Attempting to provide evidence for reincarnation scientifically may seem like a fools' game, but if there is potential evidence for the phenomenon, it would certainly be foolish to ignore it. That is, it would be foolish to dismiss the evidence without first looking at it. It would be begging the question to accept whatever is offered uncritically. In any event, there is a little-known collection of case studies by Ian Stevenson, a medical doctor, collected in many books, which purports to bolster the case for reincarnation. The book I'm reading right now is called "Where reincarnation and biology intersect," so-called because of the occurence of birthmarks on supposedly reincarnated individuals which correspond to wounds sustained at death. The documentation is extremely careful, and there is no indication of deliberate falsification. Certainly Stevenson is sincere. He also frequently provides counterevidence in particular instances when not all evidence points to the same conclusion. On the other hand, there are passages where his thinking seems sloppy. There are a number of case studies that are extremely convincing, and I'd like to share one with you.
Necip Unlutaskiran was born in Adana, Turkey, in 1951. Necip's mother had a dream before he was born in which a man she did not recognize showed himself to her with bleeding wounds. She did not know how to interpret this dream, but it made some sense when she saw, after Necip's birth, that he had seven birthmarks. Some of these were more prominent than others, and a few had faded by the time I first examined Necip, when he was about 13 years old.
Necip was late in speaking and late also, compared to other subjects of these cases, about speaking of a previous life. From age 6 on he began to say that he had children and asked his mother to take him to them. He said that he had lived in Mersin (a city about 80 kilometers from Adana). He said that his name was Necip and that he had been stabbed; as he described the stabbing, he pointed to various parts of his body to indicate where he had been stabbed.
His parents at first paid little attention to these statements, which they found more annoying than interesting. Their stance changed when Necip was about 12 years old. His mother took him to meet her father, who was then living, with his second wife, in a village near Mersin. Necip had never met his grandfather's second wife before, but he suddenly said that he recognized her as from the previous life that he claimed to have lived in Mersin. She had known a man in Mersin named Necip Budak and was able to confirm the accuracy of Necip's statements. This meeting increased Necip's wish to go to Mersin, and his grandfather took him there. There he recognized several members of the family of Necip Budak. They further confirmed the accuracy of Necip's statements for the life of Necip Budak.
It seems that Necip Budak had been a quarrelsome sort of person, especially when drunk. One day he began teasing and then taunting an acquaintance, who, perhaps drunk himself, stabbed Necip Budak repeatedly with a knife. Necip Budak collapsed on the street and was taken to a hospital, where his wounds were noted and where he died the next day.
Among the statements that Necip made, the most impressive was his claim that he had once stabbed "his" (Necip Budak's) wife in the leg and that she thereafter had a scar on her leg. Necip Budak's widow admitted the truth of the statement, and, taking some ladies into the back room, she showed them the scar on her thigh.
Necip expressed great affection toward the children of Necip Budak and fond attachment toward his wife. Indeed, he manifested keen jealousy regarding her second husband and wanted to tear up a photograph of this man.
In the number of wounds matching birthmarks-six in all-Necip's case exceeds all other cases (having medical documents) that I have investigated. In the monograph [a different book] I give a tabular summary of these and show their correspondence to the wounds on Necip Budak recorded in the hospital where he died.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Thursday, August 07, 2008
Attachment to Dharmas
The state of enlightenment is free of attachment. Yet foolish people remain attached. 'Foolish people' are empty of self-nature, and thus are not foolish people. `Enlightenment' is empty of self nature, and is thus not enlightenment.
I'm riffing here on the theme of the Diamond Sutra, the genesis of this blog, which I have been reading over the past several days. All things are empty of self nature, which is a startling way of saying something obvious. Namely, when you look closely at things, they lose their characteristics. When you look closely at a chair, you don't see little chairs, or elements of chair-nature. Looking closely at the chair, the chair completely disappears. It is the same with all concepts, including, very importantly, the self. When you look closely at the self, it disappears! This is true of everything, including enlightenment. However, this does not mean you can't sit in a chair or attain enlightenment. Indeed, the empty nature of things allows them to exist and be interacted with. If a chair had a core reality of chairness, then it could not be sit in, because it could not change. Nothing could penetrate the solid core, for if they could, it would not be solid. In the same way, if all of the seeming obstructions to Buddhahood (enlightenment) were inherently real, they could not be overcome. Since they are illusory, they can be overcome. If one pursues Buddhahood, attached to a goal, Buddhahood remains obscured. Thus one can say it doesn't really exist. Yet if one approaches it without a goal, without the thought that "I liberate beings," then it will be achieved.
The idea of being attached to dharmas came up for me last night while attending an A.A. meeting. The way the meeting works is that we go in order around the room and everyone shares. I realized that after I had shared, in my mind, I took ownership of what I shared, of the dharmas I had released into the room. As people after me started sharing their own stories and ideas, I noticed myself scrutinizing their words for approval or criticism of "my" dharmas. Yet I needn't be attached. In doing so, I am certainly attached to a self, which doesn't exist. So it is a pointless cause of suffering. In the room, we each share, but it is not for our own ego, but for the benefit of all in the room. In the A.A. rooms, there is no cross-talk, no arguments between people when sharing. One person may share, and later on someone may disgaree, but it is not a back-and-forth argument. Even if there is a misunderstanding, there is no pressure to resolve it. Everyone releases their dharmas to the room, weaving a tapestry of which no-one can claim ownership.
I'm riffing here on the theme of the Diamond Sutra, the genesis of this blog, which I have been reading over the past several days. All things are empty of self nature, which is a startling way of saying something obvious. Namely, when you look closely at things, they lose their characteristics. When you look closely at a chair, you don't see little chairs, or elements of chair-nature. Looking closely at the chair, the chair completely disappears. It is the same with all concepts, including, very importantly, the self. When you look closely at the self, it disappears! This is true of everything, including enlightenment. However, this does not mean you can't sit in a chair or attain enlightenment. Indeed, the empty nature of things allows them to exist and be interacted with. If a chair had a core reality of chairness, then it could not be sit in, because it could not change. Nothing could penetrate the solid core, for if they could, it would not be solid. In the same way, if all of the seeming obstructions to Buddhahood (enlightenment) were inherently real, they could not be overcome. Since they are illusory, they can be overcome. If one pursues Buddhahood, attached to a goal, Buddhahood remains obscured. Thus one can say it doesn't really exist. Yet if one approaches it without a goal, without the thought that "I liberate beings," then it will be achieved.
The idea of being attached to dharmas came up for me last night while attending an A.A. meeting. The way the meeting works is that we go in order around the room and everyone shares. I realized that after I had shared, in my mind, I took ownership of what I shared, of the dharmas I had released into the room. As people after me started sharing their own stories and ideas, I noticed myself scrutinizing their words for approval or criticism of "my" dharmas. Yet I needn't be attached. In doing so, I am certainly attached to a self, which doesn't exist. So it is a pointless cause of suffering. In the room, we each share, but it is not for our own ego, but for the benefit of all in the room. In the A.A. rooms, there is no cross-talk, no arguments between people when sharing. One person may share, and later on someone may disgaree, but it is not a back-and-forth argument. Even if there is a misunderstanding, there is no pressure to resolve it. Everyone releases their dharmas to the room, weaving a tapestry of which no-one can claim ownership.
Saturday, August 02, 2008
Happy August
I went to another meeting last night. I did run into the issue of self-censorship, although I did share as best I could. Talking with someone after the meeting, he pointed out that the eleventh step explicitly mentions meditation, and he encouraged me to share honestly. His point was maybe someone needs to hear my experience. This guy is really wonderful. He gave me a book by Sogyal Rinpoche several months ago, and he meditates during the meetings. I'll have to think more on it. If it feels right, at some point I may share more directly my thoughts and feelings, rooted as they are in Buddhism. I do want to make sure the motive is right. My motive could easily devolve into defense of intellectual territory. Indeed last night, as I was listening to a woman share about how her urge to drink was lifted almost instantaneously after praying to God, and how she ascribes this to her higher power working in her life, I was definitely moved. But, I noticed the wheels of my mind spinning, trying to reinterpret the event within a comfortable framework. (I.e. `Maybe that wasn't God working. Maybe it was a ripening of past good karma, etc etc.') However, my motive in this case was indeed defensive. Not content to let it be, I desired to interpret the world in my image. This is not Buddhist at all. It is a sign of attachment to concepts. So I decided I had no need to reinterpret. This woman had her experience, it helped her, she's sober, and that's that.
Another thing that struck me about last night's meeting is the amount of wisdom present there. As we went around the table, a lot of people said some very deep things. Simple but deep.
Another thing that struck me about last night's meeting is the amount of wisdom present there. As we went around the table, a lot of people said some very deep things. Simple but deep.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Quote from Khenpo Tsultrim Gyatso Rinpoche
Some people, who think of themselves as scientifically minded, believe that the mind is the brain or a function of the brain and that for this reason there is no essential mind/matter dichotomy. According to their view, everything can be explained in terms of the material world. They choose to overlook the qualities of the mind that have no relation to matter, such as subjective experience, thoughts and emotions. Although they would not take seriously the story of Pinocchio, where a simple piece of matter, a stick, inexplicably develops a mind experiencing hopes and fears, pleasures and pain, and so on, they would not find it strange if sub-atomic particles, atoms or molecules started to produce thoughts and feelings. However, not only is there no scientific evidence whatever that such a phenomenon is possible, but it represents a semantic confusion of categories. Linguistically there is a category `mind' and what is not mind i.e. matter. Matter, or the material world is what exists `out there' beyond the senses. If it does not exist independent of the senses, how can it be categorized as material? How can a material world that exists outside the senses also be the senses that sense and experience it? Such a theory does not answer anything. It does not even begin to address itself to the question of what conscious experience is, let alone to the question of what might or might not exist external to it. -from "Progressive Stages of Meditation on Emptiness"
Sunday, July 27, 2008
A.A. and Buddhism: more thoughts
I went to an A.A. meeting tonight after a somewhat long hiatus. At some point, I decided to spend all my effort on Buddhist practices, and so stopped attending A.A. meetings. The Dharma Path program has been a real blessing, as I have made a formal commitment to practice a certain amount each day, and that has been very beneficial. Still, I know the capacity of the mind to delude, and in particular, I have seen and experienced the situation where someone stops coming to meetings and slowly the mind's awareness deteriorates until one day, there is no defense against the first drink. My situation is slightly different in that I was continually meditating and practicing, so that my mind was not spiraling into a web of self-delusion leading to disaster. Still, with this in mind, I did not want to completely sever my connection to the program. I'm glad I came tonight. I met several old friends, and I realized that not only is the program is useful for me, but also I can benefit others. This is, after all, the Bodhisattva ideal.
At the meeting, I started thinking about the relation between Buddhism and A.A. again. The goal of each is similar, although one is more limited. In fact, A.A.'s effectiveness is due in very large part to its extreme focus: alcoholism. There is a lot of discussion in A.A. circles about whether drugs other than alcohol are an appropriate topic, and the general consensus is that they are not. This is not out of lack of compassion for drug addicts, but because a meeting devoted to competing topics is of less benefit to alcoholics and drug addicts alike. A.A. is extremely open and welcoming, but definitely has a Christian, or at least, theistic focus. This is due in large part to the fact that the founders were seeing spirituality through the lense of their preexisting beliefs. Now one of the fundamental tenets of Buddhism is the lack of a supreme deity that created the Universe or who represents the ultimate nature of reality. However this is not traditional atheism, which usually carries a host of concomitant assumptions, including lack of belief in anything beyond scientific materialism. In the same way that a creator God is not supported by logical analysis, the self-existing independent solidity of the outside world does not hold up under logical analysis and introspection. Furthermore, Buddhism provides an answer to all of us under the power of afflictive emotions and ignorance. It is a path whereby we can unlock the potential of our mindstream, releasing us from the suffering we often don't realize we are experiencing. (This may sound like a contradiction, how can we be suffering without realizing it? It is nonetheless true. I can see instances in my own life, looking back, where I was definitely suffering, even though I was under the power of delusion, and did not see it.) So the goals of A.A. and Buddhism converge, they both represent a path out of suffering. There is also a lot of overlap in philosophy. A gentleman sharing at tonight's meeting echoed a common theme. When he was drinking, trouble followed him around, but he never noticed that he was its cause. Listening to this, I thought this was a perfect example of the working of karma. When bad things happen in our lives, through ignorance we often ascribe them to bad luck or malevolent forces. Some people even get the idea that God has turned against them and is punishing them. In the end though, this is the ripening of our own past actions. Of course, A.A. just looks at this from the viewpoint of a single lifetime, but the basic principle is there. Speaking of karma, some reading this might get the feeling that ascribing all negative events to past actions on the part of the experiencer is "blaming the victim." Well, first of all, there is no blame here. It is just description. Not helping someone or looking contemptuously on someone because their current misfortune is a ripening of their own past deeds is a huge abuse of the teachings and goes against the love and compassion which are core teachings of the Buddha. It also conveniently omits the fact that we are all guilty of countless past negative deeds (and positive ones). On the other hand, a hidden and beautiful facet of this teaching on karma is the fact that it implies our destiny is under our control. All of the things that happen to us are of our own making, so we have the power to eventually stop accumulating karma and achieve enlightenment. So anyway, A.A. and Buddhist teachings have points of convergence, but they also have points of divergence. As an attendee of meetings, I am happy to accept the points of divergence. After all, the Buddha gave 84,000 teachings, each one tailored to the dispositions and abilities of different sentient beings. The Buddha would give teachings that were appropriate to the listener, necessarily saying things that weren't ultimate truth, but which led the listener in that direction. The thing I've struggled with however, is how to reconcile my Buddhist beliefs with A.A. as a contributor. I have often found myself modifying what I'm saying to seem more in tune with Christian philosophy because I don't want to be divisive. But the more firmly rooted I become in my Buddhist practice, the more unnatural that seems. I guess I'll continue playing it by ear and see what happens.
At the meeting, I started thinking about the relation between Buddhism and A.A. again. The goal of each is similar, although one is more limited. In fact, A.A.'s effectiveness is due in very large part to its extreme focus: alcoholism. There is a lot of discussion in A.A. circles about whether drugs other than alcohol are an appropriate topic, and the general consensus is that they are not. This is not out of lack of compassion for drug addicts, but because a meeting devoted to competing topics is of less benefit to alcoholics and drug addicts alike. A.A. is extremely open and welcoming, but definitely has a Christian, or at least, theistic focus. This is due in large part to the fact that the founders were seeing spirituality through the lense of their preexisting beliefs. Now one of the fundamental tenets of Buddhism is the lack of a supreme deity that created the Universe or who represents the ultimate nature of reality. However this is not traditional atheism, which usually carries a host of concomitant assumptions, including lack of belief in anything beyond scientific materialism. In the same way that a creator God is not supported by logical analysis, the self-existing independent solidity of the outside world does not hold up under logical analysis and introspection. Furthermore, Buddhism provides an answer to all of us under the power of afflictive emotions and ignorance. It is a path whereby we can unlock the potential of our mindstream, releasing us from the suffering we often don't realize we are experiencing. (This may sound like a contradiction, how can we be suffering without realizing it? It is nonetheless true. I can see instances in my own life, looking back, where I was definitely suffering, even though I was under the power of delusion, and did not see it.) So the goals of A.A. and Buddhism converge, they both represent a path out of suffering. There is also a lot of overlap in philosophy. A gentleman sharing at tonight's meeting echoed a common theme. When he was drinking, trouble followed him around, but he never noticed that he was its cause. Listening to this, I thought this was a perfect example of the working of karma. When bad things happen in our lives, through ignorance we often ascribe them to bad luck or malevolent forces. Some people even get the idea that God has turned against them and is punishing them. In the end though, this is the ripening of our own past actions. Of course, A.A. just looks at this from the viewpoint of a single lifetime, but the basic principle is there. Speaking of karma, some reading this might get the feeling that ascribing all negative events to past actions on the part of the experiencer is "blaming the victim." Well, first of all, there is no blame here. It is just description. Not helping someone or looking contemptuously on someone because their current misfortune is a ripening of their own past deeds is a huge abuse of the teachings and goes against the love and compassion which are core teachings of the Buddha. It also conveniently omits the fact that we are all guilty of countless past negative deeds (and positive ones). On the other hand, a hidden and beautiful facet of this teaching on karma is the fact that it implies our destiny is under our control. All of the things that happen to us are of our own making, so we have the power to eventually stop accumulating karma and achieve enlightenment. So anyway, A.A. and Buddhist teachings have points of convergence, but they also have points of divergence. As an attendee of meetings, I am happy to accept the points of divergence. After all, the Buddha gave 84,000 teachings, each one tailored to the dispositions and abilities of different sentient beings. The Buddha would give teachings that were appropriate to the listener, necessarily saying things that weren't ultimate truth, but which led the listener in that direction. The thing I've struggled with however, is how to reconcile my Buddhist beliefs with A.A. as a contributor. I have often found myself modifying what I'm saying to seem more in tune with Christian philosophy because I don't want to be divisive. But the more firmly rooted I become in my Buddhist practice, the more unnatural that seems. I guess I'll continue playing it by ear and see what happens.
Thursday, July 03, 2008
The unexpected benefits of meditating
I recently was meditating outside when I saw a skink out of the corner of my eye, waddling along the porch. This is already a significant event, since skinks are very shy and will dash out of sight almost as soon as you see them usually. The fact that I was nearly motionless put the skink at ease I suppose. In any event, the skink proceeded to waddle up on to my meditation cushion and touch my knee! I almost expected it to start crawling on me, although it didn't. It then explored the porch some more, came back to touch my other knee for a few seconds and then left. Very cool. Last summer I meditated in by backyard quite a bit, where we have a couple of bird feeders. I recall one instance when I was very close to one of the feeders and so the birds were to scared to come and feed. However, when I closed my eyes for a while, I heard them on the feeder making quite a racket crunching the seeds in their beaks. Fascinating.
Saturday, June 07, 2008
Healing words
Let go of choosing between friend and enemy.
Immediately drop thoughts that follow from passion or aggression.
Within the expanse of simply being, without judgment,
The sun of devotion spontaneously dawns.
-From "Spring's Flower: A Spontaneous Song of Experience" composed by Vidyadhara Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche
Immediately drop thoughts that follow from passion or aggression.
Within the expanse of simply being, without judgment,
The sun of devotion spontaneously dawns.
-From "Spring's Flower: A Spontaneous Song of Experience" composed by Vidyadhara Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche
Sunday, May 04, 2008
A thought about reincarnation
Imagine a planet coalescing from dust in space. That is like our body and mind coming into being. Imagine the planet breaking apart and dissolving. That is like when we die. Imagine it coalescing again and reforming. That is like when we are born in our next life. The new planet is completely different, but drawn together from the same basic stuff. So the essence of mind is the same, but it comes together in a new way. Our karmic seeds are stored in a particular mindstream, so it's not quite like we dissolve into the ground of existence, lose all personal identity, and then something else reforms. But, just as my self in the future of this life is different than my current self, so my future rebirths are different. But the fact that there is karma in common means that of all the individuals in the universe in all of the three times (past, present and future), the ones I can influence the most are the ones that are future manifestations of my mindstream. I was at a retreat this past weekend, where Lama Norlha Rinpoche advised us that when we call upon the Buddhas, we need not limit ourselves to those in the past and present. We can and should also call upon the Buddhas of the future. Now it occurs to me that the final destination of the mindstream which I am a part of is Buddha. Therefore that future Buddha at the end of this mindstream is someone to whom I can call for help. This brings new meaning for me to the idea that we all have Buddha nature. In any event, in the same way that we should take care of the planet for its future inhabitants, we should take care of our body for its future inhabitants (future instances of our mindstream), and this means physically, mentally and spiritually. By performing actions that get us closer to Buddhahood, we are being kind to our future selves as well as to the vast array of sentient beings who can rely on us when we have achieved perfect enlightenment.
I think the analogy of the planet being destroyed and reformed is useful because it really shows that reincarnation is subtle. If the personality, the mental apparatus of conceptualization gets destroyed in between lives, then in what way can we say the new individual is the "same" as the old one. There are certain tendencies that are carried over, habitual patterns of fixation, attachment and aversion. Conversely patterns of concentration and mental stability arising from meditation can carry over as well. But is it the same person? Again, I am not the same person as I was a second ago, so I am certainly a dramatically different person than the next incarnation of this mindstream.
I know one reader of this blog believes in reincarnation but certainly thinks I've gotten it wrong, whereas another reader (you people know who you are!) does not believe in reincarnation. Why do I believe that things work roughly the way I've outlined? My first thought when I was wrestling with this earlier is that it's very unlikely I could prove that reincarnation happens. But then by the same token, it seems unlikely that it could ever be disproven, especially given our current paltry knowledge of what consciousness is. So then I decided to search for an argument that would increase my confidence in reincarnation and this was what I came up with. It is quite reasonable to me because a fundamental teaching of Buddhism is that the essence of mind is clear, lucid and unaffected by particular thoughts or conditions. When one meditates and has certain experiences with the Lama, one begins to perceive this directly. Thus through direct observation one glimpses the essence of mind, like the ocean with thoughts appearing as waves. This sort of analogy gets at it a little bit, but to really understand what I mean, you need to have a comparable meditative experience. And once one accepts this underlying substrate of the mind, it becomes reasonable to imagine that it would continue after the body dies. It's like the planet that is made out of dust, our mind is "made" of this substrate.
I think the analogy of the planet being destroyed and reformed is useful because it really shows that reincarnation is subtle. If the personality, the mental apparatus of conceptualization gets destroyed in between lives, then in what way can we say the new individual is the "same" as the old one. There are certain tendencies that are carried over, habitual patterns of fixation, attachment and aversion. Conversely patterns of concentration and mental stability arising from meditation can carry over as well. But is it the same person? Again, I am not the same person as I was a second ago, so I am certainly a dramatically different person than the next incarnation of this mindstream.
I know one reader of this blog believes in reincarnation but certainly thinks I've gotten it wrong, whereas another reader (you people know who you are!) does not believe in reincarnation. Why do I believe that things work roughly the way I've outlined? My first thought when I was wrestling with this earlier is that it's very unlikely I could prove that reincarnation happens. But then by the same token, it seems unlikely that it could ever be disproven, especially given our current paltry knowledge of what consciousness is. So then I decided to search for an argument that would increase my confidence in reincarnation and this was what I came up with. It is quite reasonable to me because a fundamental teaching of Buddhism is that the essence of mind is clear, lucid and unaffected by particular thoughts or conditions. When one meditates and has certain experiences with the Lama, one begins to perceive this directly. Thus through direct observation one glimpses the essence of mind, like the ocean with thoughts appearing as waves. This sort of analogy gets at it a little bit, but to really understand what I mean, you need to have a comparable meditative experience. And once one accepts this underlying substrate of the mind, it becomes reasonable to imagine that it would continue after the body dies. It's like the planet that is made out of dust, our mind is "made" of this substrate.
Monday, March 31, 2008
So-called violent protesting monks
The Chinese government seeks to portray Buddhist monks in Tibet as capable of violence, but apparently the only way they can do it is to actually impersonate them. As the Dalai Lama says, we should feel compassion for them, since they have some heavy karma coming their way.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
The Ninth Symphony of Beethoven Understood at Last as a Sexual Message (Adrienne Rich)
A man in terror of impotence
of infertility, not knowing the difference
a man trying to tell something
howling from the climacteric
music for the entirely
isolated soul
yelling at Joy from the tunnel of the ego
music without the ghost
of another person in it, music
trying to tell something the man
does not want out, would keep if he could
gagged and bound and flogged with chords of Joy
where everything is silence and the
beating of a bloody fist upon
a splintered table
of infertility, not knowing the difference
a man trying to tell something
howling from the climacteric
music for the entirely
isolated soul
yelling at Joy from the tunnel of the ego
music without the ghost
of another person in it, music
trying to tell something the man
does not want out, would keep if he could
gagged and bound and flogged with chords of Joy
where everything is silence and the
beating of a bloody fist upon
a splintered table
Sunday, March 09, 2008
A crude comic I drew a while back
I drew this comic in an attempt to illustrate a certain manner of interaction between myself and another individual. See if you can figure out what I mean. I'll post an explanation of what I was thinking when I drew this at a later date. [Click on the image for a larger view.]
Spring
Dragging feet in the water
The nasal passage of time
Conspires and coalesces like music.
Monstrous membranes occlude my perception.
The wave of Spring is always welcome.
But it is not welcome in all ways.
Trees spew their particles into the wind
Awakening ancient cells of resistance.
A body wages war with a body,
Just as beauty battles pain.
Plants emerge from the soil,
And pollen falls like rain.
The nasal passage of time
Conspires and coalesces like music.
Monstrous membranes occlude my perception.
The wave of Spring is always welcome.
But it is not welcome in all ways.
Trees spew their particles into the wind
Awakening ancient cells of resistance.
A body wages war with a body,
Just as beauty battles pain.
Plants emerge from the soil,
And pollen falls like rain.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Of Gödel and Galaxies
I've been reading the book Gödel, Escher, Bach by Douglas Hofstadter again, and it's really an amazing book. I recommend it very highly. One of the book's centerpiece's is Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, which, in a nutshell, shows that there exist statements of number theory (such as "3^3=27," or "if you define a sequence a1=1 a2=1 and a3=2a2-a1, then no term is ever equal to 6.") which are true but cannot be proven within the context of number theory. The two examples I just gave are not of this form. One can prove them or prove there negation. The actual number theoretic statement constructed by Gödel is extremely complicated. The method of proof is brilliant, though. Because the laws governing the manipulation of numbers can be encoded as strings of numbers, one can actually connive to have number-theoretic statements have a secondary coded meaning which has something to say about the machinery of proofs. The coup de grace comes when you construct a statement whose coded meaning is "I cannot be proven in the system of number theory." Now let's consider whether the statement is true or false. If it is false, then it can be proven, which is to say it can't be proven. This is a contradiction, a version of the so-called Epimenides paradox: "Epimenides, a Cretan, says that all Cretans are liars." So the statement is not false, hence it is true. Since it is true it cannot be proven. Thus we have elegantly constructed a true statement of number theory which cannot be proven (within the system) precisely because that is what it asserts! Note that it can be proven outside the system, because we just did that. This is an awesome idea. The formal system of number theory can be utilized to show that it cannot adequately capture all true statements. One might say it contains the seeds of its own demise, but it might be better to say that it contains the seeds of its own limitation. Gödel's theorem doesn't destroy or invalidate number theory, it just shows that it is more subtle than any axiomatic treatment.
This whole story reminds me of an article I read in Scientific American which pointed out, that due to cosmic expansion, in 100 billion years all galaxies away from our local group will be traveling away from us at super-light speed, implying we cannot in principle see them or know anything about them. Inhabitants of the local group, now combined into a supergalaxy, will think that they are an island in infinite space. Furthermore, with all galaxies beyond our observable horizon, we won't be able to detect cosmic expansion, thus removing theoretical justification for a Big Bang. Our progeny, unless they have good records, will not have any reason to believe true physical facts about our Universe. In fact, future scientists might propose the existence of other galaxies or a Big Bang, and be shot down for unprovable junk science. So the current laws of Physics contain the seeds of their own limitation, just as with number theory. We can predict, using current Physics, that our progeny will not be able to detect facts about the Universe which we consider objective hard, facts. From here it's a small leap to realize that there are objective facts about our Universe that we will never be able to know because the information has already been lost.
Both these scenarios point to the fact that knowledge contains the seeds of its own limitation. This doesn't invalidate the reasoning process, but rather shows just how powerful and far-reaching reasoning can be. It is so powerful that it can even detect that it fails to completely capture all of reality!
This whole story reminds me of an article I read in Scientific American which pointed out, that due to cosmic expansion, in 100 billion years all galaxies away from our local group will be traveling away from us at super-light speed, implying we cannot in principle see them or know anything about them. Inhabitants of the local group, now combined into a supergalaxy, will think that they are an island in infinite space. Furthermore, with all galaxies beyond our observable horizon, we won't be able to detect cosmic expansion, thus removing theoretical justification for a Big Bang. Our progeny, unless they have good records, will not have any reason to believe true physical facts about our Universe. In fact, future scientists might propose the existence of other galaxies or a Big Bang, and be shot down for unprovable junk science. So the current laws of Physics contain the seeds of their own limitation, just as with number theory. We can predict, using current Physics, that our progeny will not be able to detect facts about the Universe which we consider objective hard, facts. From here it's a small leap to realize that there are objective facts about our Universe that we will never be able to know because the information has already been lost.
Both these scenarios point to the fact that knowledge contains the seeds of its own limitation. This doesn't invalidate the reasoning process, but rather shows just how powerful and far-reaching reasoning can be. It is so powerful that it can even detect that it fails to completely capture all of reality!
Sunday, February 24, 2008
The Lazy Poster
I just wrote a friend of mine in response to a letter he sent me essentially decrying theism. I'm reproducing the letter here since it is in the spirit of this blog, and also gets me off the hook for needing to post something.
Well, Jeff, I don't actually consider myself a theist. In fact, I'm committed to the principle of holding beliefs based on reasoning and evidence. I don't believe in an all-powerful deity. However, I don't necessarily agree that religion is dangerous. As I outlined in my email, there isn't much evidence that I can see that religion per se is destructive. I believe that many of humanity's current problems are caused by fundamental aspects of human psychology. For example, the instinct to band with a group of people and identify oneself as a member. I think this is why racism and sexism have been such problems, and why nations go to war. If the Israelis and the Palestinians weren't so concentrated on their labels as Israelis and Palestinians, then there would be no need for the continuing violence. Yes religion is present in the conflict, but I don't think it's the heart of the matter. I think it is a manifestation of the deep human instinct to band together and set oneself apart from some other group. (The atheist-theist dichotomy fits into this scheme too.)
I consider myself a Buddhist, and Buddhism is often considered an atheistic religion, though that is a gross oversimplification. I don't think you can really say Buddhism is either atheist or theist. The main point of Buddhism is not belief in a supreme deity, but rather the following of specific practices (like meditation) with which one can change one's perception, thinking and behavior for the better. I think there is much evidence that followers of Buddhism are a force for good in the world and not for evil. (The nonviolent protest by the monks of Burma against the reigning dictatorship is a good example.) However, even though I am partial to Buddhist thought, I think that there are good people in all religious traditions. (Gandhi, a Hindu, and Dr. Martin Luther King, a Christian, are really good examples.) People like Gandhi and King would no doubt have disagreed with the asinine pronouncements of many of the theists on the webpage you sent me. I agree that this sort of theism, the kind which is ill thought-out and intolerant is unacceptable. And our current politicians often appeal to this pseudo-religion, with stomach-turning results. That does need to be defended against I absolutely agree. But I don't think that labeling it as theist and therefore bad is the right way to go. I think that pointing out the immorality and injustice would be more effective and more accurate.
Well, Jeff, I don't actually consider myself a theist. In fact, I'm committed to the principle of holding beliefs based on reasoning and evidence. I don't believe in an all-powerful deity. However, I don't necessarily agree that religion is dangerous. As I outlined in my email, there isn't much evidence that I can see that religion per se is destructive. I believe that many of humanity's current problems are caused by fundamental aspects of human psychology. For example, the instinct to band with a group of people and identify oneself as a member. I think this is why racism and sexism have been such problems, and why nations go to war. If the Israelis and the Palestinians weren't so concentrated on their labels as Israelis and Palestinians, then there would be no need for the continuing violence. Yes religion is present in the conflict, but I don't think it's the heart of the matter. I think it is a manifestation of the deep human instinct to band together and set oneself apart from some other group. (The atheist-theist dichotomy fits into this scheme too.)
I consider myself a Buddhist, and Buddhism is often considered an atheistic religion, though that is a gross oversimplification. I don't think you can really say Buddhism is either atheist or theist. The main point of Buddhism is not belief in a supreme deity, but rather the following of specific practices (like meditation) with which one can change one's perception, thinking and behavior for the better. I think there is much evidence that followers of Buddhism are a force for good in the world and not for evil. (The nonviolent protest by the monks of Burma against the reigning dictatorship is a good example.) However, even though I am partial to Buddhist thought, I think that there are good people in all religious traditions. (Gandhi, a Hindu, and Dr. Martin Luther King, a Christian, are really good examples.) People like Gandhi and King would no doubt have disagreed with the asinine pronouncements of many of the theists on the webpage you sent me. I agree that this sort of theism, the kind which is ill thought-out and intolerant is unacceptable. And our current politicians often appeal to this pseudo-religion, with stomach-turning results. That does need to be defended against I absolutely agree. But I don't think that labeling it as theist and therefore bad is the right way to go. I think that pointing out the immorality and injustice would be more effective and more accurate.
Monday, February 11, 2008
McCain Spoof video
Check out this spoof of the Obama "Yes We Can" video, in which McCain talks about how "the American people don't care if we're in Iraq for 100, 1000 or 10,000 years." I'd say that's not a fair assessment.
Friday, February 08, 2008
Happy New Year!
It's Losar, the Tibetan New Year. 2135. The year of the earth rat. (or earth mouse in one translation.)
Peace, happiness and prosperity to everyone reading this and to everyone else as well. May your day be as beautiful as an emerald mountain range at sunrise. May your mind be as tranquil as a crystal clear pond above the tree line. May your activity be as productive as the ribosomes in a single cell. May your metaphors be as outlandish as a peacock's tail made out of fiery stars.
Peace, happiness and prosperity to everyone reading this and to everyone else as well. May your day be as beautiful as an emerald mountain range at sunrise. May your mind be as tranquil as a crystal clear pond above the tree line. May your activity be as productive as the ribosomes in a single cell. May your metaphors be as outlandish as a peacock's tail made out of fiery stars.
Monday, February 04, 2008
Why I support Obama
I'm pretty sure all my readers are in Super Tuesday states, and I encourage you all to vote, no matter who you support. I actually already voted (early).
As far as I see it, Obama, Clinton, or even McCain, would be a huge improvement over Bush. After 9/11, I felt a spirit of hope, compassion and togetherness in the wake of the catastrophe. People seemed willing to help and support each other. It was like nothing I've ever experienced. A good leader would have capitalized on that oppurtunity to effect positive changes. He or she would have nurtured that spirit. Instead, Bush shabbily used the tragedy to promote his pre-existing agenda to attack Iraq. He completely squandered the good will in and outside the country, and tipped the balance from compassion to fear and hatred. It really felt awful in this country right around the time we attacked Iraq. I felt threatened for simply expressing my viewpoints.
Of the Democratic candidates, I think Obama has the potential to be most like the leader I envision. Certainly not an exact match. But he has the very useful skill to make impassioned and inspiring speeches that tend to bring people more toward the compassion side than the hatred side. Also, unlike Clinton, he did not vote for the Iraq war. Aside from that, their actual platforms are very very similar. Perhaps it's being unfair to Clinton, but she doesn't seem to have the same charisma. I also have been rather disillusioned with her for always making decisions based on whether she thinks it will maintain her electability. In other words, rather than trying to help the most, she is simply laying plans to get elected. Obama is certainly also guilty, but perhaps because of his shorter political career, less so.
One down side to both candidates: neither has any plans to reduce the size of the military or the defense budget. (We spend something on the order of magnitude of ten times more on defense than any other country, and it makes up an astounding percentage of our budget. It rather belies our fundamentally violent, imperialist nature.) Kucinich was my man for that, but he has dropped out in order to concenrate on maintaining his current congressional seat. (I encourage you to donate to his congressional campaign. We need voices like his in congress!)
Please post a comment if I'm being unfair.
As far as I see it, Obama, Clinton, or even McCain, would be a huge improvement over Bush. After 9/11, I felt a spirit of hope, compassion and togetherness in the wake of the catastrophe. People seemed willing to help and support each other. It was like nothing I've ever experienced. A good leader would have capitalized on that oppurtunity to effect positive changes. He or she would have nurtured that spirit. Instead, Bush shabbily used the tragedy to promote his pre-existing agenda to attack Iraq. He completely squandered the good will in and outside the country, and tipped the balance from compassion to fear and hatred. It really felt awful in this country right around the time we attacked Iraq. I felt threatened for simply expressing my viewpoints.
Of the Democratic candidates, I think Obama has the potential to be most like the leader I envision. Certainly not an exact match. But he has the very useful skill to make impassioned and inspiring speeches that tend to bring people more toward the compassion side than the hatred side. Also, unlike Clinton, he did not vote for the Iraq war. Aside from that, their actual platforms are very very similar. Perhaps it's being unfair to Clinton, but she doesn't seem to have the same charisma. I also have been rather disillusioned with her for always making decisions based on whether she thinks it will maintain her electability. In other words, rather than trying to help the most, she is simply laying plans to get elected. Obama is certainly also guilty, but perhaps because of his shorter political career, less so.
One down side to both candidates: neither has any plans to reduce the size of the military or the defense budget. (We spend something on the order of magnitude of ten times more on defense than any other country, and it makes up an astounding percentage of our budget. It rather belies our fundamentally violent, imperialist nature.) Kucinich was my man for that, but he has dropped out in order to concenrate on maintaining his current congressional seat. (I encourage you to donate to his congressional campaign. We need voices like his in congress!)
Please post a comment if I'm being unfair.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Title pending
I would like to try to maintain this blog's irregular regularity. So I thought I'd describe what I'm doing now in terms of my Buddhist practice. Last year I completed the Four Ordinary Preliminary Practices, which are contemplations on the four thoughts that turn the mind toward the dharma. These thoughts are on
1. Precious human birth. Our current status as humans with time and ability to practice the dharma is incredibly rare, so rare that it would be foolish not to take advantage of the current opportunity.
2. Impermanence. Everything is impermanent, and so cannot be relied on for lasting happiness. Our current bodies will dissolve back into their component elements, and once that happens, we will not be able to take any of our possessions with us. Furthermore, if we have not practiced virtue, in our next life we will probably be born in a situation where we cannot practice the dharma, thereby accumulating more negative karma and perpetuating a very difficult cycle to break. Hence, we should practice virtue at all times. We don't know when we will die. Indeed, there are two certainties in life. That we will die, and that we don't know when. As the Buddha said, death comes upon you like a thief in the night.
3. Karma. Our actions have results, and when we perform virtuous activities, we achieve positive results. When we perform non-virtuous activities, we suffer. The results of our actions often take several lifetimes to manifest, but sometimes we can clearly see how our actions have led to results. For example, the alcoholic who sees his life collapsing around him will often attribute all of the negative events to bad luck, or the fact that world is out to get him, but once his mind clears a bit, he sees how all of these events were actually caused by his negative behavior. Similarly, right now there are many things which happen to us which seem random, but once our mind gets closer to enlightenment, we can see how our own behavior (in this and previous lives) has caused them. So knowing that our actions have consequences, we resolve to live virtuously.
4. The defects of samsara. Samsara is the cycle of existence in which most beings are trapped. I alluded to this cycle before. Basically negative actions lead to negative results which lead to more negative actions. Activity which seems virtuous can also lead to negative results. For example, doing something virtuous with the hope of looking good, or of getting a pleasant rebirth-- i.e. motivated by attachment and clinging-- can lead to rebirth in a Gods realm. Here life is great but once your supply of virtue has been exhausted, you die, and the immense suffering you feel as a result of having to leave will often propel you into a miserable rebirth. So the idea is to move away from cyclic existence, practicing virtue while not being attached to future happiness. A quote from the Buddha, talking to the monk Subhuti, is helpful here:
"Subhuti, those who would now set forth on the Bodhisattva path should thus give birth to the thought: `However many beings there are in whatever realms of being might exist, whether they are born from an egg or born from a womb, born from water or born from the air, whether they have form or no form, perception or no perception or neither perception or no perception, in whatever conceivable realm of beings one might conceive of beings, in the realm of complete nirvana, I shall liberate them all. And though I thus liberate countless beings, not a single being is liberated."
In other words, the way to become liberated (from samsara) is to aspire to help others achieve the highest form of happiness, which is to be liberated themselves, but not to be attached to the idea of doing so. A Buddha is able to encompass all sentient beings with his compassion, whereas beings like us who are still progressing on the path can only have compassion for a (small) finite number of beings.
Okay, so those are the four thoughts that comprise the four ordinary preliminary practices. Now, under the instruction of Lama Norlha Rinpoche, I'm doing the four "extraordinary" preliminary practices (Tibetan: Ngondro). The four sections of this are
1. Prostrations
2. Vajrasattva mantra recitation
3. Mandala offerings
4. Guru yoga.
I've been doing prostrations and Vajrasattva recitations since last July, and I just learned how to do the Mandala offerings. I haven't yet started Guru yoga. For each section, one must to 111,111 repetitions, although Rinpoche has said we only have to do 10,000 each to go to the next stage. He has expressed the wish that we complete all 111,111 in our lifetimes. These four activities engage different aspects of our body, speech and mind. Mandala offering, which I'm just learning how to do, for example involves offering a visualized universe full of beautiful objects to the Buddhas, thereby accruing vast amounts of merit. When one does this, one drops piles of rice on a mandala plate as a symbolic representation of this visualized universe, and repeats this over and over while reciting the liturgy in Tibetan. It's a form of tactile meditation or mantra, I would say. (This doesn't replace sitting meditation, but complements it.)
Anyway, that's the state of my practice now!
1. Precious human birth. Our current status as humans with time and ability to practice the dharma is incredibly rare, so rare that it would be foolish not to take advantage of the current opportunity.
2. Impermanence. Everything is impermanent, and so cannot be relied on for lasting happiness. Our current bodies will dissolve back into their component elements, and once that happens, we will not be able to take any of our possessions with us. Furthermore, if we have not practiced virtue, in our next life we will probably be born in a situation where we cannot practice the dharma, thereby accumulating more negative karma and perpetuating a very difficult cycle to break. Hence, we should practice virtue at all times. We don't know when we will die. Indeed, there are two certainties in life. That we will die, and that we don't know when. As the Buddha said, death comes upon you like a thief in the night.
3. Karma. Our actions have results, and when we perform virtuous activities, we achieve positive results. When we perform non-virtuous activities, we suffer. The results of our actions often take several lifetimes to manifest, but sometimes we can clearly see how our actions have led to results. For example, the alcoholic who sees his life collapsing around him will often attribute all of the negative events to bad luck, or the fact that world is out to get him, but once his mind clears a bit, he sees how all of these events were actually caused by his negative behavior. Similarly, right now there are many things which happen to us which seem random, but once our mind gets closer to enlightenment, we can see how our own behavior (in this and previous lives) has caused them. So knowing that our actions have consequences, we resolve to live virtuously.
4. The defects of samsara. Samsara is the cycle of existence in which most beings are trapped. I alluded to this cycle before. Basically negative actions lead to negative results which lead to more negative actions. Activity which seems virtuous can also lead to negative results. For example, doing something virtuous with the hope of looking good, or of getting a pleasant rebirth-- i.e. motivated by attachment and clinging-- can lead to rebirth in a Gods realm. Here life is great but once your supply of virtue has been exhausted, you die, and the immense suffering you feel as a result of having to leave will often propel you into a miserable rebirth. So the idea is to move away from cyclic existence, practicing virtue while not being attached to future happiness. A quote from the Buddha, talking to the monk Subhuti, is helpful here:
"Subhuti, those who would now set forth on the Bodhisattva path should thus give birth to the thought: `However many beings there are in whatever realms of being might exist, whether they are born from an egg or born from a womb, born from water or born from the air, whether they have form or no form, perception or no perception or neither perception or no perception, in whatever conceivable realm of beings one might conceive of beings, in the realm of complete nirvana, I shall liberate them all. And though I thus liberate countless beings, not a single being is liberated."
In other words, the way to become liberated (from samsara) is to aspire to help others achieve the highest form of happiness, which is to be liberated themselves, but not to be attached to the idea of doing so. A Buddha is able to encompass all sentient beings with his compassion, whereas beings like us who are still progressing on the path can only have compassion for a (small) finite number of beings.
Okay, so those are the four thoughts that comprise the four ordinary preliminary practices. Now, under the instruction of Lama Norlha Rinpoche, I'm doing the four "extraordinary" preliminary practices (Tibetan: Ngondro). The four sections of this are
1. Prostrations
2. Vajrasattva mantra recitation
3. Mandala offerings
4. Guru yoga.
I've been doing prostrations and Vajrasattva recitations since last July, and I just learned how to do the Mandala offerings. I haven't yet started Guru yoga. For each section, one must to 111,111 repetitions, although Rinpoche has said we only have to do 10,000 each to go to the next stage. He has expressed the wish that we complete all 111,111 in our lifetimes. These four activities engage different aspects of our body, speech and mind. Mandala offering, which I'm just learning how to do, for example involves offering a visualized universe full of beautiful objects to the Buddhas, thereby accruing vast amounts of merit. When one does this, one drops piles of rice on a mandala plate as a symbolic representation of this visualized universe, and repeats this over and over while reciting the liturgy in Tibetan. It's a form of tactile meditation or mantra, I would say. (This doesn't replace sitting meditation, but complements it.)
Anyway, that's the state of my practice now!
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
The good stuff
May all beings have happiness and the causes of happiness.
May they be free from suffering and its causes.
May they not be parted from the true bliss that knows no suffering.
May they abide in equanimity, free from attachment and aversion, that hold some close and others distant.
May they be free from suffering and its causes.
May they not be parted from the true bliss that knows no suffering.
May they abide in equanimity, free from attachment and aversion, that hold some close and others distant.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Evidence based theology?
As a thought experiment, let's assume we know nothing of what a deity is, and then try to derive some properties. I feel, along with many other intelligent people, that there is a way to be spiritual and yet be consistent with logic and reason, so this could be a worthwhile experiment. One of the first difficulties we encounter is that there is no good definition of "God." If one goes the simplistic route and defines God to be an omnipotent being, one gets into trouble since omnipotence is a logically inconsistent concept. (If God can do anything, he can make a rock so heavy he can't lift it.) Notice how I used "he" to describe God. This shows a lot of preconceptions that people have: that God is an intentional agent, and moreover, can be assigned a human gender! In any event, this simple argument shows that God, should one exist, is not all-powerful in the most simplistic sense. Indeed, if that were the case, he would snap his fingers and dissolve the suffering of the world in an instant. But the force of God evidently cannot instantaneously dissolve the suffering of the world. (I don't believe there is a difference here between "cannot" and "doesn't choose to." Aside from the problem of assigning intention to an unknown quantity, there is also the conundrum of whether one can ever choose to do act in a way differently than one actually acts. ) This solves a lot of the questions people have, and the reasons that are frequently given about why faith is not an option. But notice that it does not prove or even, to my current way of thinking, make a dent in the possibility of a spiritual force that can dissolve suffering, just not instantaneously. In fact, I believe that one need to be open to help from a spiritual force, in order to receive help, at least efficiently. We are more powerful than that spiritual force, in a gross sense, because we can choose to ignore it. It cannot control us like automatons. Yet, in a subtle sense, we are not more powerful than it, and in fact, I believe it is our innermost nature.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)