Until you have the inner discipline that brings calmness of mind, external facilities and conditions will never bring the joy and happiness you seek. On the other hand, if you possess this inner quality, calmness of mind, a degree of stability within, even if you lack the various external factors that you would normally require to be happy, it will still be possible to live a happy and joyful life.

– His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama

What if the socially marginalised, council estate-dwelling youth of London had been given an opportunity, in school, to learn this?

We have different degrees of happiness and different kinds of suffering. Material objects give rise to physical happiness, while spiritual development gives rise to mental happiness. Since we experience both physical and mental happiness, we need both material and spiritual development. This is why, for our own good and that of society we need to balance material progress with inner development.

– His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama

I agree with Christina on almost everything, the exceptions being her tone (I always wish these pieces were written more gently — especially when you’re talking about talking about nuance in religion, the reader needs to be calm in order to understand) and her objection to objections that the world “religion” includes things to which atheists’ criticisms don’t apply.

On that last point, Christina writes:

I suppose that, every time I critique religion, I could instead type the entire phrase, “belief in supernatural entities or forces with some effect on the natural world.” You know why I don’t? Because I’m a good writer. I’m trying to be concise. And instead of using a thirteen-word noun phrase, I’m using the word “religion,” the way that it’s used and understood by the overwhelming majority of people who use it.

Christina acknowledges that the word “religion” doesn’t exactly fit what she means, but says that’s OK because the “overwhelming majority” believe that it does. If that’s not a fallacy, I don’t know what is. Christina’s piece is clarifying some nuances and misunderstandings in religious debate, but she is — explicitly, at least — refusing to make space for this particular nuance or misunderstanding. She wouldn’t need a thirteen-word noun phrase: that’s just histrionics. She could easily type “theistic religion” or ‘belief in the supernatural” and be done with it.

Anyway, Christina says religion is:

a word whose definition is basically agreed on by almost everybody

She says that, for her and almost all atheists, religion means “belief in supernatural entities or forces with some effect on the natural world”. (Great. So say: “belief in the supernatural” and live up to your capacity for nuance.)

But if that’s the case, we’re in serious trouble. It’s not troublesome because this definition excludes religions like Zen Buddhism (although that’s certainly part of it). It’s troublesome because the debate about religion continues to miss the point of religion.

The purpose of having a religion is not to believe in a particular notion. The purpose of having a religion is to practise it. And the purpose of practising it is to [and it's here that words become particularly troublesome, but this will have to suffice:] cultivate a felt understanding of reality that transcends conventional abstractions.

At this stage, a lot of atheists will think “here comes the nonsense”. Transcend conventional abstractions? And enter the world of unintelligible goo? Well, let me honour my own call for calm, gentle, nuanced argument and make the case for this idea. As usual, any religious jargon will come from Eastern religions — but all contemplative traditions have terminology that could make the same points as I’ll make here.

Transcending conventional abstractions is liberation from the ideas that, ordinarily, we cannot help but take to be the world. (Buddhism is a way of liberation, as are all religions when they are practised.) Collectively, these ideas are called maya in Hinduism and Buddhism, which is ordinarily understood as “the illusion that veils the one underlying reality” (Watts, The Way of Zen, p. 38). A way of liberation is a progressive disentanglement from these beliefs, notions, and abstractions — not discarding them, but seeing them for what they are.

Disentanglement is necessary because entanglement is frustrating (often painful, occasionally agonising). Here I’m going to quote Alan Watts at length, because he says it better than I can (ibid, p. 39 onwards. Text bolded by me.):

Now classification is precisely maya. The word is derived from the Saksrit root matr-, “to measure, form, build, or lay out a plan,” the root from which we obtain such Greco-Latin words as “meter, matrix, material and matter”. The fundamental process of measurement is division, whether by drawing a line with the finger, by marking off or by enclosing circles with the span of the hand or dividers, or by sorting grain or liquids into measures (cups). Thus the Saksrit root dva- from which we get the word “divide” is also the root of the Latin duo (two) and the English “dual.”

To say, then, that the world of facts and events is maya is to say that facts and events are terms of measurement rather than realities of nature. We must, however, expand the concept of measurement to include setting bounds of all kinds, whether by descriptive classification or selective screening. It will thus be easy to see that facts and events are as abstract as lines of latitude or as feet and inches. Consider for a moment that it is impossible to isolate a single fact, all by itself. Facts come in pairs at the very least, for a single body is inconceivable apart from a space in which it hangs. Definition, setting bounds, delineation — these are always acts of division and thus of duality, for as soon as a boundary is defined it has two sides.

…

The doctrine of maya is therefore a doctrine of relativity. It is saying that things, facts and events are delineated, not by nature, but by human description, and that the way in which we describe (or divide) them is relative to our varying points of view.

…

Certainly the world of nature abounds with surfaces and lines, with areas of density and vacuity, which we employ in marking out the boundaries of events and things. But here again, the maya doctrine asserts that these forms (rupa) have no “own-being” or “self-nature” (svabhava): they do not exist in their own right, but only in relation to one another, as a solid cannot be distinguished save in relation to a space. In this sense, the solid and the space, the sound and the silence, the existent and the nonexistent, the figure and the ground are inseparable, interdependent, or “mutually arising”, and it is only by maya or conventional division that they may be considered apart from one another.

…

To serve their purpose, names and terms must of necessity be fixed and definite like all other units of measurement. But their use is — up to a point — so satisfactory that man is always in danger of confusing his measures with the world so measured, of identifying money with wealth, fixed convention with fluid reality. But to the degree that he identifies himself and his life with these rigid and hollow frames of definition, he condemns himself to the perpetual frustration of one trying to catch water in a sieve.

…

Maya is, then, usually equated with nama-rupa or “name and form”, with the mind’s attempt to grasp the fluid forms of nature in its mesh of fixed classes. But when it is understood that form is ultimately void — in the special sense of ungraspable and immeasurable — the world of form is immediately seen as Brahman instead of maya. The formal world becomes the real world in the moment when it is no longer clutched, in the moment when its changeful fluidity is no longer resisted. Hence it is the very transitoriness of the world which is the sign of its divinity, of its actual identity with the indivisible and immeasurable infinity of Brahman.

…

In sum, then, the maya doctrine points out, firstly, the impossibility of grasping the actual world in the mind’s net of words and concepts, and, secondly, the fluid character of those very forms which thought attempts to define. The world of facts and events is altogether nama, abstract names, and rupa, fluid form. It escapes both the comprehension of the philosopher and the grasp of the pleasure-seeker like water from a clutching fist. There is even something deceptive in the idea of Brahman as the eternal reality underlying the flux… for in so far as these are concepts they are as incapable of grasping the real as any other.

It is precisely this realisation of the total elusiveness of the world which lies at the root of Buddhism.

Phew!

So Mahayana Buddhism developed many skilful means of disentangling oneself from the mesh of conventional abstractions, entanglement in which is futility and frustration. Christianity, at least insofar as it is practised and not merely believed in (and the extent to which belief is itself practice is a topic for another post), is also a way of liberation. Ditto the contemplative arms of Islam, Judaism, [insert religion here]. That is the proper purpose of religion, and that’s why I think religion is important.

(Interestingly, it also means that “religion”, like all concepts, fails to capture its referent, the phenomenon it’s trying to designate. But that’s OK with me.)

Sadly, for the time being, the issue of disentanglement from name-and-form hasn’t been raised in the God Wars — perhaps because it requires more careful explication than the internet age can provide, and because it can’t easily be expressed in sound-bites that don’t sound like worthless nonsense (e.g. “transcend conceptual abstractions”).

Nevertheless, it represents a middle ground to which both atheists and believers could readily move. Atheists are keen that believers should stop cleaving so passionately to their unprovable theses (because a lot of bad shit happens as a result) so they could very well add the “nama-rupa” doctrine to their already formidable arsenal of arguments against religious belief. And believers (one would hope) are keen to attain religious insight, which lies precisely beyond concepts and not within their mesh. Therefore, if they can let go of the self-identity that’s become invested simply in opposing the other camp, people from both camps might recognise the value of this idea, to their mutual benefit, and to the partial cessation of the fruitless screeching of the God Wars.

I think a mass pledge could go a long way towards defusing interracial tension, assuaging polarisation and preventing conflict in South Africa. Although the pledge itself is necessarily apolitical, it might also form a common thread of steadfast opposition to any political movements which express polarising sentiments or exhortations to violence and foment those feelings in the populace. It is a pledge made at the level of the individual, not the body politic. It recognises and relies upon the power of the individual’s conscience and best aspirations.

—

I recognise the feelings of tension and anger felt between people of different races in South Africa today.

I recognise that nurturing these feelings undermines our mutual best interests and our highest ambitions for ourselves, our communities and our nation.

I recognise my interdependence with all South Africans. I affirm that South Africans of all races and cultures can work together to improve the conditions of our lives and our environment.

Recognising our common humanity, I pledge to relate to all South Africans with compassion and respect and to work with them in an atmosphere of openness and mutual recognition.

I aspire to create a South Africa that is safe and caring for all. Therefore, I personally vow to refrain from violence and from violent speech towards anyone, regardless of their race or culture.

—

If you agree with this pledge and also feel that it’s beneficial, please sign the petition. Also, feel free to copy it and post it on your blog, facebook page, or anywhere else you like, or to use your own words to express much the same thing. The more momentum it gains, the more powerful and beneficial it will be.

I’m running two 16 Guidelines courses in Cape Town in May 2010. The first one is at Phakalane in Hout Bay on the 1st and 2nd of May. The second is at the Sufi Temple in Newlands on the 29th and 30th of May.

The aim of Essential Education is to empower children, youth and adults to make a positive difference in the world through developing their innate capacity to be kind and wise, and to live in a way that will bring peace and wellbeing to themselves and the people around them.

This is the ‘essential’ education traditionally passed down from elder to child, teacher to pupil, and in places of worship. In a country beset by economic downturn, racial polarisation, material poverty and violent crime, it is needed more than ever – especially in a fresh, contemporary and universal form that will inspire and draw people together rather than divide them.

The 16 Guidelines is the first initiative of Essential Education. They are a set of practical, straightforward tools for developing happiness and meaning in everyday life. Inspired by a 7th-Century Tibetan text, the Guidelines offer a presentation of universal wisdom which is suitable for people of all ages, cultures and traditions.

To give you an idea of their effectiveness and popularity: since 2006 the 16 Guidelines Introductory Course has been held in 14 countries worldwide, most recently a sell-out tour of four Australian cities. They are currently being used in homes, schools, hospices, drug-rehabilitation centres, prisons and workplaces across five continents.

This is an extraordinary project with a vision spanning many generations, so I’d like to advertise these initial courses in any way possible.

If you’re interested, please drop me a line at patrick.16g@gmail.com or by calling me on 072 361 5801. You can also read or download the flyer for these two courses.

The overbearing attitude of the rich and the noble, the unnecessary sufferings of the poor, the over-production of criminals, and suchlike social phenomena, arise from the imperfection of our present social organisation, which is based upon the doctrine of absolute private ownership. People are allowed to amass wealth unlimitedly for their own use and to bequeath it to successors who do not deserve it in any way. And they do not pay regard to the injuries this system may incur upon the general welfare of the community to which they belong, and upon other members individually. The rich might have slaughtered economically, and thus politically and morally, millions of their brethren before they could reach places of social eminence they now occupy and enjoy to its fullest extent. They might have sacrificed hundreds of thousands of victims on the altar of Mammon in order to carry out their vast scheme of self-aggrandisement. And, what is worse, the wealth thus accumulated by an individual is allowed by the law to be handed down to his descendants, who are in a sense the parasitic members of the community. They are privileged to live upon the sweat and blood of others, who know not where to lay their heads, and who are daily succumbing to the heavy burden, not of their free choice, but forced upon them by society.

Let us here closely see into the facts. There is one portion of society that does almost nothing towards the promotion of the general welfare, and there is another portion that, besides carrying the burden not its own, is heroically struggling for bare existence…

— D. T. Suzuki, “Outlines of Mahayana Buddhism”, 1907

Here’s a video of the event. I’ll write some background and context below, and then some observations about the video.

Context and background information:

Reports are quite common in Tibetan Buddhist literature of ‘auspicious rainbows’ and other remarkable events coinciding with the deaths or funeral ceremonies of Tibetan masters. These include numerous spherical ‘pearls’ which are sometimes discovered in their cremated remains. (In the same Namdroling temple, in the same period, the wax of butter lamps was found to have coagulated spontaneously into ‘petal shapes’: video here.) These phenomena are usually interpreted as signs that the deceased individual had a high degree of spiritual realisation. But they’re almost always reported second-hand. This is the first time, to my knowledge, that such an event has been captured on video.

Penor Rinpoche is reported to have died on March 27, and the video reports that the rainbow appeared on May 23, which it says is the 49th day of the prayer ceremony following Rinpoche’s death (or parinirvana). 49 days is the traditional length of the ‘bardo’ — the intermediate state between death and rebirth (it’s possible, of course, that Your Mileage May Vary). But there are 57 days, not 49, from March 27 to May 23. So there is an apparent discrepancy in dates. Either there is a mistake in the video’s reporting, or the ceremony was delayed by 8 days for some reason, or the rainbow didn’t appear on the ‘magical’ 49th day — not that it particularly matters, necessarily. But I have inquired with another blogger to try to discover.

What do we have here?

Well, it’s a video, which seems to show a fully circular rainbow, and a fair amount of people, including monks, trying to photograph said rainbow.

What’s interesting about it? Here are a few observations:

• Most rainbows start and stop at the horizon. Fully circular rainbows are sometimes seen from the air, but never from the ground. Yet this rainbow is totally circular, seen from the ground, and does not start or stop at the horizon.
• It also appears ‘in front’ of every other object in the video, whether these are people very close to the camera, trees far away from the camera, or the wall of the temple. Ordinary rainbows appearing as arcs in the sky may be obstructed by objects like tall buildings, mountains, and so on, but this one does not seem to be obstructed.
• Despite the rainbow’s ‘right here’ appearance, the monks in the video are pointing their cameras away from the viewer. Assuming they are trying to photograph the rainbow, this seems to suggest that, to them, the rainbow appears also to be ‘right here’, but in a different place from where it appears to the viewer. Yet the rainbow is also not a totally subjective hallucination — it was captured on video, and you and I can see it as a result. It seems to be just as real as Nelson Mandela or the Eiffel Tower.

In the immortal (?) words of the Cheshire cat: curiouser and curiouser.

Hypotheses and comments welcome, as always.

Obligatory self-referential humour aside, I wish I had a resellable Michael Jackson album for every time the lamentably litigious and uppity attitude pervading the UK’s public services had made me laugh or sigh or think of something loud and bloody, involving facebrick walls and rifle regiments, that could be done to the grossly-unable-to-think-for-themselves, and the aftermath photographed and framed for posterity and the moral guidance of future generations.

This article (bbc.co.uk) was the latest to evoke these thoughts, along with the growing suspicion that the good people of the world are sinking into a Great Moronic Abyss of Infantile Thought, whence they might never emerge if it means foregoing the insipid paraphernalia of a nanny state. Obviously, it is my duty to arrest this sinking.

NHS trusts have taken a hard line in recent years on doctors and nurses who take the horrendous step of Mentioning Religion. After Nurse Caroline Petrie offered to pray for a patient, she was summarily suspended. (Cue rifle regiment.) Later, she was reinstated. (Rifle regiment, stand down.) Doctors have now asked the British Medical Association whether they may offer to pray for their patients or discuss spiritual issues with them.

Kicker line: “[The Department of Health's Guidance Warning] said that discussing religion could be interpreted as an attempt to convert which could be construed as a form of harassment.”

Hell, yes. The bloody Christians are rampant, I’m telling you. Just the other day I was strolling around the Elephant and Castle when I was attacked without provocation by a septuagenarian nun brandishing hard-cardboard leaflets proclaiming some charity sale. Those things have sharp edges — she could have cut me. I had to fight for my life. I succeeded in wrestling her skeletal frame to the ground, but it occurred to me that it would be only seconds before she caused me untold mental anguish by asking if I’d accepted Jesus. Thank goodness I’d remembered my Pepper Spray. I escaped and ran straight home, where I broke down and wept in the foetal position until sleep overcame me. The moral of the story is you’ve got to be damned careful out there. You never know when someone might harass you by discussing religion or inquiring about your spiritual beliefs. Damned nuns. Get them out of our healthcare systems.

Here ends the sermon.

No, wait, it’s not quite over.

“Christianity is being seen as something that is unhelpful.”

(Naturally, here, religion = Christianity (= rubbish = unhelpful = harassment = lawsuits = policies = rifle regiments).)

Anyway, take it as a given that your hypothetical future author, age 88, post cardiac-arrest with about 7 weeks to live, would deeply appreciate a sincere discussion about life, death, the universe and everything (read: spiritual issues) as he draws ever closer to the profoundly signifant event of his death. If a nonreligious NHS regards death only as something to be postponed and is unable to provide this, he would quite like a chat with a religiously inclined doctor, or whoever is available.

Hopefully it won’t come to that, but if it does and some compassionate soul is inclined to offer to pray for me, I’d really rather they didn’t hesitate for fear of losing their job. And if, at that time, I am a rabid atheist and think Christians are the deluded scum of the earth, hopefully I’ll still have enough sense to reply to their harmless offer, compassionately, in the negative.

Many thanks.

Now, if one was to be

• premature,
• belligerent, and
• a boytjie

one might tentatively suggest a rugby analogy, along the lines of which, unless it gets disallowed on a technicality after a slow-motion replay, the paper does rather resemble a try under the posts of the materialists.

Is it, in fact, a seven-pointer? Is it only a three-pointer? Was there a forward pass? Or is it an epic win?