This weekend after a few years of absence I remembered the central thesis of my life. It got lost in 2003 when I first questioned the relationship between man and nature which diverted my energies, and then in 2004 when I tried to become a mediator at a Chinese temple totally forgetting my own input, and then last year through tolerance of an unwanted relationship. Finally its back and I'm on rails again.
The Thesis
========
Straight from Buddha comes the idea of Middle Path. He realised that neither abstinence nor indulgence achieved anything. Indulging in life's pleasures is only satisfying when we have a short sight that can stick its head in the sands of current experience. Things are great when it's pleaure, we have difficulty when things are unpleasant. Going to the other extreme and shifting entirely to the long view removes us from current concerns and that is detrimental to our healthy. The balance is the right view.
I concluded, especially from this but it is present elsewhere, that physical comfort and material progress were not essential to life. A completely happy, satisfying and successful life is available without any loss through a life of poverty. Indeed it is mastery of such things as loss and poverty which achieve this.
Such a view frees me from much that is traditionally viewed as "important" and despite what Mahayana Buddhists try to convince themselves, is very consuming to our time and effort.
If it is possible to achieve a completely full life through moderate poverty, it also follows that riches are indeed futile, or at least unnecessary for life and pursuit of them is a life wasted.
Its a work in progress, I now understand the cause of my current life - which for personal narrative reasons is very centering, since I was searching for it and thereby unsatisfied.
It has obvious real implications also. Social and financial inequality - which is one of those blatant absurdities that jarr violently which the rhetoric of free society - is no longer an important feature.
With the significance of economic prosperity anulled the constrant human drive to transform the environment is tempered, and that gives breathing space for other excluded aspects of the environment - like nature.
The space such a simple acceptance of poverty creates is what I believe is the space in which we can develop a meaninful existence and that is the current root of this blog and of my life.
QED
Monday, 25 September 2006
Monday, 18 September 2006
2 types of problems in the world
Problems can be separated into two types. Those made by man and those made naturally.
A tsunami is not man made. A war is man made.
Looking at the news so much of what we need to do in the world and in our lives, is actually the result of other things we have done.
Environmentalists for example have two jobs. One to record and manage the natural world. The second to offer advice on how mankind is destroying the natural world. A lot of their time is wasted covering up other peoples actions.
Likewise in medicine there are genuine illnesses that no amount of care can prevent. The vast majority of medical time is spent treating illness and injury brought about by careless people. Again mankind making work for itself.
Rather than work to undo the mess that other people have done, would it not be infinitely more efficient to educate people not to make mistakes in the first place.
When there is a problem there are 2 ways of tackling it. Do things to stop it, or if we are the cause stopping doing it.
It's not fashionable to consider not doing something to be the solution of a problem, but in the balance of things not doing things is as likely to be the answer as doing things. A quick look at economics will explain why this is the case. If we ever solve a problem by not doing something then it damages the economy. Better in economic terms to do something with undesirable results, and then do more to solve the outcome. That way there are plenty of jobs.
In real terms I suggest not doing things is a very real solution to many problems, especially in health and environmental areas.
A tsunami is not man made. A war is man made.
Looking at the news so much of what we need to do in the world and in our lives, is actually the result of other things we have done.
Environmentalists for example have two jobs. One to record and manage the natural world. The second to offer advice on how mankind is destroying the natural world. A lot of their time is wasted covering up other peoples actions.
Likewise in medicine there are genuine illnesses that no amount of care can prevent. The vast majority of medical time is spent treating illness and injury brought about by careless people. Again mankind making work for itself.
Rather than work to undo the mess that other people have done, would it not be infinitely more efficient to educate people not to make mistakes in the first place.
When there is a problem there are 2 ways of tackling it. Do things to stop it, or if we are the cause stopping doing it.
It's not fashionable to consider not doing something to be the solution of a problem, but in the balance of things not doing things is as likely to be the answer as doing things. A quick look at economics will explain why this is the case. If we ever solve a problem by not doing something then it damages the economy. Better in economic terms to do something with undesirable results, and then do more to solve the outcome. That way there are plenty of jobs.
In real terms I suggest not doing things is a very real solution to many problems, especially in health and environmental areas.
Friday, 15 September 2006
Which came first eyes or sight?
Which came first eyes or sight?
Eyes we say because without eyes we can't see.
However if we could not see what would our eyes mean to us?
Surely it is because we can see that we go in search of the wonderful organs and processes that enable us to explain how we see.
After all if we did not have sight how could we see the eyes!
The same goes for all the senses. Surely it is our experiences which come first, because without our experiences how could we know about the senses!
Our Mind comes first is the lessons.
I will argue later that the real answer is that neither the experience nor the eyes come first! Rather it is a very profound kind of Mind which comes first - beyond both sense and thought.
(q.v. the story of the monks arguing over the moving flag)
Eyes we say because without eyes we can't see.
However if we could not see what would our eyes mean to us?
Surely it is because we can see that we go in search of the wonderful organs and processes that enable us to explain how we see.
After all if we did not have sight how could we see the eyes!
The same goes for all the senses. Surely it is our experiences which come first, because without our experiences how could we know about the senses!
Our Mind comes first is the lessons.
I will argue later that the real answer is that neither the experience nor the eyes come first! Rather it is a very profound kind of Mind which comes first - beyond both sense and thought.
(q.v. the story of the monks arguing over the moving flag)
Beyond Descartes
This is well documented in philosophy texts, but only recently has it begun to make real sense to me.
Descartes wanted to know if anything was certain. He embarked on a process of doubt, trying to find if there was anything he could not doubt.
All sense could be hallucinations or like things in the Matrix.
One day he came to consider his own thoughts and inparticular his doubting and then he realised something. Could he doubt that he was doubting? The more he tried to doubt he was doubting the more he knew he was doubting. It was some certainty at last! He expanded this immediately realising that he could not think that he was not thinking! any thought was proof that he was thinking - even the thought that he was not thinking.
The inner world of Descartes was filled with certainty which grew and grew. Eventually he realised that even if he was hallucinating that experience of his hallucinations could not be doubted. The whole mental world was proof to Descartes that he was thinking and seeing and hearing and soon the world was back certain and secure again.
He made a well reported mistake however. Although he was now fully aware of all these undoubtable experiences, how did he know they belonged to him?
Where is the evidence that anything belongs to us?
We think many things belong to us from cars, to houses, to children, to arms, legs, organs, brain, sights, sounds and thoughts. But, where is the evidence they belong to us?
I will explore in later blogs that on many occasions in life we are able to own things, and then disown them. It is a free process, so where comes the real link that goes beyond our choice to own things?
Descartes wanted to know if anything was certain. He embarked on a process of doubt, trying to find if there was anything he could not doubt.
All sense could be hallucinations or like things in the Matrix.
One day he came to consider his own thoughts and inparticular his doubting and then he realised something. Could he doubt that he was doubting? The more he tried to doubt he was doubting the more he knew he was doubting. It was some certainty at last! He expanded this immediately realising that he could not think that he was not thinking! any thought was proof that he was thinking - even the thought that he was not thinking.
The inner world of Descartes was filled with certainty which grew and grew. Eventually he realised that even if he was hallucinating that experience of his hallucinations could not be doubted. The whole mental world was proof to Descartes that he was thinking and seeing and hearing and soon the world was back certain and secure again.
He made a well reported mistake however. Although he was now fully aware of all these undoubtable experiences, how did he know they belonged to him?
Where is the evidence that anything belongs to us?
We think many things belong to us from cars, to houses, to children, to arms, legs, organs, brain, sights, sounds and thoughts. But, where is the evidence they belong to us?
I will explore in later blogs that on many occasions in life we are able to own things, and then disown them. It is a free process, so where comes the real link that goes beyond our choice to own things?
Celibacy and Vegetarianism
The process of celibacy for me seems to be the same as the one I went through for vegetarianism.
We tend to find the killing of animals disgusting. What we do then is hide ourselves from the reality and just enjoy the superficial taste. I did a similar thing. Long after beginning to finding the reality of sex disgusting I continued to satisfy myself with porn which has much of the taste without the disgusting reality.
In some ways this is a dangerous path because we begin to live in a fantasy world and forget about the real persons involved. This is exactly the myth of meat, they many people live in a fantasy meat world and are very distances from the daily slaughter of animals.
It can be good however because it is much easier to kick the habit of looking at silly pictures, than to kick the habit of finding real girls! If we can be aroused from some colours on a page or computer screen how easy to see the absurdity of the whole thing! With real girls we are encouraged to believe that there is more to sexual satisfaction that just an absurd biological impulse.
Maybe today I have finally attained celibacy, after many years of struggling with this!
We tend to find the killing of animals disgusting. What we do then is hide ourselves from the reality and just enjoy the superficial taste. I did a similar thing. Long after beginning to finding the reality of sex disgusting I continued to satisfy myself with porn which has much of the taste without the disgusting reality.
In some ways this is a dangerous path because we begin to live in a fantasy world and forget about the real persons involved. This is exactly the myth of meat, they many people live in a fantasy meat world and are very distances from the daily slaughter of animals.
It can be good however because it is much easier to kick the habit of looking at silly pictures, than to kick the habit of finding real girls! If we can be aroused from some colours on a page or computer screen how easy to see the absurdity of the whole thing! With real girls we are encouraged to believe that there is more to sexual satisfaction that just an absurd biological impulse.
Maybe today I have finally attained celibacy, after many years of struggling with this!
God or Dog
This is not an angel / devil thing where we should be one side and not the other side - its a fact: one part of us is like a dog and the other side of us wants to be with God.
Learn about dogs; how they eat and defaecate, how they have sex and have children, how they seek social security and dominance. This is our genetic and natural side.
But they have short and temporary existences and they suffer.
Humans do many things exactly like dogs.
But we also have another side which does not belong to dogs. We can put others before ourself in a way which cannot be explained by genetics. We can develop distance and mastery of our genetic and natural sides, and through this process we can overcome the limitations of material existence escaping death and suffering - just as Jesus and Buddha for example have done.
The path of God is quite different from the path of dog. Dogs seek satisfaction for desires, Gods seek freedom and liberation. Dogs put themselves first, Gods seek liberation from themselves initially by putting others first. Dogs are onesided and bias, Gods are multisides and universal. Dogs are agressive and protective while Gods are joyful, compassionate and endlessly giving.
There are big differences and we need to chose all the time whether we want to be more dog or moreGod in life.
Learn about dogs; how they eat and defaecate, how they have sex and have children, how they seek social security and dominance. This is our genetic and natural side.
But they have short and temporary existences and they suffer.
Humans do many things exactly like dogs.
But we also have another side which does not belong to dogs. We can put others before ourself in a way which cannot be explained by genetics. We can develop distance and mastery of our genetic and natural sides, and through this process we can overcome the limitations of material existence escaping death and suffering - just as Jesus and Buddha for example have done.
The path of God is quite different from the path of dog. Dogs seek satisfaction for desires, Gods seek freedom and liberation. Dogs put themselves first, Gods seek liberation from themselves initially by putting others first. Dogs are onesided and bias, Gods are multisides and universal. Dogs are agressive and protective while Gods are joyful, compassionate and endlessly giving.
There are big differences and we need to chose all the time whether we want to be more dog or moreGod in life.
Religion and the World
I have an email from a friend regarding a famous Buddhist Master who is visiting the UK to speak about the importants of harmony and peace in society. This seems to be a common subject for spiritual leaders, but I have questioned to myself whether this is a good outlet for spiritual wisdom.
Looking at society as it stands the majority of people work to help one another. There are teachers who are skilled at bring reading and writing to pupils, there are nurses and doctors who are skilled at bringing health to patients, there are politicians and diplomats who are skilled in the complex world of negotiations to bring the best outcome for those they represent, there are engineers who make devices for handicapped people to help them live more open lives, their are councillors and psychologists to aid people in their relationships and problems... in short every need that people have is met by ordinary people.
Many spiritual masters seem to duplicate these services. They build hospitals, and schools, they get involved in politics like the Dalai Lama and they offer councelling services and advice on life. Why the need to duplicate what is already there? Have spiritual masters not their own niche?
Jesus was most known in his own time for his miraculous ability to heal. But is a physical doctor all he was? Why is he more famous than any doctor? Buddha said that he was a doctor who offered the medicine to cure suffering, but he was not talking about worldly afflictions. Many spiritual groups believe that healing worldly afflictions is the point. Few seem to accept that worldly afflictions are not the real problem, and curing them is like offering a cold remedy; it simply treats the symptoms. If we want to heal worldly afflictions then become doctors or psychologists don't turn to religion!
Spiritual leaders should lead us to God and teach us to pay little attention to our physical circumstances. After all our physical suffering is at worst only for 70 or 90 years, why waste so much of that time on itself? The solution to worldly things is not itself worldly, and strictly it is not other-worldly (many people believe after death we go to a new world called Heaven which is absurd), rather as recently explored here it is learning not to take sides with the world.
Looking at society as it stands the majority of people work to help one another. There are teachers who are skilled at bring reading and writing to pupils, there are nurses and doctors who are skilled at bringing health to patients, there are politicians and diplomats who are skilled in the complex world of negotiations to bring the best outcome for those they represent, there are engineers who make devices for handicapped people to help them live more open lives, their are councillors and psychologists to aid people in their relationships and problems... in short every need that people have is met by ordinary people.
Many spiritual masters seem to duplicate these services. They build hospitals, and schools, they get involved in politics like the Dalai Lama and they offer councelling services and advice on life. Why the need to duplicate what is already there? Have spiritual masters not their own niche?
Jesus was most known in his own time for his miraculous ability to heal. But is a physical doctor all he was? Why is he more famous than any doctor? Buddha said that he was a doctor who offered the medicine to cure suffering, but he was not talking about worldly afflictions. Many spiritual groups believe that healing worldly afflictions is the point. Few seem to accept that worldly afflictions are not the real problem, and curing them is like offering a cold remedy; it simply treats the symptoms. If we want to heal worldly afflictions then become doctors or psychologists don't turn to religion!
Spiritual leaders should lead us to God and teach us to pay little attention to our physical circumstances. After all our physical suffering is at worst only for 70 or 90 years, why waste so much of that time on itself? The solution to worldly things is not itself worldly, and strictly it is not other-worldly (many people believe after death we go to a new world called Heaven which is absurd), rather as recently explored here it is learning not to take sides with the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
The classic antimony is between : (1) action that is chosen freely and (2) action that comes about through physical causation. To date no ...
-
Following from the last blog on animal/human a beautiful male Oedemera nobilis resting in a flower after presumably a good meal of po...
-
Same current territory (and raft) but a bit more polished. Or perhaps not! That will be be explained. With Deepseek: https://chat.deepseek.c...
