It's A Small Universe After All (well, sort of)
"Do for this world as if you were to live a thousand years and for the next as if you were to die tomorrow." - The Hadith

Give wordly matters due consideration in proportion to the scope of the world. Timely matters have timely solutions. The timeless, that can't wait, it doesn't wait. It always already is, and it is we who wait to enter, not vice-versa.

The world is important, no doubt. But let's put it in perspective. The physical universe is not all there is, and therefore it is not more important than the immaterial source from whence it comes. The physical universe is impermanent. According to David Jon Peckinpaugh, the consensus of the wisdom traditions regarding how to live in the world is:

"Do not seek for an advantage over others. However, if you have been blessed by God Almighty with what may be seen as some kind of advantage — a natural gift or talent of some sort — then use that advantage for the benefit of others, and not for the benefit one one's self and one's closest and most intimate relations."

I might add, use your gifts not only for yourself, friends, and family, but also for others. Really, if you live right, all the right needs can be taken care of. I see no reason why you can't help those who are close to you. Of course help can take different forms, you don't have to spoil your kids for example. But you certainly do have a duty to be a kind, loving, and responsible parent or caretaker, if you choose to have children or take care them.

Why am I thinking of such things? On the practical level, I'm planning out my life, so it's always on my mind. But also, I have been reading the book "How the Universe Got Its Spots" by Janna Levin.

Levin is a brilliant physicist, and her book reads like a memoir of her personal life interspersed with commentaries on her life's work. In this way it reminds me very much of Wilber's "One Taste." In this book, and in her scientific work, Levin posits that the universe is not infinite in size, just really, really big. She explains why in mathematics infinity is a valid concept, but in nature it is not.

Being the mystic that I am, you'd think I'd disagree. Actually, I don't. Let me explain.

First, we must define infinity. There is a countable infinity (that's right, a lesser infinity). The number line goes on without a limit, but the number line of rational numbers only consists of even and odd integers. Then there are irrational numbers. And, if you consider both rational and irrational numbers, that itself is an infinity of possibilities. Yet, infinity is not a quantity, infinity plus infinity is, you guessed it ... infinity.

The universe is neither a countable infinity, nor any other kind. It is big, ridiculously so, but it does not extend forever. I won't go too much into the geometry, just sum up the basic points.

Like the global earth, the universe has no edge and no middle. As Levin says, the universe is "finite and edgeless, compact and connected."

In the scheme of the great chain of being, this makes perfect sense. Limitlessness is only a possibility in the realm of mind. The senses register limitations. There's a lot the senses don't tell us, but there are basic units of matter. If you mess with subatomic quanta, matter is fundamentally altered in a way you can't do to matter on a larger scale.

The Christian mystics say we have an eye of the flesh (or senses) to register the physical, an eye of the mind (or intellect) to register ideas, and the eye of the spirit (or soul) to register the divine. Science is a tool of flesh and mind. The mind tells of realities the senses sometimes can't believe, such as mathematical truths (Plato's realm of ideation). But when the mind and the senses are applied to the universe, it reveals an elegant map of finitude. The soul, beyond mind and body, is in touch with true infinity. The divine is divine precisely because it is limitless.

"God is great, God is great. God is greater than, God is greater than ..." That is the Muslim call to prayer. The second sentence is intentionally left with a pause for us to fill in the blank. God is greater than anything you can see or imagine. The Christian philosopher St. Anslem had the same argument, whatever you think God is, God is still more than that.

The entire universe, as damn big as it is, still has limits. What lies outside these limits? If you traveled in a space ship, you certainly wouldn't reach an edge. Just as if you were in a ship sailing around the world, if you could travel the whole universe you would eventually end up where you started.

If you really want to know what's beyond the limits of the universe, you have to use the eye of the Spirit.

The Arms Race and Teology
As you can probably tell, I'm reading a lot of Robert Wright lately. His major critic in his field (evolution) is Stephen Jay Gould. It's a fascinating debate.

Wright's view of evolution is that, basically, complexity breeds complexity in a linear direction.

Gould argues that evolution goes up and down, that random selection has no direction. His analogy is a drunk moving down a sidewalk. There's an equal chance the drunk could stay on the sidewalk or stumble into the road. A brick wall in a certain place can determine whether he heads east instead of west, or north instead of south. Put enough drunks and enough brickwalls, and some will make it all the way to the end of the road. This does not mean the end point of the road was really the goal of each drunk. Given the conditions, the result was likely, not inevitable.

When it comes to how evolution works, both Gould and Wright agree about randomness. But why evolution works the way it does, there could be higher intelligence involved. The "intelligent" designer could have set up the brickwalls and other conditions on purpose. Who knows.

Let's leave metaphysics aside for now (Wright claims that his theory is not "orthogenesis," that progress means things are moving towards spiritual perfection). Wright counters Gould's argument with several examples of the arms race in nature, such as the spray of the Bombadeer Beetle and the Skunk. As each animal ups the ante to defend or prey upon the other, eventually there will be communication between allies to defeat rivals, which requires cooperation.

Critics point out cooperation and communication are subgoals of survival, not necessarily the endpoint of evolution. What I find troubling, and perhaps unintended on Wright's part, is that the arms race in nature could be used to justify the arms race in society.

Reagan gets a lot of praise for winning the Cold War by hyper-inflating the military budget. But let's put it in context. The Cold War (and its many hot wars) was primarily economic. Russia tried to surpass the US, but just couldn't compete because it suffered more damage after WWII than the US did, and certainly dictatorship didn't help (the same devious tactics and powerful leadership Stalin used to defeat the Nazi invasion also lent to his evil dictatorship later on). Russia essentially went bankrupt trying to compete with the US arsenal. So does that mean weapons made us safer? Is the all-encompassing power of nuclear weapons the answer to the world's ills?

No. It was diplomacy and fear of death that saved the day. If there wasn't at least a modicum of goodwill between the superpowers, or fear of a "mutually assured destruction," the Cold War could have been a lot worse. Religious extremists think that the supreme power of the universe is automatically on their side, so they have nothing to lose and everything to gain by a valiant death, with its supernatural rewards. They have no fear.

This is why the world is scared of groups like al Qaeda getting WMD's, and is also scared of Christian fundamentalists taking over the US. I wasn't particularly concerned by Saddam Hussein, a secular dictator, at the time we invaded Iraq. He didn't have WMB's. That doesn't mean he wouldn't try to make more money by selling weapons to al Qaeda, but Iraq experts said that was unlikely, and when that deal was considered it fell through. Al Qaeda has lots of potential donors, and we should consider them all. Greed is a sickness that can override common sense. Think of the experiments in which rats preferred addictive drugs over food, and went with starvation rather than drug deprivation.

If we want to look at inspiring examples in nature, the arms race is not the only one. But even in this context, the advancement is not only the ability to kill better, or kill more. The advancement is to create a defense to protect without killing at all. Animals have many ways to do that.

It might be good to look at UN reform. I know some people who advocate global government. I think it's a good ideal, although probably not achievable in our lifetime. If it was, it could turn out to be our worst nightmare, the opposite of what global government people intend. We don't need to be hasty and make some poorly thought out, half-baked government. In Star Trek for example, it takes hundreds of years of war, and some major calamities, before a politically unified earth comes to fruition. By then, earthlings are busy exploring other planets, and major conflicts are between planets rather countries. We're a long way off from that.

I'm really on the fence with teology, the idea that history has a singular movement towards better conditions. Ken Wilber believes that, though he allows that the more complex things get, the more ways things can possibly break down (dogs get cancer, rocks don't). Wilber takes the vertical Plotinus (the traditional great chain) and spreads it horizontally over time. Perhaps Wright is correc that nature inevitably gets more complex. But whether there is improvement, I don't know.

What I do think is that if we are to survive as a species and improve the quality of our lives, change needs to happen from the inside out. The problem with extremist religion, and secular dictatorships, is that they rely only on strict rules alone. We can't ignore human motivation and moral reasoning.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Eye for an eye was an innovation for Hammurabi, but we need rules that fit the needs of today.

Flat Thinking In 3 Dimensions
On Slate, Robert Wright wrote about Friedman’s book “The World is Flat.” I have not read it, so I’m responding only to Wright.

Globalization is great if we mean an increase in world-centric values (think globally, act locally). But the idea that Friedman supports economic freedom and other liberals don't is a spurious notion. Liberals are not against freedom per se. A progressive liberal (as opposed to a "classical liberal" what is now called "libertarian") does not assume that capitalism is the absolute best system, or that the free market is entirely free. Global capitalism certainly had advantages over old-school colonialism. Governments and NGO’s have systems in place to expose human rights abuses. We even have a global court to persecute the worst violators, however ineffective these structures are. These mores did not seem to be relevent in the age of exploration, when fascination with foreign lands became exotic and chic (in addition to the usual reasons for travel - war, trade, and conquest). Travel is no longer just an idle curiosity, a pastime of the rich or adventurous, but a normal part of an increasingly complex world. People move wherever there are jobs (Americans will just have to get over their isolation as the economy changes. In the past century, increased emigration to America became normal, and Americans will eventually learn that it's OK for them to emigrate too). While all this moving about threatens our sense of rootedness, and tradition, it also challenges us to find ways of preserving tradition in new contexts (and sharing them).

What we should be wary of, as I'm fond of pointing out, is hegemony. Globalization doesn't look like "in varietate concordia" (unity-in-diversity). Globalization looks more like a bland, uniform, suburbanization of the world with a McDonalds and strip mall every 10 miles. Perhaps sharing and spreading on an equal footing is unrealistic, but it's still sad to view old cultures getting wiped out before we stop to ask whether this is a good idea.

Whether globalization economically benefits all is debatable (consult an economist, I don't know). But surely it’s not all bad. I’m not against Indians getting more computer jobs. They work really hard for less money, and their educations need to amount to something. People in other countries deserve the same opportunities as Americans. Some would argue they could get that by immigrating to our country, but not everyone can do that. Some might like to stay home and improve their own country (globalization critics might argue the opposite - people don't have to come to America to be assimilated. The ways things are going, everyone will end up working for America).

Labor statements that others are "taking" our jobs sound rather xenophobic. If Friedman's flatworld means there’s an equal trade-offs of jobs, great. If unemployment is really declining and the purchasing power of the lower and middle classes are really increasing, wonderful. Even according to Marx, capitalism is not totally bad. It’s an improvement over feudalism and monarchy, for example. I say we need some new ideas beyond capitalism and socialism. We need to think outside the box, like PR Sarkar’s Prout (Progressive Utilization Theory). Win-win thinking, as Wright puts it, non-zero-sum.

Another hotbed issue is the democratization of the Middle East, and economic development in the Muslim World en toto.

Wright asserts that Iraq war opponents didn’t take into account that a prosperous, free market in places like Iraq reduces terrorism (though like me, he thinks war was the wrong way to go about it). But let’s not forget that Iraqis actually benefited from some Ba’athist policies. (I know I’ll get slammed for that, so let me state for the record that I condemn Ba'athist pogroms, and terrorism against Israel, in the strongest terms possible). It’s not like Iraq has never known advancement. The base is already there (one good outcome of this war was the removal sanctions) and Iraq could prosper again. Is Iraq the domino that will change the whole landscape of the Middle East?

It seems right now the monarchies in the Middle East are the most progressive, I'm not sure why. Jordan is a modern, liberal state (though they have not done enough to address women’s rights issues like honor killings). Bahrain and UAE are like futuristic cities that landed in an ancient desert.

Saudi Arabia needs to change the most. The modernization developments started by the recently deceased King Fahd (and his half brother Prince Abdullah) has angered fanatics. Coupled with the US military presence in Saudi Arabia, this spawned groups like al Qaeda. While there is genuine corruption in the house of Saud, at least King Fahd supported projects other Muslims benefited from. He supported health care for all of his citizens. He gave over 5% of GDP to development projects. The problem now is that too much Saudi charity goes, advertently or inadvertently, to fund terrorism and radical madrassahs.

There is a growing rift of unemployed youth in the Saudi peninsula. If you combine free time, radical ideologies, and wounded pride, you have a recipe for disaster.

As for the rest of the Muslim world - Iran needs a secular government, with the elite clergy separate from government. Pakistan needs to settle the Kashmir issue once and for all, reduce its military budget, improve public education, and crack down on radical madrassahs. African countries need to clean up corruption and tackle poverty. The recent aid and debt relief is a start, but there's a lot more things that need to be done. Syria needs to get out of Lebanon, which won’t happen as long as Hezbollah holds sway (and gets funding from Iran). Hezbollah will remain in Lebanon as long as the Israel/Palestine issue is yet to be resolved. After Saudi Arabia, Israel/Palestine is the next big domino that needs to fall in place. With the recent Gaza pullout, it looks like the road map might actually begin to actualize, but both sides have reason to be skeptical.

But I think Israel gets too much attention. Surely, the Kashmir issue is just as dangerous. Elsewhere, Indonesia is an unstable Republic dealing with the aftermath of US supported dictator Suharto. Like many post-colonial nations, it's rife with ethnic conflict and guerilla movements. Chechnya needs independence, as do the Kurds. Malaysia is doing really well, but some fanatics have even lodged there. The Muslim world has a lot of challenges, to say the least.

This leads to questions about UN reform and the need for global government, but I won't go into that now. How do we unite a single world, when it's divided into a first, second, and third? Do we flatten it?

Spiritual Materialism
I reread Huston Smith's "Forgotten Truth," and perhaps I was unfair. In chapter 6 "Hope, Yes; Progress, No" he warns us that his speculations would be scandalous. But he pulls no punches when it comes to the myth of progress. He doesn't deny that the fossil record shows an order of species in time, he denies that early species are bridges to later ones. He believes that simpler does not cause more complexity, and earlier species are not the cause of later, more complex species. He offers his own explanation of how each species changes in time, however implausible.

He also has reason to go off on Teihard de Chardin. His main problem with Chardin's book "The Phenomenon of Man" is that Chardin states it is a matter of scientific fact, when it's actually theology. I've read similar critical reviews by scientists - facts do not reveal divine purpose. .

While I think Wilber has done a better job uniting spirituality and evolution, he too makes mistakes. The first book of his I read, as a naive young man just out of highschool, was "A Brief History of Everything." I bought it thinking it was Hawking's "A Brief History of Time," not knowing the title was sort of a spoof. Anyways, Wilber relies on the discreted argument against random selection that "you can't have a half-wing, half leg." Intelligent Design theorists use "puncuated equillibrium" to bolster the position that sudden mutations are too numerous to be random. Except, as Wright points out, there's plenty of evidence that evolution occurs in increments. The same protein in simple eyeless organisms that enables light sensitivity codes for eyes in complex organisms. Darwin may have a black box, but it's getting brighter.

What's intriguing about the last chapter of Smith's book is that he looks at why our secular ideals dissappoint. If nature is cyclical, it only makes sense that the more we try to change things, the more things stay the same. With material abundance and technological advancement, life is not necessarily easier, just more complex. Indeed, our primitive ancestors in the neolithic age, in spite of their hard life, actually had more free time then we do!

Our modern ideals have roots in 19th ideas of progress. Science will slay the oppressive mythology of the past, capitalism (or communism) will improve the lot of all.

The 20th century was supposed to be "The Century of the Common Man," with its "War to End All Wars," "The War to Make the World Safe for Democracy," "The Four Freedoms," and "The Great Society." As noble as those ideas were, they either turned out to be wrong, or have fallen short. Now we have a new one - "The Global Struggle Against Extremism."

Many Bush foes harp on his religious fundamentalism, and there is a fair share of that among his chosen cadre. But he's also following this same ethos, it's another version of making the world safe for democracy.

The unworldly part of the theology is the belief that doomsday is coming soon. Only the believers will ascend to heaven during the rapture when the Jesus army comes. Everyone else will go to an eternal hell. So as long as you believe, go ahead, make war, pollute, get as much money as you want. In Calvin predestination, God already chose which few souls are blessed.

I've noticed a standard mantra in new age thought, perhaps influenced by this social darwinism - there are no victims. I agree that no one remains a victim forever, simply because nothing lasts forever. But evil things do happen. If we think there really are no victims, then when misfortunate befalls us we can suffer new age guilt. If I have cancer I must have given it to myself. If there truly were no victims, there could be no victimizers, so there is no blame. And yet, victims are to blame for their own suffering. This idea isn't new to the new age (see the "just world" theory in social psychology).

If you are raped, assaulted, molested, it's because your higher Self is trying to teach you some kind of lesson. You can't have real justice with this mindset, for no one can hurt another, only you can hurt yourself, as though you somehow brought it on yourself.

I think we can make distinctions between genuine victimhood and just uncomfortable situations we all go through. The death of a loved one probably causes us more grief than having to wait in line at the supermarket. But maybe not, it depends on the individual and their circumstances. You can't predict all outcomes and how it will affect people, but there's evidence that certain events will likely traumatize people in significant ways, and will alter their thinking and behavior.

Traumatic events affect us on an emotional level, and this is where self-defeating ideas originate. Someone who is traumatized can become fatalistic, and develop a self-concept of weakness, dependency, and worthlessness. So yes, it's better to believe you are a survivor of abuse rather than a victim.

In Buddhism, generally, we're all victims of samsara. But there are relative differences because we all have different karmas. But to justify injustice through the theory of karma is a gross misunderstanding. Even if it is someone's karma to be destitute, if we abuse someone who is down and out, or ignore their plight, we create our own bad karma.

Of Unicellular Organisms and Men

Evolution has been in the news lately, well, in Slate anyways. It seems many Americans are still resistant to the idea. When Darwin first proposed it, it shocked people (though it's not without precedent in Lamark, Galton, even back to the ancient Greeks). What, we're not of divine origin, we came from slime and monkeys? Madam Blavatsky used to keep a baboon skull in her study to mock the idea. I guess it is an affront to our dignity.

When I was in college my parents made fun of me for even entertaining the possibility of reincarnation. Attempting to use statistics and science, they argued that reincarnation is impossible. When I countered that science has also disproved much of the Bible, all of a sudden, "you know the problem with science is ..." You can't have it both ways, science must apply equally whether it challenges your religion or not.

Evolution is frequently misunderstood. We didn't come from apes or monkeys, we are closely related to them. More and more evidence is showing that both apes and humans came from a common ancestor.  Even if you believe in Genesis, this should be obvious. If the same God created all animals, we must all be related. Evolution is just has a better explanation of how this all happened, at least until a better theory comes along.

I like Huston Smith, but I cringe when he goes off on evolution. He makes a legitimate distinction between science, which deals with physical facts, and scientism, which is the dogma that the physical is the only reality. But Smith goes off on poor Teilhard de Chardin for a theology that allows for evolution. To Smith, religion can't allow that the higher can be explained in terms of the lower.

Robert Wright, a staunch neo-Darwinist, in a brilliant article in Slate (http://slate.msn.com/id/104349/ ) wrote that:

"After all, no one ever said that natural selection produces random conglomerations of matter. Rather, it is said to produce complex, functional arrangements of matter. In fact, according to evolutionary biologists, it produces arrangements that look for all the world as if they were composed by an intelligent designer."

Selection is "random" in the sense that we don't know what pattern, if any, it follows. Acknowledging this mystery is where wisdom traditions come in. A meteor could come to earth and wipe out plenty of well-adapted organisms, and their demise is not because of bad genes, but bad luck. We don't know who will make it and who won't. If the designer (God) is truly intelligent, then the full purpose and mechanism of creation would be beyond our comprehension. Religions have good stories about creation, and indeed I think each religion sees a different aspect of what the purpose of life is.

There is of course another critique of Darwinism. Philosopher David Peckinpaugh, aka "Naked Monk," does not deny that evolution exists, but claims it's foolish to conflate it with spirituality (http://www.integralworld.net/peckinpaugh7.html ). He agrees with Smith that history, and the lot of humans as a whole follows the cyclical ways of nature, rather than progressive ideals. Certainly, survival of the fittest is not kind. We must secure an advantage over others in order to adapt to an unstable world that constantly threatens our survival.

However, Wright points out that cultural evolution works differently than biological evolution.

So what's my point after all of this? I embrace the facts of science and the insight of religion. If that makes me a heretic, so be it.

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.