Get Your War On
I was surprised to hear that Peter Jennings died. He was my favorite anchor of the big three. He will be missed.

News is on my mind.

I’ve grown weary about the “war on terror,” now revamped with a shiny new title “the global struggle against extremism.” I tip my hat to whoever thought up that title (Republicans have some pretty smart people working for them, even some creative people). It’s more nuanced, more PC (a global effort, not a unilateral one). It even has the word “struggle” in it, no doubt an attempt to reach out to moderate Muslims (“jihad” in Islam means “to struggle”). But whatever you call it, it’s a war. I don’t feel particularly more or less safe in the US after 911 than before.

What concerns me with this war is what’s going on everywhere else. Europe is no longer safe, neither is any other continent. Our service-people are not safe, especially if we stuff more of them in every corner of the globe. Travel is a nightmare. Too many innocent people are caught in the crossfire of this global struggle. As usual, it’s mostly the poor and the voiceless (though for some reasons they don’t make the front pages as much as ... well I won’t go there).

Going back to a theme I explored last time, about the burden of control, I think that applies here as well. I actually agree with Bush on some things. Democracy in the Middle East would be a great. But can one country expect to “nation-build” by invading and occupying another? I don’t care what the spin-masters say, there’s a ton of evidence that Iraqis, mostly, wanted Saddam gone, but not the way the US did it. Iraq is a mess, who’s going to control it now? Another dictator? Chaos, as Shibley Telhami points out, without a strong central government, is a vacuum that terrorists fill (look at Afghanistan). We broke Iraq, and now we have to fix it.

Given America’s foreign policy history, I don’t blame Iraqis for their skepticism. You can’t force democracy at gun point, that’s a blatant contradiction. Growing pains of an emerging democracy? Imagine if ours started that way. When Ben Franklin appealed to France for help, it was as a member of a colony, a rich member no doubt, appealing to a competing colonial power. Who is their Ben Franklin? Ahmed Chalabi? A lying double agent working for Iran, a country hostile to the Ba’ath party, and labeled by our own government as part of the “axis of evil.”

Yes, SH had enemies, and yes he is a bad dude (though there are other equally atrocious regimes out there right now, Saddam Hussein is not unique in that regard). But there was no active insurrection going on when we went in, we stirred up a sleeping hornets nest and wonder why we’re getting stung. Pan-Arabism is nationalistic, not an international threat. The terrorists Iraq supported were mainly Hamas, a nationalistic front, not al Qaeda, which is a much bigger problem. In fact, al Qaeda is a sworn enemy of the Ba’ath party (indeed, that type of secularism is what prompted Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East in the first place).

The real reasons for this invasion are obvious: control of the Middle East (using Iraq as a military base), oil resources, defense contracts, taking over SH’s billion dollar assets, keeping OPEC in line, protecting the falling value of the dollar, scaring Arab countries and Iran, protecting Israel, etc.

If this is what the war on terror is going to be, it’s obvious it will fail, just as the war on drugs has failed. We’re not facing a “nation” in the war on terror; we’re facing a tactic and an ideology. You have to look at both supply and demand.

On the supply-side, there this black market of WMB’s that’s been floating around since the end of the Cold War. No one is “safe” with these weapons. Certainly not the US (we currently have thousands). There are all types of terrorist groups out there, with different agendas, but they don’t need the same agenda to cooperate, all they need is money and a common enemy. Mafias, drug cartels, all types of illegal organizations run in these circles, and they know how to hide and protect themselves. Many legal businesses profit off of this too. Every time a gun is bought, a gun manufacturer profits. They don’t care if someone dies from that gun, and they’ll use their profits to lobby congress if they try to cut into their business. Same thing with the military-industrial complex. If we could clean up corruption, contain these weapons, and stop manufacturing them, that would make us safer.

But hey, weapons of mass destruction don’t kill people, people do. These weapons exist because of demand. How can we stop that? Well, until more people become enlightened, we can’t. We have to work on reshaping geo-political structures. The gap b/w rich and poor, overpopulation, pollution, unfair trade policies, unbalanced economies, slave labor, dictatorship – these are real problems that affect the lives of real people. Another important issue is education. You must be taught to think it’s OK to blow stuff up. An enlightened education, and funding it, is a crucial factor in reducing demand.

If You Break It ...
I read a story the other day on Yahoo news about how conservationists had to actually kill trees in order to save the lives of an endangered bird. I bet environmentalist foes are amused by the irony.

It's only logical. Killing trees in and of itself is not bad for the environment, natural forest fires are an important cleansing mechanism. To protect the eco-system, we have to on guard against over and under population.

Species, animals, plants, microbes - all sentient beings die eventually. Every time we scratch
our skin, some microscopic critter feeding off our dead skin cells has perished. When we walk, we sometimes step on bugs. Even if we do nothing
voluntarily, our white blood cells are fighting off infections, that is, killing invading organisms (it's amazing how much warfare is done on
a microscopic level).

Environmentalism, as I understand it, does not advocate the idea that killing is 100% avoidable. Even Jains must acknowledge that. Environmentalism is based on the more reasonable observation
that the eco-system is out of balance, mostly as a result of human civilization. It's happened to others, not just us. The Mayans and the Vikings had this problem, almost making themselves extinct. The inhabitants of Easter Island did make themselves extinct. But those were smaller scale tragedies, the world population is bigger than it has ever been. I vaguely remember a disturbing fact about species extinction (to all biologists out there, I apologize in advance if I seriously mess this up). Not too long ago, it was normal that 4-6 species a year would become extinct. In the past few decades, hundreds of species have been dying each year.

Humans did not have always have the burden of control, the eco-system ran on its own for millions of years without one species dominating the whole. Yes, there were species on top of the food chain before homo sapiens became handy, and humans aren't the only tool-making animal. But humans have increasingly been trying to alter the environment so that now we have to regulate everything.

I was thinking of this the other day as I sat outside my office and was eating my lunch. In order to keep the grass around the property healthy, people can't walk on it. To keep it growing it must be mechanically watered and fertilized. If the property was kept wild, we wouldn't need to do this. Not that this is all bad; supplying this endeavor creates jobs and sustains a little economy. Everything has a purpose. But I was thinking of what "wild" really meant.

A wild land is one that we don't control. Wild is chaotic. People in civilization find uncontrolled environments ugly, certainly, suburbanites shun the creep with the weeds and five foot grass stalks around his yard. Such appearances lower property values.

Nature is now an object and a commodity, never mind that it sustains us, we just want a tamed pet to look at. Certainly, though, plenty of wild places are beautiful. Really, it's a pain in the ass
to keep up even a small yard, imagine having to do this for the whole earth. That seems to be the trend in the coming millennium. Back to the
little plot of land, I wondered - If grass is so fragile, how could it have survived millions of years of animals trampling all over it? Why do we need to water it when the rain does that already? Animals are usually nomadic, and the dwellings they do build can't overburden one spot. When grassland has huge numbers of people in a small space walking on it every day, the grass dies. This was a problem at my college, I remember, in that students hustling to class often made short cuts, and cut dusty paths through nice lawns.

Grass could evolve to handle the stress of human traffic, or we could bio-engineer super-resistant grass. That's the techo-geek argument - technology solves everything. Yes, it does, but then we create other problems. We're out of touch with an eco-system that never has seen the likes of these developments, at least, not in this world-age.

Since I'm a believer in yugas (universal-cycles) I think things will eventually be OK. Our survival depends on what actions we take now (usually, most people don't think in terms of what's best for all, so to drive the point home you have to appeal to selfishness - save the earth to save your own ass). But we can be optimistic. The cosmic time scale is staggering compared to our puny little lives. The universe can have a happy ending folks. But it'll take a long time to get there, billions, no I think trillions of years, according to Hindu theory. Until then, let's not destroy things too much.

There's a saying - you break it, you buy it. If you destroy a piece of merchandise, you owe the store. That's my attitude towards the environment. Nothing is free, it always costs you.

Return to Oneness
OK, I got a few things wrong yesterday. The name of teacher I was thinking of is Leslie Temple-Thurston. The book she wrote is "Return to Oneness: The 7 Keys of Ascension." "Keys to Ascension" is a Yes CD. Not a bad one, but certainly not on the level of their '70s prog rock genius. The CD I had in mind is "Burning Karma." They say don't judge a book by its cover, but actually I rather like the cover art of her books, that's what attracted me to her stuff. I guess that's the whole point of adversitizing - it's superficial, and the whole point of the saying is to not judge by appearances but to look within. I don't know much about her teachings. They seem OK. I will get that CD, and I will report later on whether any of my karmas were burned away. It sounds like some fitness program - use this machine, take this pill, burn away that nasty belly fat. That's how spirituality is in the modern marketplace. If there is truly a simple way to burn karma, I promise to share my knowledge with you, my loyal readers.

Burning Away Karma
I was thinking of what I wrote yesterday. I ended that asceticism is not about punishment or redemption of sins. Is that true?

I'm thinking of the great Tibetan saint Milarapa. Supposedly (I take such accounts with a grain of salt) there was this guy who was a black sorcerer and he attacked an enemy family with magic. He caused all sorts of calamities like a hail storm, and an accident to their house during a wedding, and it resulted in scores of deaths. He later regretted his actions, and wanted to study with the famous ascetic Marpa. Perhaps he was tired of the cycle of violence (like that line in the Godfather "every time I try to get out, they pull me back in!").

Marpa put him through all types of grueling practices. He took asceticism to the nth degree, I believe some of the meditation was called "piercing the heart of nectar." He went through pain to the other side. He was burning up his bad karma, not just from that lifetime, but all his past lives. After this, he became enlightened.

I guess asceticism can be a redemption. But the difference is that pain and punishment are not permanent in Buddhism. No one will suffer forever. In Christian terms, I would say that God, in His infinite compassion, forgives all, even the most wicked. That's a welcome relief to all the fuck ups of the world, including me!

There's a teacher out there, I forget her name, she's the one who wrote "Keys to Ascension," who sells a CD on her website called "Burn Away Karma." I don't know if it's possible to do that, but I'm curious. I know that in yogic and Buddhist theory, karma starts with the mind. However, we cannot control the mind. If we could, there'd be no point to meditation. So we start with things we do have some degree of control - speech and actions. From the grosser levels we can work up to the subtle. I would imagine burning away karma would be a long arduous process. I wish there was a short cut, but hey, karma is part of the fun of life, right?

The Lost Art of Asceticism
Hello readers! Any fans of my website can check out my new blog. I chose the Yoga template, however, this blog is not specifically about that. I chose that template because it had a sort of "spiritual" look (whatever that means) but I will just post my random musings, it won't necessarily be boxed into one specific subject. Hope you enjoy!

I was reading an article in the New Britain Herald last week about whether certain medieval ascetic practices are officially sanctioned, or even encouraged, by the Catholic Church. As I understand it, these practices were done by monastics, not lay-people. I mean, if anyone wanted to try such a thing, I don't see how an authoritative body could actively prohibit it, although I suppose the police could take you away to a mental institution if they felt that your behavior was weird enough. But if people are not commiting suicide or are not trying to hurt anyone, and they want to try such things, I say let them do it. The caveat being that most people, I would assume, would not willingly do such things. Supposedly, the first followers of Jesus renounced their former lifestyles and lived very simply. This served as an inspiration for Christian monks, but they also took matters into their own hands. One thinks of Saint Francis of Assisi, or the even more extreme Saint Joseph of Cupertino. As in all religions, exploration eventually became institutionalized. Is there any benefit from doing such things?

Buddhism starts with a recognition that people try to avoid pain and gain pleasure. This is not an earth shaking revelation, pretty much common sense. Asceticism seems like the exception that proves the rule. Why would anyone willingly do this? Well, for some, the spiritual path requires reversing our worldly habits. Instead of avoiding pain, we face it. Instead of seeking pleasure, we renounce it. Pema Chodron explains the Tibetan practice of Tonglon in similar terms. True compassion means transforming pain into happiness, and sending out our happiness.

Of course, in Buddhism the ascetic usually receives material aid from others, and what they give back is usually non-tangible benefits. What I respect about Christian asceticism is that not only do they voluntarily renounce wealth, they actually work to aid the poor while themselves being poor. This is compassion in its highest sense, ?to struggle with.? The three vows of a monk/nun are ?poverty, chastity, and service.? The cynical British journalist Christopher Hitchens believes that Mother Theresa, and I would assume monastics in general, given his hatred of religion, didn't really love the poor, she loved poverty. Myself, I think the best way to help the poor is to appeal to those who are materially abundant and convince them that others are more in need. The religious loophole that?s used by the rich is that Jesus taught that if you give a man a fish, he eats for a day, but if you teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime. But self-sufficiency is not an excuse to deny others their basic needs. How many of us can learn on an empty stomach? Poor people can only help poor people so much. However, for someone to give without a guarantee of a reward they must value non-possessiveness, of which the ascetic is a prime example example. I think Mother Theresa, for all her faults, did care about the poor. It's often rich people, who have never known what poverty is like, who have little empathy (the emotion that precedes compassion).

Asceticism is part of most major religions for several different reasons. The cultural contexts are different, but I think there is one overall theme that is the same - transcendence. In Hindu Yoga, one remains indifferent to temporary ups and downs, in order to unite with God (personal or impersonal) which is infinite bliss. In Jainism there is severe asceticism, but the point is to cut off all the causes of future suffering by breaking the chains of all karma, even good karma. One actually becomes immune to such pain as one transcends the world. Sadhus are known to do such things as sleeping on a bed of nails, walking on hot coals, and piercing their body with long needles.

In Latin America and Latin Asia some Christians celebrate the ascension of Christ by actually crucifying themselves. For some of the people revered by the Catholic Church, one of the signs of their holiness was the ?stigmata,? a miracle in which the same wounds inflicted on Jesus as he was nailed to the cross would appear on your hands. There is an historical context to all of this.

An early sect of Judaism called ?Essenes,? prepared for God to redeem the world, seeing themselves as ?the sons of light.? Since everyone else belonged to ?the sons of darkness,? there had to be pure people in the world for God to redeem it. Christ's death itself represents this principle - individual sacrifice for the good of ALL. This is all reminiscent of the Iranian religion of Manichaeism.

Speaking of which, there are the practices of Shi'ite Muslims who celebrate their martyred leader Ali by self-flagellation. Out of respect for the sacrifice of their leader, men whip themselves with chains.

A misconception about asceticism is that it's about pain, when it's actually the transcendence of pain. People in the S&M community, or bondage/domination, or whatever they call themselves these days, are well aware of this. Biologically, the body sometimes emits powerful hormones to overcome the effects of otherwise debilitating conditions. The pain-pleasure mechanism is tightly linked in the nervous system, and the wires can easily be crossed. Pain can be pleasurable! I can understand how some people think sado-masochism is fun, even ?spiritual.? This is not surprising, modern America trivializes the sacred.

S&M is an attempt, perhaps flawed, to recover the lost art of asceticism. I'm not against S&M, as long as it?s voluntary, I say have fun with it. I get a sense that S&M is for those who are bored with vanilla sex and want a stronger dose of stimulation and emotional release. But that's all it is - getting off.

As for sadism, I don?t know if there?s anything healthy about it. I understand that it?s the other side of the coin, that you can?t have masochism without sadism. But is this a character trait we should develop? It's fine in the ?safe? environment of a S&M club. The distinctions between voluntary or involuntary torture are not always so neat. Maybe in a club sadism is cute, but when we have soldiers invading other countries, Abu Ghraib is the inevitable result of such attitudes.

I remember reading George Orwell writing about how Gandhi's image of self-denial was disgusting to his English sensibilities. How could one deny oneself the pleasures of life? For example, being a vegetarian out of compassion for animals is misguided (certainly animals don't have such compassion for each other, though I would argue that other animals don't have the same free will as the human variety). Self-restraint is just not cool. In India, self-restraint was traditionally seen as a respectable achievement, this was certainly the case in the Buddha's time (though according to another article I read in the same newspaper, this tradition is less popular as India today).

The medieval Christian God seemed very sadistic. In this context, perhaps asceticism was a means to please God. Better to punish yourself before God does! But why would God want the best among us to suffer the most? Who would want to worship such a God?

Christianity is an axial age faith, and like all axial age faiths it incorporated pagan roots, however much it might not want to admit it. Pre-axial faiths generally had sacrifices to gods. If you're giving a gift to a deity, you better give a good gift! You don't just sacrifice any animal, you give your juiciest ones. You don't just sacrifice anyone, you pick the innocent. (I read in anthropology that virgins were not seen as necessarily being pure or virtuous, because there wasn't yet a concept of sex as being bad. Rather, virgins were important because they had a strange power. People did not fully understand how sex resulted in birth, so they thought women created life by connecting to the goddess. Thus, the virgin conserved his or her life giving energy and has some of the deity's powers).

So if asceticism is not about punishment or redemption of sin, what's the point? I say, as in all things, follow the middle way. The goal is not about pain or pleasure, but timeless Truth.