Eyes are a window on the soul

Here is a story I was once told...

There was once a man who practised Hinduism very devoutly. Every day he would get onto his roof away from the busy streets below and meditate.

Next door to him was a woman who had 2 children. To support her children she was a prostitute.

The man sitting on his roof used to look down on her and complain to himself why he such a righteous person should have to live next to such a sinful person.

The prostitute on the other hand used to look up at the man and wish that she had the chance to be so good, but because of her children she was forced into her sinful life.

When it came to their deaths and judgements the righteous man was suprised to find himself in hell, and angered to discover that the woman had gone to heaven. She was sinful and me good, there must be some mistake.

It was explained that for his whole life he had held her bad ways in his heart, cursing and looking down on her; while she had only held his good ways in her heart.

This illustrates the greatest irony in life that the way we see the outer world is actually only what we let into our inner world and soul.

If we want to see the outer world as good we need only make that effort to see it as good, and if we do that we let a good light into our inner world.

If we chose to focus on the bad things and paint our picture of the world as bad, then we only let a bad light into our world and heart.

In Buddhism they say that the outer world is a reflection of our inner state, our inner imprints and karma. If we have a pure mind without distortions we will always be able to see the world in a positive way. If we have a dark heart with many hindrances we will be caught and dragged into seeing the world as bad.

Rather than see what is outside as a "projection" of what is inside, here it is revealed that it is upto us to makle the effort and chose which light we light our inner world with.

It can also be seen that the "inner" world is actually just "our experience of the outer world", and if we look for an "inner world" of substance "behind" the external world we find that there is no space for such a world. The world "behind us", the world which we imagine is the screen on which eyes project their image is actually just the "outer world as we experience it". In reality there is no "inner world" and there is no "outer world" as is usual to think, since both "inner and outer" refer to the same world.

Our daily life then is a process of working to improve our "view of the world", by looking for positives and turning off the negatives - this way we begin to fill our "inner world" with light rather than darkness.

If we think for a second there are clues that we hold the key to a positive world. When we are in a "bad mood" things look bad abd difficult, when we are in a "good mood" often the same things suddenly don't seem like such a problem. People with a positive view find no difficulty in things which a negative view can see as impossible and fearsome. A famous Chinese story illustrates.

Once there was a man with 2 daughters one sold umbrellas, one sold noodles. (Understand that noodles need to dry in the sun). A monk noticed the man was always unhappy and asked him why. He said that when it rains his noodle daughter has no trade, and when it is sunny his umbrella daughter has no trade. The monk simply pointed out that instead of seeing the negative, see the positive - rain or shine one of his daughters is bringing home money. This is the glass half empty, or half full.

Capitalism is a good example infact of negatives and positives being just a perspective. Whatever happens in the world it is an opportunity for someone, and sometimes a loss for someone else - it just depends who you are. My lab partner always points out when there is disaster that at least it is good trade for undertakers - tasteless joke, but some truth in it.

Risk and Getting it wrong

Its easy to be set back by failure. The best strategy is to shake off failure and not be put off. For some reason this is counter interintuitive though which is why we get confused.

In an article in Moneycontrol.com 20/11/06, Rakesh Jhunjhunwala argues exactly this that taking risks is against human nature.

We tend to minimise loses instead of maximise winnings. That is we try to avoid defeat, rather than try to gain the most. Thus we may miss many risky opportunities as we try to avoid defeat, which had we played them would have on balance of probabilities earned us more through the array of wins and failures than just backing the dead certainties.

George Soros is quoted as saying, being right or wrong is not the issue, it is rather how much you lose when you are wrong and how much you win when you are right that counts.


As a zoologist I am familiar with this type of thinking from analysing animal strategies. If there is one inter-disciplinary subject that should exist it is animal behaviour and economics!

In optimal foraging it ius assumed that the winning strategy (i.e. the one that selected for and therefore evolves) is the one which maximises energy and thereby offspring. What strategies exist to maximise energy in an unpredictable environment? That is the strategy.

When certain factors like "thinking time" or "handling time" (where the time it takes to determine the type of prey and therefore the way to attack it and eat it) are introduced into models, a remarkable accurate prediction of many behaviours arises based upon the hypothesis that animals maximise energy consumption, rather than minimise loss. So the dominant strategy in many environments is to go "all out", taking risks and suffering the losses because overall the wins are greater.

Why have humans not learned this? Maybe it is to do with aspects of social status and psychology. Being a "loser" has a special meaning in humans, far beyond the practical aspect of having little resources. We try to look like "winners" and so we don't take risks to avoid looking like losers. Reputation means a lot. Traders want to look like winners so they attract interest, even though that strategy may mean overall they win less than their competitors who have a lots of losses as well.

Are riches inside or outside?

I still battle with this every day. The temptation is still to view people with big cars, houses and families etc as being rich.

I was thinking this walking home last night. Someone drove past in their big car and I wondered wouldn't it be luxury to own a car and drive like that. At that moment I turned to corner into our road, which is at the top of a big hill with views for 40 miles. The thought of the car was obliterated by the view which I always enjoy, and I was reminded that walking has every bit of pleasure that driving has.

Last summer I wanted to take a cycle and I wanted to go bird watching. I decide to do both. It was strange because while I was cycling slowly along the country paths I saw no birds at all. I stopped to walk and instantly noticed birds in the trees. I stopped to sit by the canal and there saw even more birds. The scale of view is altered by each mode. In a car we see almost nothing, we are orientated toward arriving, but not the journey. If we want to arrive, then take motorised transport, but if we want to travel then walk.

The same goes for life. If we want to arrive then motorise, plan a streamline your life for purpose. If you want to live then walk.

Unfortunately people share their lives in the form of places they have been. The names count for a great deal, when in reality I suspect they are the same experience underneath. We may "do" a very great deal in life, but if we didn't travel then its a pointless journey I suspect.

Of course we could go to the other extreme and do nothing, watching TV or dreaming. I suspect this is just as vacuous as doing lots but not travelling.

Riches? Is the poor man who is content richer than the rich man who still wants more? As I child I learned that you only miss that which you have known. If you never knew about it you are free from it. That means we can treat the knowledge of new things with pleasure of displeasure, because new things give us new wishes and new loss of contentment.

If we could master our wishes, so that we wished what we wanted to wish then we would be able to free ourself from those wishes we cannot fulfill. That way contentment would be truely ours, rather than the fake contentment of temporarily having "achieved" what we wanted.

And "achieved", why is that so important. Many people will argue that the greatest pleasure is not the having, but the achieving of the something - the satisfaction that "we" proved potent, rather than impotent. Often people fight for things they don't want, because the object is the winning not the having.

This is ego. We are bound then to the eternal requirement to prove ourselves, to prove our existence through our ability to create change. Obviously change requires many people for starters, although some people like architects get to continue the delusion by having their names on buildings. If we look further however this is not our existence is it! Did we chose to define ourselves like this! or are we victim to an external measure imposed upon us. And, if there is a standard by which we measure ourselves - what is is measuring if not our already existence!

So we can discount "achievement" as important to riches, and we can discount the wishes that we achieve. So what then is richness? that I am still living on...

Buddhism and Christianity is Anarchism

Don't know whether that statement does more damage to Buddhism or Anarchism!

I'm an Anarchism, but not trivially in the sense that I believe in the destruction of all state apparatus and the sending of the world into chaos - ridiculous.

Rather it is the belief that at the end of the day the world is made of people. Whatever their beliefs and the systems of coersion and force that exist, we are all people. I am an arachist to the existent that people come first and state apparatus comes second. Put nothing before being a friend to your fellow man - whoever they are.

Ideally dismantalling the state apparatus seems right, but really it is not. If we do that, then there is a power vacuum, and because 2 people are usually stronger than one, the world will build itself up into groups again, each fighting for power. Best infact to have a hugely powerful overlord dictator who can fill the power vacuum, but who is otherwise incompetent and not authoritarian so that we can ignore him - ridiculous also.

So the best way is to leave boys to play out their fighting in politics and business, and instead focus on treating our fellow humans as humans - in whatever form of state apparatus they might be. This is the Anarchistic view I believe.

Copraterrorism

I used to dream of sending a letter to the IRA (who were afterall quite respectful terrorists aiming to do damage to the opposed system but not hurt real living people) on copraterrorism.

For some reason this rather amusing subject has never entered the terroist handbook. Rather than go for big high profile targets like financial buildings, and definitely rather than hurt people, why not take out the sewage systems and drains?

I can just see the manhole covers blowing off a shopping street as effluenet is strewn everywhere making the street impassable. The news readers trying to get words out between their wrteches cos of the stench. There is the cost to business - and thereby jobs for the cleaners and decorators. There is the deterrent to shoppers - although it is not dangerous, just unpleasant.

And best of all there are the signs on toilets for miles around, out of order while mains repairs are underway.

A complete nightmare, without any serious damage, and also quite funny! Lots of unforgettable news items and lots of jobs created and overall a quite satisfying political process. If people hell-bent on expressing themselves against the country adopted this form of "terrorism", or rather "yuckism", it would make for much more amusing and watchable politics and social expression, and that would avoid the biggest problem of terrorism, which is the galvanising of opposition to their cause. When the West goes in with bombs, or the Middle East comes here with bombs, it just reinforces the stance against them, which is the opposite of what was wanted - a voice for unrepresented people who people believe rightly/wrongly are suffering.

Rugby Demonstration Strategy

I noticed in demonstrations in UK in past few years that the police have gained the upper hand by encircling demonstrators and breaking groups down.

Officially the police are there to protect property and the safety of people and I have nothing but respect for the UK police, seeing that they handle these difficult events suprisingly well and are good natured and respectfull. I expected them to be utter fascists after the miners fiasco under Thatcher.

However I do think they are a bit onesided as they have a mandate to the establishment only, and if the demonstration is against the establishment we should gain a bit more freedom to express ourselves - especially when the subjects are as important as global capitalism and environment (which are so easily hidden by vain local government pretence). As the slogan goes - "if democracy ever changed anything it would be illegal" because quite correctly the establishment will never lose its position at any cost.

A strategy that would be excellent against the police is rugby mauling. If you watch rugby you can see that the game played by police and protesters is similar to that of opponents in rugby, which is gaining movement into the opposition area. This is primarily enabled by pushing in tightly bound packs which draw the opposition into the maul to return the same force. The image here is a set-piece scrum by the process is the same.

If the police were forced to maul, this would break up their lines and the game would be played in blob like packs which are of no use to the police strategy of containing the demonstrations.

Self-fulfilling prophecy

Amateur psychologists and neurotics must love this one. The thought about the possibility of something happening actually leads us to make it happen.

I was always uneasy about this bit in Marxism and Hegelianism. Hegel has written a book; famously completing it to the sounds of Napolean's advancing armies, bringing what he believed was the new age that he was writing about.

In which case what was the point of the book. A kind of epiphenomalism, a story and narrative which runs over the already happening events?

In which case why does Hegelianism and Marxism inspire people to complete the events written about? If the worker's revolution is really the natural progression for society then it will happen by itself, intrinsically from the existing components, without ideological campaigning by Marxists the "change" the course of history.

If on the other hand the workers revolution requires campaigning and individual effort then to what extent can it be seen as the "correct" or "natural" progression for dialectical materialism.

In other words, if the book is right then it is just epiphenomological and has no part to play in the described process, and if the book is just propaganda to arouse worker's consciousness then it is wrong about dialectical materialism.

What Das Kapital might say to be logically correct is, "now that you have read this book you join a community of other people who have read it and understand it's ideas, what you do now is upto you since pages can't fight."

However the existence of "self-fulfilling prophecies" in psychology does open the door to Marxism working. Some ideas seem to make themselves happen.

This is like Richard Dawkin's idea of memes, where ideas are built in such a way to propagate themselves well. He cites religion, and while firmly convinced of God etc, I am equally skeptical of religion: some Evangelical groups I have visited seem to do nothing but propagate the Word. And what is the Word? that we should propagate the Word.

Marxism is designed to grow because it offers the poor, riches. Any idea which poses that dream will propagate as long as there are poor.

Islam seems similar, and the radical arms of Islam seem especially bound into self fulfilling prophecy. We hate certain people. So we will bomb them in the most appauling way. They will then hate us and treat us like animals, which gives us the justification for hating them and so it spirals.

Of course the Christian West is equally embroilled in the process. We'll treat them like second class global citizens, and exploit them for political and material gain. When they get angry that is the justification for treating them like animals. Israel is the worst offender by far here.

The Americans have their own special brand of self-fulfilling prophect with End Timers, or people who follow Revelations rather than Christ. (Really they are no longer Christians.)

By believing that the salvation will accompany the end of the world they are looking for the end of the world. Of course with such an interest in the end of the world, they are actually bringing about the end of the world.