earth moving around the sun and not vice-versa is the real model.
People believe all kinds of things less rational than this, and with less reason. Creationism, materialism, grey aliens, perpetual motion, the Rapture, the benefits of Free Trade; heck, I'm told some people still believe the official version of 9-11.
People who believe any of these things, or their equally faith-based opposites, or anything else at all, can come up with all kinds of rational arguments, and snippets of evidence, to back up their beliefs. Cruise around the internet and you won't take long to find heated debates on stuff like creationism vs. evolution, with carefully constructed arguments on both sides. But here's the really intriguing thing; almost no-one seems to ever change their position based on these arguments. The best constructed arguments on the other side just force a true believer to refine his or her own counter-arguments in an endless dance.
I would like to suggest that evidence and logical reasoning are only called in after the fact, to justify and bolster a belief. In most cases, they really have nothing at all to do with why we believe what we do.
So why do we believe what we believe? I would like to suggest that the real unspoken criterion of all beliefs is aesthetic. We believe what we believe because it is more beautiful, or more elegant than the available alternatives. We feel intuitively that if x is true then the universe is a more satisfying place. This makes belief a matter of taste. Some people revel in the cold, stark vision of materialism. Others go for the warm fuzzies of eternalism.
To go back to the example of the heliocentric solar system; it would be theoretically possible to construct a completely geo-centric model that fits all the observable data equally well. The only problem is that it would be horrifically complicated. This was in fact the reason the geo-centric model was abandoned in the first place. As more data came in, the astronomers had to keep adding epicycles upon epicycles. What really makes my case is that at the time when Copernicus's theory started to gain general acceptance, the geo-centric model, with all it's centuries of accumulated tinkering, actually fitted the known data better (mostly because Copernicus still assumed circular orbits.) The helio-centric model was adopted not because it fit the evidence better, it didn't. It was adopted because it was more elegant.
So it's all a matter of taste. At least, that's what I believe.
Aug 21, 2006
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.
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.
Aug 6, 2006
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;
What's more, Norman has a little friendly suggestion for the US in Iraq;
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.
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.
Aug 3, 2006
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.
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.
Jul 28, 2006
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.
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.
Jul 26, 2006
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!)
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;
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;
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.
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?
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."It is just common sense that a campaign of this magnitude couldn't be launched at a moment's notice.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.
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 civiliansThis is beginning to look a lot like ethnic cleansing.
Jul 23, 2006
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 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.
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.)
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.)
Jul 21, 2006
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 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.
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.
Jul 17, 2006
Buddhism and Anarchism
E.M. wrote in the comments;
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)
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.
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.
Jul 14, 2006
Middle East backgrounder
From the Comments;
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
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
Jul 13, 2006
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.
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.
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.
Jul 10, 2006
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."
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."
Jul 8, 2006
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
![[alsmbowl]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_sz0tdU_Xp0mqoAD9bIsYoABKI1lny8jwP2klU1S_Rrn7ZgLohy_a_XGNLdq2QqUnsSdE9EcR1eRdgdKiH4p28qhj_yR-oxWzwcgNKKF3QxyQkwmw=s0-d "donations always welcome")