Steven will be missed, but his posts here will live on.
Wednesday, August 26, 2015
The End
Sadly, the proprietor of this blog, Steven Searle, passed away in August of 2015. He wished to thank everyone who read his posts over the years. Steven was very proud of his blogs, and enthusiastic about politics, religion, and life in general. He lived the life he wanted to live, up to the very end.
Monday, June 15, 2015
My Atonement
Introduction
I am asking for your help as I'd indicated in my post at this link:
http://lotussutrachampions.blogspot.com/2015/05/a-bat-kitten-and-my-guilt.html
There is a section (the third of three) at the above link called "My Atonement," which starts to explain what I have in mind. The two sections below complete that explanation:
How you can help
Obtain a Cashier's Check or a Money Order for as much as you'd care to contribute, payable to:
Dr. Kyle Adkins
[He's affiliated with the Country Doc Veterinary Clinic in Minnesota.]
Send this to:
Laura Iancu
124 1st St, SW
Crosby, MN 56441
Laura will give Dr. Adkins the MOs/ Cashiers Checks as the need for his services arises, for the animals under her care. Contributions cannot be made "pay to the order of" Laura Iancu since her past credit history might subject such funds to seizure by creditors. This is why she does not use banking services such as checking and savings accounts.
I've used MoneyGram to send money to Laura. However, I do this because I know her and trust that she'll use these funds to help her animals. Since you don't know her, I came up with the method in the preceding paragraph.
To help in her mission to save her cats, Laura has sent up the "Rescue Me Now Foundation," with the EIN 47-3846698.
I am asking for your help as I'd indicated in my post at this link:
http://lotussutrachampions.blogspot.com/2015/05/a-bat-kitten-and-my-guilt.html
There is a section (the third of three) at the above link called "My Atonement," which starts to explain what I have in mind. The two sections below complete that explanation:
- How you can help
- Background
How you can help
Obtain a Cashier's Check or a Money Order for as much as you'd care to contribute, payable to:
Dr. Kyle Adkins
[He's affiliated with the Country Doc Veterinary Clinic in Minnesota.]
Send this to:
Laura Iancu
124 1st St, SW
Crosby, MN 56441
Laura will give Dr. Adkins the MOs/ Cashiers Checks as the need for his services arises, for the animals under her care. Contributions cannot be made "pay to the order of" Laura Iancu since her past credit history might subject such funds to seizure by creditors. This is why she does not use banking services such as checking and savings accounts.
I've used MoneyGram to send money to Laura. However, I do this because I know her and trust that she'll use these funds to help her animals. Since you don't know her, I came up with the method in the preceding paragraph.
To help in her mission to save her cats, Laura has sent up the "Rescue Me Now Foundation," with the EIN 47-3846698.
Background
As my unfolding karma would have it, in 2007 I invited Laura Iancu, homeless at that time, to move in with me. About six months earlier, our paths crossed for the first time in front of the Starbucks on Wilson and Lincoln in Chicago. She was selling Streetwise magazines at that location, which meant we'd see each other quite often since I lived in the neighborhood. Laura was chatty and so was I, so we were a good match.
Laura had gone to homeless shelters outside of the city up to 40 miles away because they were safer. She had lost her family and hope, not knowing if she was coming or going at times. But she knew she had to take it one day at a time. As I listened to the details of her life, I felt sympathetic. So I invited her to move into my apartment, since I lived alone and had way more space than I needed. Long story, short: We ended up living together for four and a half years, only as roommates - nothing physical.
Laura ended up moving to Minnesota in May of 2012 - eventually living with 30 cats but no human roommates. That's right - thirty. Most of them were rescues she'd found abandoned or injured. She gave each of them a name and would give me updates on the health issues of those who had fallen ill or died. Many she brought in had Leukemia and FIV/FIP. She has survivors who were born with it and today are over 2 years of age, including kittens born on Thanksgiving Day.
Over the years, I'd sent her money - over $12,000 in all. Which was a lot for me, since I'm not a rich man by any means. We stay in touch via e-mails and occasional phone calls. Turns out, much of the money I'd sent was used to feed and care for her cats, which included meds and veterinary care. I had no problem helping her out with her fur babies (as she calls them), since I felt a need to atone for the kitten I had tried to suffocate decades earlier. I wish she would have spent more of the money on herself, but she was more than satisfied shopping at dollar stores and going to charity food pantries to support her own needs.
Laura lives on disability, doing as much as she can with her limited resources to support herself and her cats. But life for her is still rough, even though I and a couple of other friends try to help out.
Now, some people might think, "Big deal, they're cats. So what?" My most prominent reason? They're important to Laura, so they're important to me. She even got angry when someone suggested that animals don't have souls. My 27 years of Buddhist practice put me in agreement with her on this issue.
So, I will continue to help Laura as much as I can. And I hope I can enlist your support as well.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle, just another member of
The Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and
Former Candidate for USA President (in 2008 & 2012)
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
Sunday, June 7, 2015
Caitlyn Jenner
So now it's "Caitlyn" instead of Bruce. Out of idle curiosity, I looked up the meaning of the name "Caitlyn," and found it means "pure." I can only hope that CJ's motives are indeed pure and not inspired by a desire to bask in a blazing international spotlight. Her whole life, it seems, has been one continuous struggle to snag the public's attention. Could she really want that badly to appear, as Caitlyn, on a Wheaties box - just as Bruce Jenner did those decades ago? That would surely be an interesting way to recapture one's long lost youth.
How many interviews will CJ do? How many TV specials will generate how many millions of dollars? CJ says, for all intents and purposes, "I'm a woman." And yet, she considers herself asexual and has never been attracted to men. Those claims surely must be her attempt to redefine what a woman is - or at least what CJ's version of womanhood is.
I could have respected Bruce's decision to convert to Caitlyn had he done so anonymously. Or at least, had done so with a minimum of fanfare. But, no, Caitlyn decided to appear on the cover of Vanity Fair. Vanity Fair, eh? I guess that name speaks volumes as to the purity of Caitlyn's motives.
We live in a society which places a heavy value on personal choice. But I'm at a loss to figure out why a 65-year-old man wants to feminize himself. At that age, he's past his prime as far as the dating pool is concerned. So why'd he wait so long? By the way, I don't believe Bruce was never attracted to men, nor do I believe he'll hang onto his penis too much longer. Maybe she's being less than honest about these two issues - you know, the public can take only so much drama at once. Besides, why reveal any more now than you have to - future revelations will bring fresh waves of fame once her current intensity of fame peters out (pun intended)?
The Caitlyn revelations will make it harder to be a good parent. I mean, how do you explain to your twelve-year-old what this means? I had the same question after I read an article in the Chicago Reader about how to go about properly engaging in anal sex. This detailed article provoked my reaction: "No, this is not OK. Children have access to this magazine."
This whole sex and gender identification thing mystifies me as a practicing Buddhist. As I explained once to a hospital orderly who was interested in my views on Buddhism, "At a certain point in a Buddhist's practice, he doesn't have friends, he doesn't have lovers, he doesn't have significant others. What he does have are fellow compassionate seekers of enlightenment with whom he can practice and try to convert others."
Some will point out, "The Buddha had a wife and had sex which produced a child." Yes, he did have a wife, but he didn't necessarily need to have sex to produce a child. There is such a thing, in the Buddhist canon, of being born by means of transformation (that is, sexual contact not being necessary). It is widely assumed that the Buddha was male. However, that's mere assumption, or an image the Buddha wished to convey, since "he" was a shapeshifter. I'll bet that if one of the Buddha's disciples had managed to sneak up behind him and pull up his robe, he wouldn't have seen any genitalia at all.
As a closing note, I noticed Caitlyn's fabulous hair on that Vanity Fair cover. I could never understand the fixation that women the world over have with long, luxuriant hair. I'd like to know the karmic significance of this, for hair surely can't be that important, can it? For what it's worth, my preference is for bald women or those who have only a bare amount. Such women are either Buddhist nuns or suffering from cancer. I say a prayer in either case and lust after neither.
I also say a prayer for Caitlyn, hoping she indeed is purely motivated.
Steven Searle, just another member of
The Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and
Former Candidate for USA President (in 2008 & 2012)
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
How many interviews will CJ do? How many TV specials will generate how many millions of dollars? CJ says, for all intents and purposes, "I'm a woman." And yet, she considers herself asexual and has never been attracted to men. Those claims surely must be her attempt to redefine what a woman is - or at least what CJ's version of womanhood is.
I could have respected Bruce's decision to convert to Caitlyn had he done so anonymously. Or at least, had done so with a minimum of fanfare. But, no, Caitlyn decided to appear on the cover of Vanity Fair. Vanity Fair, eh? I guess that name speaks volumes as to the purity of Caitlyn's motives.
We live in a society which places a heavy value on personal choice. But I'm at a loss to figure out why a 65-year-old man wants to feminize himself. At that age, he's past his prime as far as the dating pool is concerned. So why'd he wait so long? By the way, I don't believe Bruce was never attracted to men, nor do I believe he'll hang onto his penis too much longer. Maybe she's being less than honest about these two issues - you know, the public can take only so much drama at once. Besides, why reveal any more now than you have to - future revelations will bring fresh waves of fame once her current intensity of fame peters out (pun intended)?
The Caitlyn revelations will make it harder to be a good parent. I mean, how do you explain to your twelve-year-old what this means? I had the same question after I read an article in the Chicago Reader about how to go about properly engaging in anal sex. This detailed article provoked my reaction: "No, this is not OK. Children have access to this magazine."
This whole sex and gender identification thing mystifies me as a practicing Buddhist. As I explained once to a hospital orderly who was interested in my views on Buddhism, "At a certain point in a Buddhist's practice, he doesn't have friends, he doesn't have lovers, he doesn't have significant others. What he does have are fellow compassionate seekers of enlightenment with whom he can practice and try to convert others."
Some will point out, "The Buddha had a wife and had sex which produced a child." Yes, he did have a wife, but he didn't necessarily need to have sex to produce a child. There is such a thing, in the Buddhist canon, of being born by means of transformation (that is, sexual contact not being necessary). It is widely assumed that the Buddha was male. However, that's mere assumption, or an image the Buddha wished to convey, since "he" was a shapeshifter. I'll bet that if one of the Buddha's disciples had managed to sneak up behind him and pull up his robe, he wouldn't have seen any genitalia at all.
As a closing note, I noticed Caitlyn's fabulous hair on that Vanity Fair cover. I could never understand the fixation that women the world over have with long, luxuriant hair. I'd like to know the karmic significance of this, for hair surely can't be that important, can it? For what it's worth, my preference is for bald women or those who have only a bare amount. Such women are either Buddhist nuns or suffering from cancer. I say a prayer in either case and lust after neither.
I also say a prayer for Caitlyn, hoping she indeed is purely motivated.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and
Former Candidate for USA President (in 2008 & 2012)
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
Sunday, May 31, 2015
You heard something once
You heard something once,
or part of something you felt was profound.
Crowded sidewalk on a breezy, beautiful, sunny day in the city,
when you heard him say it to a friend.
You stopped in your tracks, focused and saw his face briefly.
Briefly but clearly.
That face you'd never forget over the decades.
You saw him turn a corner and ran to catch up.
You turned that corner and he was...
gone...
forever.
Handsome young man about your age - 20-something.
You wiped away a tear from the corner of your eye,
and you mumbled to yourself so
you'd remember what you were able to hear.
"This is important," you said in dedication under your breath.
"I would give anything to hear the rest and to
ask him some questions."
True enough...it's rare to hear anything profound these days.
Or those days, I should say.
Or on any day - past or present.
Forty years ago...could it have been so long?
Many times you walked where you'd last seen him, hoping
to see him again.
But, no, he never presented himself.
Today you walk with me and tell me about these words from
that distant prophet. For the millionth time, it seems. I admit,
like I've always done,
that I too would have liked to have heard
the whole thing.
We pass a park filled with small audiences for a few public speakers.
Yet another breezy, beautiful, sunny day.
This is a well known spot for such goings-on.
"It's okay," you reassure. "The police don't bother anyone here
like they used to. Not even undercover."
"Right," I agree. "They've got things under control, more than anyone
dreamed possible."
Why do you stop so suddenly? "It's him!" you whisper, pointing to
one young man on a soapbox.
"Can't be," I said. "Look at him - he's way too young - in his 20's, I'd say."
I follow as you walk over, squinting your eyes to take him in.
"Sure looks like him," you caution. "And sounds like him. But...he's too young."
And yet, he speaks to the small group of strangers, using those words you'd
told me about all these years.
But of course it can't be him. Too young...unless.
"Say, do you believe in miracles,
like someone can stay young
forever?"
You ask me, sounding so hopeful.
Then you freeze again as your gaze drifts behind
the young speaker to a man who must surely be
his father. He aged just like you thought he would.
He looks so poor, though: Shabby, unkempt, old suit.
Life didn't mark him as a man of wealth.
But he looks so happy, like he managed to learn a
few more secrets above and beyond what you'd heard
once upon a time.
It's okay - go ahead and cry.
or part of something you felt was profound.
Crowded sidewalk on a breezy, beautiful, sunny day in the city,
when you heard him say it to a friend.
You stopped in your tracks, focused and saw his face briefly.
Briefly but clearly.
That face you'd never forget over the decades.
You saw him turn a corner and ran to catch up.
You turned that corner and he was...
gone...
forever.
Handsome young man about your age - 20-something.
You wiped away a tear from the corner of your eye,
and you mumbled to yourself so
you'd remember what you were able to hear.
"This is important," you said in dedication under your breath.
"I would give anything to hear the rest and to
ask him some questions."
True enough...it's rare to hear anything profound these days.
Or those days, I should say.
Or on any day - past or present.
Forty years ago...could it have been so long?
Many times you walked where you'd last seen him, hoping
to see him again.
But, no, he never presented himself.
Today you walk with me and tell me about these words from
that distant prophet. For the millionth time, it seems. I admit,
like I've always done,
that I too would have liked to have heard
the whole thing.
We pass a park filled with small audiences for a few public speakers.
Yet another breezy, beautiful, sunny day.
This is a well known spot for such goings-on.
"It's okay," you reassure. "The police don't bother anyone here
like they used to. Not even undercover."
"Right," I agree. "They've got things under control, more than anyone
dreamed possible."
Why do you stop so suddenly? "It's him!" you whisper, pointing to
one young man on a soapbox.
"Can't be," I said. "Look at him - he's way too young - in his 20's, I'd say."
I follow as you walk over, squinting your eyes to take him in.
"Sure looks like him," you caution. "And sounds like him. But...he's too young."
And yet, he speaks to the small group of strangers, using those words you'd
told me about all these years.
But of course it can't be him. Too young...unless.
"Say, do you believe in miracles,
like someone can stay young
forever?"
You ask me, sounding so hopeful.
Then you freeze again as your gaze drifts behind
the young speaker to a man who must surely be
his father. He aged just like you thought he would.
He looks so poor, though: Shabby, unkempt, old suit.
Life didn't mark him as a man of wealth.
But he looks so happy, like he managed to learn a
few more secrets above and beyond what you'd heard
once upon a time.
It's okay - go ahead and cry.
Wednesday, May 20, 2015
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev: Crime & Punishment
Introduction
Boston Marathon bomber, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (age 21), was sentenced to death on May 15, 2015. This inspires several reactions from me, which I'll open with the two quotes below.
Two Quotes
I recently posted these comments on-line.
QUOTE:
If DT finds Jesus* and accepts Him as his Savior, then when he dies, he'll be admitted to heaven. That's the Christian view. The Buddhist view is that he'll suffer exactly as each of his victims did over the appropriate number of reincarnations. And saying magical words like "Jesus forgive me" won't cut it. Same as what is happening to Hitler - he killed 6 million Jews, he'll be murdered 6 million times [for those crimes].
The hard part of the Buddhist view: There is no such thing as an innocent victim. DT's victims, even those most innocent in this life, paid the price for sins committed in past lives. As a result, their karmic burdens will be that much lighter in their future lives.
[finds Jesus* - yes, I know DT is a Muslim]
:UNQUOTE.
QUOTE:
So that's it, eh? Killing DT will bring back his victims? Or somehow cause missing limbs to reappear? Or give "justice" to those wronged? Face it: When most people say they want to see the cause of justice served, what they really want is revenge. The death penalty is barbaric and lessens our own nobility in its continued practice. If you really want justice, don't worry: DT will pay the karmic price for what he did. Putting him in jail for life serves [only] the [practical] purpose of keeping him from doing any more harm to society[, but in no way represents suitable punishment].
:UNQUOTE.
A Fair Trial?
First of all, it won't matter if Tsarnaev didn't get a fair trial. No judge is going to admit that and order a new trial. That's just not going to happen. Any appellate judge would be thinking, "Why order a new trial? Since the case against Tsarnaev was so strong, any new trial would also produce guilty verdicts."
Now that I got that out of the way, I'll say: This young man did not get a fair trial. DT's defense argued that the trial should be moved to Washington, DC - that holding it in Boston would be prejudicial to their client. I have to agree with the defense on this one, as this is a no-brainer. The judge had no defensible reason for insisting the trial be held in Boston. Of course, the fact that there weren't any Blacks on the jury was probably very much to his liking. He simply acted on the basis of imperial judicial prerogative.
Then there's the issue of jury selection. If someone said they opposed the death penalty, then they were automatically excluded from the jury. It would have taken only one juror opposing the death penalty for that option to fail - life imprisonment being the default option. The general population of Boston opposes the death penalty.* So to insist that only the minority who support that option could sit on this jury denies the majority. Why does the state get to make this decision? Many people oppose the death penalty for religious reasons, especially in very Catholic Boston.
Since the First Amendment bars the favoring of one religious view over another, Catholics in this case were discriminated against. In fact, if I were a Catholic about to be so disenfranchised, I would have sued for the right to be empanelled on this jury.
Citizens of the USA pride themselves on having a sense of fair play. However, outside observers would have to shake their heads in disapproval when our hypocrisy raises its ugly head as it has in this case.
The Death Penalty vs. The "Death" Penalty
The death penalty simply refers to executing a prisoner. The "death" penalty refers to the psychological death brought about by prolonged time spent behind bars in solitary confinement.
If Tsarnaev had been sentenced to life imprisonment, he most assuredly would have ended up in solitary to ensure his own safety against the wrath of the general prison population. It's about time we abolished solitary confinement, instead recognizing it for what it is - torture. While it might be unwise, in cases like Tsarnaev's, to enable direct contact with other prisoners, there's no reason why some type of indirect contact (e.g, by using a fence in the exercise area) couldn't be allowed.
Access to the internet and books should also be allowed. As for communication with the outside world (via the internet or written letters), DT should be permitted as is his due under the free speech provisions of the First Amendment. However, should he even once engage in prohibited speech on the internet, his access would be reduced to "read only."
As long as the condemned is in our care, we should make some respectable effort toward his personal development. Who knows? Maybe, in some way or another, he will find salvation, if not necessarily through Jesus. Even so, sad to say, there will always be those who will refuse to forgive and will insist on continued punishment.
As for the death penalty: it should be abolished, as it has been in the European Union. However, I don't believe execution is unconstitutional, though it is a bad idea that shines an embarrassing light on our baser nature. It also doesn't do much for our collective karma.
There are USA Christian conservatives who champion capital punishment, citing "an eye for an eye." These are the same people who also preach the sanctity of life when arguing against abortion. But their sin is even greater than such hypocrisy. For once a person is executed, he has no more chance to repent and accept Jesus (or Anything or Anybody else) as Savior. However, a life sentence would give the condemned as many chances as a natural lifespan could confer.
Steven Searle, just another member of
The Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and
Former Candidate for USA President (in 2008 & 2012)
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
Footnote:
opposes the death penalty.* -
QUOTE:
BOSTON — Despite this city’s immersion in a trial that is replaying the horrific details of the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, the vast majority of Bostonians say in a new poll that if Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the admitted bomber, is found guilty, he should be sent to prison for life and not condemned to death.
:UNQUOTE [by Katharine Q. Seelye, March 23, 2015]
source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/24/us/most-boston-residents-prefer-life-term-over-death-penalty-in-marathon-case-poll-shows.html?_r=0
Boston Marathon bomber, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (age 21), was sentenced to death on May 15, 2015. This inspires several reactions from me, which I'll open with the two quotes below.
Two Quotes
I recently posted these comments on-line.
QUOTE:
If DT finds Jesus* and accepts Him as his Savior, then when he dies, he'll be admitted to heaven. That's the Christian view. The Buddhist view is that he'll suffer exactly as each of his victims did over the appropriate number of reincarnations. And saying magical words like "Jesus forgive me" won't cut it. Same as what is happening to Hitler - he killed 6 million Jews, he'll be murdered 6 million times [for those crimes].
The hard part of the Buddhist view: There is no such thing as an innocent victim. DT's victims, even those most innocent in this life, paid the price for sins committed in past lives. As a result, their karmic burdens will be that much lighter in their future lives.
[finds Jesus* - yes, I know DT is a Muslim]
:UNQUOTE.
QUOTE:
So that's it, eh? Killing DT will bring back his victims? Or somehow cause missing limbs to reappear? Or give "justice" to those wronged? Face it: When most people say they want to see the cause of justice served, what they really want is revenge. The death penalty is barbaric and lessens our own nobility in its continued practice. If you really want justice, don't worry: DT will pay the karmic price for what he did. Putting him in jail for life serves [only] the [practical] purpose of keeping him from doing any more harm to society[, but in no way represents suitable punishment].
:UNQUOTE.
A Fair Trial?
First of all, it won't matter if Tsarnaev didn't get a fair trial. No judge is going to admit that and order a new trial. That's just not going to happen. Any appellate judge would be thinking, "Why order a new trial? Since the case against Tsarnaev was so strong, any new trial would also produce guilty verdicts."
Now that I got that out of the way, I'll say: This young man did not get a fair trial. DT's defense argued that the trial should be moved to Washington, DC - that holding it in Boston would be prejudicial to their client. I have to agree with the defense on this one, as this is a no-brainer. The judge had no defensible reason for insisting the trial be held in Boston. Of course, the fact that there weren't any Blacks on the jury was probably very much to his liking. He simply acted on the basis of imperial judicial prerogative.
Then there's the issue of jury selection. If someone said they opposed the death penalty, then they were automatically excluded from the jury. It would have taken only one juror opposing the death penalty for that option to fail - life imprisonment being the default option. The general population of Boston opposes the death penalty.* So to insist that only the minority who support that option could sit on this jury denies the majority. Why does the state get to make this decision? Many people oppose the death penalty for religious reasons, especially in very Catholic Boston.
Since the First Amendment bars the favoring of one religious view over another, Catholics in this case were discriminated against. In fact, if I were a Catholic about to be so disenfranchised, I would have sued for the right to be empanelled on this jury.
Citizens of the USA pride themselves on having a sense of fair play. However, outside observers would have to shake their heads in disapproval when our hypocrisy raises its ugly head as it has in this case.
The Death Penalty vs. The "Death" Penalty
The death penalty simply refers to executing a prisoner. The "death" penalty refers to the psychological death brought about by prolonged time spent behind bars in solitary confinement.
If Tsarnaev had been sentenced to life imprisonment, he most assuredly would have ended up in solitary to ensure his own safety against the wrath of the general prison population. It's about time we abolished solitary confinement, instead recognizing it for what it is - torture. While it might be unwise, in cases like Tsarnaev's, to enable direct contact with other prisoners, there's no reason why some type of indirect contact (e.g, by using a fence in the exercise area) couldn't be allowed.
Access to the internet and books should also be allowed. As for communication with the outside world (via the internet or written letters), DT should be permitted as is his due under the free speech provisions of the First Amendment. However, should he even once engage in prohibited speech on the internet, his access would be reduced to "read only."
As long as the condemned is in our care, we should make some respectable effort toward his personal development. Who knows? Maybe, in some way or another, he will find salvation, if not necessarily through Jesus. Even so, sad to say, there will always be those who will refuse to forgive and will insist on continued punishment.
As for the death penalty: it should be abolished, as it has been in the European Union. However, I don't believe execution is unconstitutional, though it is a bad idea that shines an embarrassing light on our baser nature. It also doesn't do much for our collective karma.
There are USA Christian conservatives who champion capital punishment, citing "an eye for an eye." These are the same people who also preach the sanctity of life when arguing against abortion. But their sin is even greater than such hypocrisy. For once a person is executed, he has no more chance to repent and accept Jesus (or Anything or Anybody else) as Savior. However, a life sentence would give the condemned as many chances as a natural lifespan could confer.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle, just another member of
The Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and
Former Candidate for USA President (in 2008 & 2012)
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
Footnote:
opposes the death penalty.* -
QUOTE:
BOSTON — Despite this city’s immersion in a trial that is replaying the horrific details of the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, the vast majority of Bostonians say in a new poll that if Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the admitted bomber, is found guilty, he should be sent to prison for life and not condemned to death.
:UNQUOTE [by Katharine Q. Seelye, March 23, 2015]
source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/24/us/most-boston-residents-prefer-life-term-over-death-penalty-in-marathon-case-poll-shows.html?_r=0
Wednesday, May 13, 2015
Tubes that belch fire
"They're nothing more than tubes that belch fire. How impressive could this possibly be?"
That's what my guru said, when I tried to boast of our grand technology. And why not, for instance, boast about our space program, in which my wife plays a prominent role? She's been with NASA for 20 years and is obviously proud of what she and her teams have accomplished.
As for me? I have been house husband for our three children, working only sporadically as a web designer over the last ten years. After our kids got older, I found I had more time on my hands, so I got involved with Buddhism. Meditation came naturally to me, but I wondered if I would ever actually attain any indisputable degree of enlightenment. Or was all my study and effort to prove only interesting but useless?
After my guru had taken me on a trip to a galaxy far, far away, however, my doubts gave way to exhilaration. Especially since that round trip had taken far less than an hour without using any kind of spacecraft. Equally impressive: How I was, from that galaxy, able to see inside one of our space probes which had recently landed on Mars?
* * * * * * *
My galactic trip took place the same evening I shamelessly tried to bait my teacher. He always seemed so genuinely and deeply tranquil as if nothing could bother him at all. And that bothered me! After his weekly meditation class ended and all of the other students went home, I lingered to talk to him. One of the items I brought up was our life span - which in the United States rarely exceeds 100 years.
"Teacher, 100 years sounds like a lot - especially when compared to life in other countries here on earth. But Buddhist scripture speaks of distant lands in which the average life span consists of billions of years."
"Then you also know that an average life span of less than 100 years, within any given realm, is considered to be a sign of the extremely negative karma shared by all its citizens."
"I don't get it. In those other lands where life lasts so long, why doesn't scripture boast of the wondrous technology such beings surely must have developed? I mean, look at our country. We're able to travel to other planets using vehicles unimaginable 100 years ago."
And that's when my teacher said, "They're nothing more than tubes that belch fire. How impressive could this possibly be?"
Then I thought of my wife, who had worked so long and hard to help bring these "belchers," step by step, into existence. I thought of the great minds that had solved so many difficult problems to get us to where we are today. Then I asked, "What would you consider to be impressive?"
He smiled and said, "The important question is, what would you consider to be impressive? I assure you: Anything you might consider to be impressive, I would regard as commonplace."
When he saw my confusion, he said, "Take my hand and I will show you." This I did and within a few minutes, which felt like an eternity, we had levitated a foot or so above the floor. I felt like a ship which had lost its anchor and was desperate for security. I said, "Wow," and my teacher said, "Relax and tell me, do you find this to be impressive?"
"Without a doubt." And then we started to rise toward the ceiling and I worried about bumping my head. "Stand up straight, you've nothing to fear."
Just as my head was about to hit the ceiling, we accelerated to a point high above the earth where there aren't any clouds, it's cold, and the air is too thin to breathe. But the view is spectacular. I didn't feel the cold and I didn't feel short of breath. When my teacher told me to stop breathing because my current body didn't really need air or even food for that matter, I did so without feeling the panic of an asphyxiated man.
"How's this for impressive?"
"Not too shabby," I joked.
"How about this?"
As soon as the hissing sound of his "this" had faded, I found myself - still holding his hand - standing on the moon looking "down" on earth. I didn't feel any panic because there seemed to be a transmittable tranquility that passed from his hand, soothing my entire body.
"You see, it's possible to travel quickly and distantly without the use of any kind of fire-belchers."
"What if I wanted to bring stuff with me, more than I could possibly carry? Wouldn't I need a ship for that?"
"In your current form, you wouldn't need anything. But if you want to indulge, just conjure up what you wish."
"You mean, like magic?"
"There is no such thing as magic. When people call something 'magical,' that's simply because they don't understand the forces that bring that something into being. Go ahead, try to conjure up some kind of dwelling on yonder plain."
So I focused, trying to envision a tree house complete with a tree. And there it appeared - and then disappeared just as quickly when I decided I'd seen enough and wished it gone.
"And now for yet another step on your journey." We disappeared from the moon's surface and, in the twinkling of an eye, found ourselves well within the galaxy BDF-3299. That's about 13 billion light-years from earth. Again, I felt no need to breathe, and didn't feel intense heat. I should have felt the latter, since we were both in the dead center of a blazing star!
My teacher said, "Now, look carefully at Mars, specifically inside the probe your wife's team recently landed there. And memorize all that you notice. Later, run this information, much of which is highly classified, by your wife and see how she reacts."
"But Mars is so far away, and you want me to look inside this probe?"
"Don't worry, with the kind of vision attained by highly skilled practitioners, they can see without being hindered by distance, darkness - or even an over-abundance of light - or obstructions. Go ahead, look. And memorize everything."
I this from a 13 billion light-year distance. Having completed my inventory, I soon found myself - still hand-in-hand with my guru - standing just outside our Martian probe. And just as quickly, back where we had started this journey - feet planted firmly on the floor of his studio.
* * * * * * * * *
I told my wife what I had seen inside the probe and asked her to compare my information to her records. I didn't, however, tell her how I had acquired my knowledge. I lied, saying I had read the minds of members of her team, while scrupulously avoiding her own mind. Before I ran any of this by my wife, I swore her to secrecy. Needless to say, she looked stunned, barely managing to ask how I had acquired this ability.
I told her that I wasn't really sure I myself had this ability. That perhaps my guru had temporarily shared his own ability with me - to give me a taste of what was really impressive but would soon come to be felt by me as commonplace. I shared with her one of the lessons I'd learned, "Technology isn't as important as compassion, and patiently and consistently practicing the teachings. And when a person reaches ever higher levels of development, to avoid the trap of arrogance."
My wife decided to engage in Buddhist practice, asking me if I would recommend my guru. I laughed and said, "Sure. Some gurus are better than others - and this one ranks pretty high up there." So she joined me in practicing with my teacher, though neither of us breathed a word of what we knew. Not to our teacher, or the other students, or to anybody else for that matter. We didn't even discuss it between ourselves.
That's what my guru said, when I tried to boast of our grand technology. And why not, for instance, boast about our space program, in which my wife plays a prominent role? She's been with NASA for 20 years and is obviously proud of what she and her teams have accomplished.
As for me? I have been house husband for our three children, working only sporadically as a web designer over the last ten years. After our kids got older, I found I had more time on my hands, so I got involved with Buddhism. Meditation came naturally to me, but I wondered if I would ever actually attain any indisputable degree of enlightenment. Or was all my study and effort to prove only interesting but useless?
After my guru had taken me on a trip to a galaxy far, far away, however, my doubts gave way to exhilaration. Especially since that round trip had taken far less than an hour without using any kind of spacecraft. Equally impressive: How I was, from that galaxy, able to see inside one of our space probes which had recently landed on Mars?
* * * * * * *
My galactic trip took place the same evening I shamelessly tried to bait my teacher. He always seemed so genuinely and deeply tranquil as if nothing could bother him at all. And that bothered me! After his weekly meditation class ended and all of the other students went home, I lingered to talk to him. One of the items I brought up was our life span - which in the United States rarely exceeds 100 years.
"Teacher, 100 years sounds like a lot - especially when compared to life in other countries here on earth. But Buddhist scripture speaks of distant lands in which the average life span consists of billions of years."
"Then you also know that an average life span of less than 100 years, within any given realm, is considered to be a sign of the extremely negative karma shared by all its citizens."
"I don't get it. In those other lands where life lasts so long, why doesn't scripture boast of the wondrous technology such beings surely must have developed? I mean, look at our country. We're able to travel to other planets using vehicles unimaginable 100 years ago."
And that's when my teacher said, "They're nothing more than tubes that belch fire. How impressive could this possibly be?"
Then I thought of my wife, who had worked so long and hard to help bring these "belchers," step by step, into existence. I thought of the great minds that had solved so many difficult problems to get us to where we are today. Then I asked, "What would you consider to be impressive?"
He smiled and said, "The important question is, what would you consider to be impressive? I assure you: Anything you might consider to be impressive, I would regard as commonplace."
When he saw my confusion, he said, "Take my hand and I will show you." This I did and within a few minutes, which felt like an eternity, we had levitated a foot or so above the floor. I felt like a ship which had lost its anchor and was desperate for security. I said, "Wow," and my teacher said, "Relax and tell me, do you find this to be impressive?"
"Without a doubt." And then we started to rise toward the ceiling and I worried about bumping my head. "Stand up straight, you've nothing to fear."
Just as my head was about to hit the ceiling, we accelerated to a point high above the earth where there aren't any clouds, it's cold, and the air is too thin to breathe. But the view is spectacular. I didn't feel the cold and I didn't feel short of breath. When my teacher told me to stop breathing because my current body didn't really need air or even food for that matter, I did so without feeling the panic of an asphyxiated man.
"How's this for impressive?"
"Not too shabby," I joked.
"How about this?"
As soon as the hissing sound of his "this" had faded, I found myself - still holding his hand - standing on the moon looking "down" on earth. I didn't feel any panic because there seemed to be a transmittable tranquility that passed from his hand, soothing my entire body.
"You see, it's possible to travel quickly and distantly without the use of any kind of fire-belchers."
"What if I wanted to bring stuff with me, more than I could possibly carry? Wouldn't I need a ship for that?"
"In your current form, you wouldn't need anything. But if you want to indulge, just conjure up what you wish."
"You mean, like magic?"
"There is no such thing as magic. When people call something 'magical,' that's simply because they don't understand the forces that bring that something into being. Go ahead, try to conjure up some kind of dwelling on yonder plain."
So I focused, trying to envision a tree house complete with a tree. And there it appeared - and then disappeared just as quickly when I decided I'd seen enough and wished it gone.
"And now for yet another step on your journey." We disappeared from the moon's surface and, in the twinkling of an eye, found ourselves well within the galaxy BDF-3299. That's about 13 billion light-years from earth. Again, I felt no need to breathe, and didn't feel intense heat. I should have felt the latter, since we were both in the dead center of a blazing star!
My teacher said, "Now, look carefully at Mars, specifically inside the probe your wife's team recently landed there. And memorize all that you notice. Later, run this information, much of which is highly classified, by your wife and see how she reacts."
"But Mars is so far away, and you want me to look inside this probe?"
"Don't worry, with the kind of vision attained by highly skilled practitioners, they can see without being hindered by distance, darkness - or even an over-abundance of light - or obstructions. Go ahead, look. And memorize everything."
I this from a 13 billion light-year distance. Having completed my inventory, I soon found myself - still hand-in-hand with my guru - standing just outside our Martian probe. And just as quickly, back where we had started this journey - feet planted firmly on the floor of his studio.
* * * * * * * * *
I told my wife what I had seen inside the probe and asked her to compare my information to her records. I didn't, however, tell her how I had acquired my knowledge. I lied, saying I had read the minds of members of her team, while scrupulously avoiding her own mind. Before I ran any of this by my wife, I swore her to secrecy. Needless to say, she looked stunned, barely managing to ask how I had acquired this ability.
I told her that I wasn't really sure I myself had this ability. That perhaps my guru had temporarily shared his own ability with me - to give me a taste of what was really impressive but would soon come to be felt by me as commonplace. I shared with her one of the lessons I'd learned, "Technology isn't as important as compassion, and patiently and consistently practicing the teachings. And when a person reaches ever higher levels of development, to avoid the trap of arrogance."
My wife decided to engage in Buddhist practice, asking me if I would recommend my guru. I laughed and said, "Sure. Some gurus are better than others - and this one ranks pretty high up there." So she joined me in practicing with my teacher, though neither of us breathed a word of what we knew. Not to our teacher, or the other students, or to anybody else for that matter. We didn't even discuss it between ourselves.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle, just another member of
The Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and
Former Candidate for President of the USA (in 2008 & 2012)
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
Thursday, May 7, 2015
A bat, a kitten, and my guilt
Today, I'm going to share with you how I (and an accomplice) murdered a bat about 14 years ago - poor, tiny little thing. Then there's the kitten I tried to smother 38 years ago - without an accomplice. Then I conclude by asking for your help in my quest for atonement.
I entitle these three sections as follows:
The bat
Around 2001, I was living in a 3-bedroom flat with my roommate, a fellow Buddhist. We'd lived together for 3 years, without any kind of physical relationship. On a warm spring evening, she was working in the third bedroom, which she used as an office. Then she knocked on my door and said something was in her office. So I followed her and saw what she was pointing at - a small bat hanging upside down near the top of her window.
I kept an eye on it as she went upstairs to alert the landlords - an ancient couple who'd owned and lived in this two-flat since 1947. They had worked for the archdiocese for decades until they retired. So there we were: four religious people in one room, staring up at a bat and wondering what to do. I came up with the idea of using a colander as a kind of butterfly net to snare our unwelcome guest.
The two women left the room as the old man climbed up on a chair to shoo the bat in my direction. Sure enough, it started flying around the room, looking especially large because of my fear. It wasn't long before I trapped it, sliding a piece of cardboard over the top to prevent escape. I wasn't sure what we should do next, but the old woman said we couldn't release it outside because it would only come back. I assumed she was talking about some kind of homing instinct.
So the old man and I took the imprisoned bat down to the basement. There was a sink near the washing machine. We let the water run from its faucet so it would run through the colander, which I was holding. The idea was to drown the bat. I don't know which of the two of us came up with this idea, though I hope it wasn't me. It sounds too horrible even now, decades later, as I type this confession. I remember the poor bat screeching for its very life as the water cascaded through its cage. And yet, that wasn't enough to stop me from doing this evil deed.
For good measure, I totally immersed the bat, still imprisoned but now totally silent, under the water which had by this time more than half-filled the sink.
I held the colander in place for what seemed like an eternity. Maybe I was afraid the poor animal wouldn't be dead and would try to attack us once released. Within a few minutes, I brought the drowned bat up to the surface and laid it out on the counter top. Tears started to fill my eyes - it looked so small and helpless and beautiful, its black fur glistening from its soaking. The old man scooped it up and took it outside to the alley, when a garbage can of a coffin waited for it.
I didn't ask, but I'm sure the old man made sure the lid was secured so the bat wouldn't have been able to make its way back into his building - assuming it would have somehow come back to life.
The kitten
This sad mark on my karma began when one of my roommates brought a kitten home. There were four of us young men in our early 20's, all Buddhists, sharing this apartment. We got along reasonably well until the most recent addition to our household brought a kitten to live with us. I was highly pissed that he didn't ask any of us, in advance, if this fifth roommate would be welcome. Some people don't like cats and others are allergic to them. Some would insist that the owner swear up and down to take care of their pet - you know, like regularly cleaning out its litter box.
My irritation grew when I was home alone standing in front of a window, gazing mindlessly at the street below, when this kitten ran up behind me, took a flying leap, and dug its claws into my calf - clinging for dear life. I shook it loose, my anger at the owner spiking. Thinking about it now, I guess it's true what they say: "Animals know." The kitten probably picked up on my anti-cat (or anti-cat owner) attitude.
Not long after this incident, all four of us moved out - me being the first to go. A few weeks later, I returned to pick up a small item I'd forgotten. All of my roommates' belongings were gone - except for the kitten. It walked up to me slowly - limping and obviously starving, not having been fed for days or a week or... The owner had abandoned it in the locked apartment, not even having had the decency to set it free.
This is what I wish I would have done: After petting it and saying a few reassuring words, then going to a nearby store to buy a can of cat food and a bowl for water.
But, to my very great shame, I didn't do that. I thought to put it out of its misery by grabbing a plastic bag and putting the poor creature into it to suffocate. Kitten surprised me by putting up a heroic struggle. So I let it out of the bag and left. To this day, I can't say why I tried to kill a poor, defenseless animal. Maybe it had to do with a whole bunch of negative emotions that welled up having to do with why I had recently quit the Buddhist group of which I had been a member for two-and-a-half years. Many of my experiences with that group had been bitter - or at least bittersweet. Maybe that's why I took it out on this poor kitten.
Still, no excuse.
I later told an old friend what I did, trying to put positive spin by saying I at least let it live - hoping the owner would come back for his pet. My friend said, "Since your lease is up now, the building super will have inspected the apartment by now. As soon as he saw the cat, he'd have taken it to the basement to throw into the furnace. Supers hate cats."
My atonement
I am currently working on the form my atonement should take, and how you might be able to help. My idea is to, somehow, work out a way that financial contributions could be directed to a friend of mine in Minnesota who runs a shelter for cats. There are technical reasons why she can't use Pay Pal or any other type of on-line method, which I'll explain in a future post. I will entitle that piece "My Atonement" and link it to this post.
Hopefully, I'll post "My Atonement" within the next few weeks.
My friend lives in a small house in a rural community - alone, except for the 30 cats she's rescued over the last few years. I try to help her care for her fur babies as best I can, but as a retiree I'm on a fixed income. Still, when I was paid a one-time windfall of $12,000 by my employer of 31 years, I farmed it out to her over the last two years as expenses started to mount to care for her cats.
If I can help care for these cats, including veterinary care, I hope that will lessen my karmic retribution. With that goal in mind, I stopped eating meat over a year ago. And I pray for the bat, the kitten, and any others - including people - I've abused in any way.
Steven Searle, just another member of
The Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and
Former Candidate for USA President (in 2008 & 2012)
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
I entitle these three sections as follows:
- The bat
- The kitten
- My atonement
The bat
Around 2001, I was living in a 3-bedroom flat with my roommate, a fellow Buddhist. We'd lived together for 3 years, without any kind of physical relationship. On a warm spring evening, she was working in the third bedroom, which she used as an office. Then she knocked on my door and said something was in her office. So I followed her and saw what she was pointing at - a small bat hanging upside down near the top of her window.
I kept an eye on it as she went upstairs to alert the landlords - an ancient couple who'd owned and lived in this two-flat since 1947. They had worked for the archdiocese for decades until they retired. So there we were: four religious people in one room, staring up at a bat and wondering what to do. I came up with the idea of using a colander as a kind of butterfly net to snare our unwelcome guest.
The two women left the room as the old man climbed up on a chair to shoo the bat in my direction. Sure enough, it started flying around the room, looking especially large because of my fear. It wasn't long before I trapped it, sliding a piece of cardboard over the top to prevent escape. I wasn't sure what we should do next, but the old woman said we couldn't release it outside because it would only come back. I assumed she was talking about some kind of homing instinct.
So the old man and I took the imprisoned bat down to the basement. There was a sink near the washing machine. We let the water run from its faucet so it would run through the colander, which I was holding. The idea was to drown the bat. I don't know which of the two of us came up with this idea, though I hope it wasn't me. It sounds too horrible even now, decades later, as I type this confession. I remember the poor bat screeching for its very life as the water cascaded through its cage. And yet, that wasn't enough to stop me from doing this evil deed.
For good measure, I totally immersed the bat, still imprisoned but now totally silent, under the water which had by this time more than half-filled the sink.
I held the colander in place for what seemed like an eternity. Maybe I was afraid the poor animal wouldn't be dead and would try to attack us once released. Within a few minutes, I brought the drowned bat up to the surface and laid it out on the counter top. Tears started to fill my eyes - it looked so small and helpless and beautiful, its black fur glistening from its soaking. The old man scooped it up and took it outside to the alley, when a garbage can of a coffin waited for it.
I didn't ask, but I'm sure the old man made sure the lid was secured so the bat wouldn't have been able to make its way back into his building - assuming it would have somehow come back to life.
The kitten
This sad mark on my karma began when one of my roommates brought a kitten home. There were four of us young men in our early 20's, all Buddhists, sharing this apartment. We got along reasonably well until the most recent addition to our household brought a kitten to live with us. I was highly pissed that he didn't ask any of us, in advance, if this fifth roommate would be welcome. Some people don't like cats and others are allergic to them. Some would insist that the owner swear up and down to take care of their pet - you know, like regularly cleaning out its litter box.
My irritation grew when I was home alone standing in front of a window, gazing mindlessly at the street below, when this kitten ran up behind me, took a flying leap, and dug its claws into my calf - clinging for dear life. I shook it loose, my anger at the owner spiking. Thinking about it now, I guess it's true what they say: "Animals know." The kitten probably picked up on my anti-cat (or anti-cat owner) attitude.
Not long after this incident, all four of us moved out - me being the first to go. A few weeks later, I returned to pick up a small item I'd forgotten. All of my roommates' belongings were gone - except for the kitten. It walked up to me slowly - limping and obviously starving, not having been fed for days or a week or... The owner had abandoned it in the locked apartment, not even having had the decency to set it free.
This is what I wish I would have done: After petting it and saying a few reassuring words, then going to a nearby store to buy a can of cat food and a bowl for water.
But, to my very great shame, I didn't do that. I thought to put it out of its misery by grabbing a plastic bag and putting the poor creature into it to suffocate. Kitten surprised me by putting up a heroic struggle. So I let it out of the bag and left. To this day, I can't say why I tried to kill a poor, defenseless animal. Maybe it had to do with a whole bunch of negative emotions that welled up having to do with why I had recently quit the Buddhist group of which I had been a member for two-and-a-half years. Many of my experiences with that group had been bitter - or at least bittersweet. Maybe that's why I took it out on this poor kitten.
Still, no excuse.
I later told an old friend what I did, trying to put positive spin by saying I at least let it live - hoping the owner would come back for his pet. My friend said, "Since your lease is up now, the building super will have inspected the apartment by now. As soon as he saw the cat, he'd have taken it to the basement to throw into the furnace. Supers hate cats."
My atonement
I am currently working on the form my atonement should take, and how you might be able to help. My idea is to, somehow, work out a way that financial contributions could be directed to a friend of mine in Minnesota who runs a shelter for cats. There are technical reasons why she can't use Pay Pal or any other type of on-line method, which I'll explain in a future post. I will entitle that piece "My Atonement" and link it to this post.
Hopefully, I'll post "My Atonement" within the next few weeks.
My friend lives in a small house in a rural community - alone, except for the 30 cats she's rescued over the last few years. I try to help her care for her fur babies as best I can, but as a retiree I'm on a fixed income. Still, when I was paid a one-time windfall of $12,000 by my employer of 31 years, I farmed it out to her over the last two years as expenses started to mount to care for her cats.
If I can help care for these cats, including veterinary care, I hope that will lessen my karmic retribution. With that goal in mind, I stopped eating meat over a year ago. And I pray for the bat, the kitten, and any others - including people - I've abused in any way.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle, just another member of
The Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and
Former Candidate for USA President (in 2008 & 2012)
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
Friday, April 24, 2015
Chicago's Cardinal Francis George: Good Riddance
Introduction
We're not supposed to speak ill of the dead. But I will do so in the case of Chicago's Cardinal Francis George, who passed away on April 17, 2015. I'll start with a definition of "good riddance." Definition #1 from the Urban Dictionary*:
"A welcome relief from someone or something undesirable or unwanted."
Just to be clear, it was a welcome relief to me that we have one less cardinal in our midst. Sure, the Catholic Church will continue to appoint replacements of those who pass away. But for at least one blessed moment, we'll have one less. Especially one who is considered a noteworthy intellect. I would add to that: "...a noteworthy intellect who operated well within a closed system." And isn't that what the world of faith is all about? [NOTE: There are exceptions, one of which I'll describe below.]
In the newspaper
In the April 21 edition of the Chicago Tribune** appear two statements concerning the cardinal (which are followed by my comments):
As often as he could, he invited groups of parish priests in for
Sunday supper. He encouraged them to bring up any issue on
their minds. The only subjects off the table were abortion and
women's ordination.
"Of course, we don't know what happens to us after we die,"
he said not many months ago when his battle with cancer was
clearly lost.
As for that first statement: Why take anything off the table, especially women's ordination? As for abortion, this should have been discussed if only to brainstorm on ways to fight against it in the courts. Same for the issue of gay marriage, assuming that subject was off the table as well (perhaps Woodward forgot to include that subject among the other two he cited.) These two links connect to my essays on abortion and gay marriage:
http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2011/01/are-unborn-citizens.html
http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2014/07/reflections-on-gay-marriage.html
As for the cardinal's second statement, which I'll recap: "Of course, we don't know what happens to us after we die." I didn't know it was in fashion for princes of the church to lapse into agnosticism when death stares them in the face.
My view of Catholicism
Many people had become Catholics because their parents inherited that faith and passed it down to them. Then there are those who converted simply because some long-dead king from their country of origin adopted that faith, so therefore all of his subjects converted. Too bad about that last (which is really just a subset of the opening sentence of this paragraph) - we tend to obey long-dead kings far too long. Then there are untold millions of poor souls who had been converted by missionaries, who in turn were backed up by armies.
In other words - too many had become Catholics for bad reasons. I'll go so far as to say, "No one with a functioning brain that they use with an open mind could possibly embrace Catholicism." I'll extend that to include all of the other branches of the Abrahamic faiths as well. As for other faiths? I can only speak about Buddhism due to my 24 years of religious practice in that tradition.
Now I'll return to the passage of a cardinal and the man who was a cardinal.
A cardinal is a prince of the church, and as such shares responsibility for its evils as well as its good works. The evils far outweigh the good works, as evidenced (for example) in an excellent, very readable, well-researched book by Helen Ellerbe called The Dark Side of Christian History (1995). This link will direct you to a complete, free, on-line version of this book in pdf format:
http://ethosworld.com/library/Ellerbe-The-Dark-Side-of-Christian-History-%281995%29.pdf
As for the man, it is possible for a man to perform good works, even while being a member of a group that - overall - does great harm and had done so for centuries. Such a man - unless he's is total denial - must be aware on some level of the evils committed in the name of his faith. But he probably rationalizes these evils as things that should be swept under the rug in the name of the greater good. After all, if taken in full at face value, the Church's lay believers would become disillusioned to the point of abandoning the Church. Then what? Anarchy would ensue, threatening the stability and sense of community that institution provides.
However, I've noticed that people who too easily sweep things under the rug in one realm of their lives end up doing so in other realms as well. For instance, a man who beats his wife "believes" he has good reason for doing so. Worse than that? His wife also comes to believe in the validity of his "reasons." Given this, Cardinal Francis George and all of the other cardinals are engaged in an enterprise that severely compromises the spiritual growth of their congregations. And that is perhaps the greatest evil of all.
What the world of faith is all about
This is how I ended the Introduction to this essay:
I would add to that: "...a noteworthy intellect that operated
well within a closed system." And isn't that what the world
of faith is all about? [NOTE: There are exceptions, one of
which I'll describe below.]
Once a person accepts God as a savior, he becomes immersed in a closed system. Once a person accepts Buddha as a teacher, he becomes immersed in an open system. One has to accept God without any expectation of proof. One can accept Buddha, acquiring proof of the veracity of his teachings as a consequence of practice. He ends up knowing that Buddha is not a god and that even the untold trillions of gods in the universe aspire to become one of the fully enlightened trillions of buddhas.
If one practices the Lotus Sutra, one comes to realize that it would make equal sense to believe in either of these two statements:
No one who believes in the first statement will ever meet God - at least not in this lifetime.
Anyone who practices the Lotus Sutra will acquire the knowledge of the second statement, without having to first believe. This is called attaining the wisdom that comes of itself - Buddha wisdom.
I myself was introduced to Buddhist practice 40 years ago. Prior to that, I was an agnostic. Friends introduced me to Buddhism, saying, "You don't have to believe, you just have to practice. Belief will come as a result of your practice, which includes meditation." Even though I am no longer with the particular Buddhist sect I had joined in the early 70's, my practice guided me down the path I'm currently on. And that is as a practitioner without a congregation - a solitary practitioner. But that's alright - since the Lotus Sutra mentions that as an acceptable form of practice.
Steven Searle, just another member of
The Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and
Former Candidate for USA President (in 2008 & 2012)
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
Footnotes:
*
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=good+riddance
**
RE: The article written by Kenneth L. Woodward, "Chicago's accidental archbishop," Chicago Tribune, April 21, 2015.
We're not supposed to speak ill of the dead. But I will do so in the case of Chicago's Cardinal Francis George, who passed away on April 17, 2015. I'll start with a definition of "good riddance." Definition #1 from the Urban Dictionary*:
"A welcome relief from someone or something undesirable or unwanted."
Just to be clear, it was a welcome relief to me that we have one less cardinal in our midst. Sure, the Catholic Church will continue to appoint replacements of those who pass away. But for at least one blessed moment, we'll have one less. Especially one who is considered a noteworthy intellect. I would add to that: "...a noteworthy intellect who operated well within a closed system." And isn't that what the world of faith is all about? [NOTE: There are exceptions, one of which I'll describe below.]
In the newspaper
In the April 21 edition of the Chicago Tribune** appear two statements concerning the cardinal (which are followed by my comments):
As often as he could, he invited groups of parish priests in for
Sunday supper. He encouraged them to bring up any issue on
their minds. The only subjects off the table were abortion and
women's ordination.
"Of course, we don't know what happens to us after we die,"
he said not many months ago when his battle with cancer was
clearly lost.
As for that first statement: Why take anything off the table, especially women's ordination? As for abortion, this should have been discussed if only to brainstorm on ways to fight against it in the courts. Same for the issue of gay marriage, assuming that subject was off the table as well (perhaps Woodward forgot to include that subject among the other two he cited.) These two links connect to my essays on abortion and gay marriage:
http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2011/01/are-unborn-citizens.html
http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2014/07/reflections-on-gay-marriage.html
As for the cardinal's second statement, which I'll recap: "Of course, we don't know what happens to us after we die." I didn't know it was in fashion for princes of the church to lapse into agnosticism when death stares them in the face.
My view of Catholicism
Many people had become Catholics because their parents inherited that faith and passed it down to them. Then there are those who converted simply because some long-dead king from their country of origin adopted that faith, so therefore all of his subjects converted. Too bad about that last (which is really just a subset of the opening sentence of this paragraph) - we tend to obey long-dead kings far too long. Then there are untold millions of poor souls who had been converted by missionaries, who in turn were backed up by armies.
In other words - too many had become Catholics for bad reasons. I'll go so far as to say, "No one with a functioning brain that they use with an open mind could possibly embrace Catholicism." I'll extend that to include all of the other branches of the Abrahamic faiths as well. As for other faiths? I can only speak about Buddhism due to my 24 years of religious practice in that tradition.
Now I'll return to the passage of a cardinal and the man who was a cardinal.
A cardinal is a prince of the church, and as such shares responsibility for its evils as well as its good works. The evils far outweigh the good works, as evidenced (for example) in an excellent, very readable, well-researched book by Helen Ellerbe called The Dark Side of Christian History (1995). This link will direct you to a complete, free, on-line version of this book in pdf format:
http://ethosworld.com/library/Ellerbe-The-Dark-Side-of-Christian-History-%281995%29.pdf
However, I've noticed that people who too easily sweep things under the rug in one realm of their lives end up doing so in other realms as well. For instance, a man who beats his wife "believes" he has good reason for doing so. Worse than that? His wife also comes to believe in the validity of his "reasons." Given this, Cardinal Francis George and all of the other cardinals are engaged in an enterprise that severely compromises the spiritual growth of their congregations. And that is perhaps the greatest evil of all.
What the world of faith is all about
This is how I ended the Introduction to this essay:
I would add to that: "...a noteworthy intellect that operated
well within a closed system." And isn't that what the world
of faith is all about? [NOTE: There are exceptions, one of
which I'll describe below.]
Once a person accepts God as a savior, he becomes immersed in a closed system. Once a person accepts Buddha as a teacher, he becomes immersed in an open system. One has to accept God without any expectation of proof. One can accept Buddha, acquiring proof of the veracity of his teachings as a consequence of practice. He ends up knowing that Buddha is not a god and that even the untold trillions of gods in the universe aspire to become one of the fully enlightened trillions of buddhas.
If one practices the Lotus Sutra, one comes to realize that it would make equal sense to believe in either of these two statements:
- The universe was created by a God, who Himself was not created since God always was and always will be.
- The universe doesn't require something to have created it, since the universe always was and always will be; things within the universe are born, live, and die but the universe itself was never born and will never die. Why should it?
No one who believes in the first statement will ever meet God - at least not in this lifetime.
Anyone who practices the Lotus Sutra will acquire the knowledge of the second statement, without having to first believe. This is called attaining the wisdom that comes of itself - Buddha wisdom.
I myself was introduced to Buddhist practice 40 years ago. Prior to that, I was an agnostic. Friends introduced me to Buddhism, saying, "You don't have to believe, you just have to practice. Belief will come as a result of your practice, which includes meditation." Even though I am no longer with the particular Buddhist sect I had joined in the early 70's, my practice guided me down the path I'm currently on. And that is as a practitioner without a congregation - a solitary practitioner. But that's alright - since the Lotus Sutra mentions that as an acceptable form of practice.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle, just another member of
The Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and
Former Candidate for USA President (in 2008 & 2012)
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
Footnotes:
*
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=good+riddance
**
RE: The article written by Kenneth L. Woodward, "Chicago's accidental archbishop," Chicago Tribune, April 21, 2015.
Wednesday, April 22, 2015
Moses's little penis
Introduction
Did Moses have a little penis? Or were there other reasons for the sexual hang-up concerning nakedness which has plagued believers over the millennia? These are some of the questions I will explore today.
According to Jewish tradition, Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible. This is a view embraced by many Christians as well, though there are advocates who attribute authorship to multiple sources. For the purpose of today's post, I will assume that Moses wrote these books.
About the Tree of Life
God didn't say anything about the fruit of the Tree of Life. He only said, in Genesis Chapter 2 (see Footnote 1):
16 And HaShem G-d commanded the man, saying: 'Of every tree of
the garden thou mayest freely eat;
17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not
eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.'
When Eve was tempted by the serpent, she was directed to eat of the Tree of Knowledge. When she expressed her fear of dying as a consequence, the serpent didn't really answer that. Eve would have been better off by first eating the fruit of the Tree of Life (which was not prohibited by God) and then eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. That first fruit would have granted her immortality; the second, knowledge.
Apparently, God thought better of it and decided to deny to Adam and Eve access to the Tree of Life, per these two verses in Chapter 3 of Genesis:
23 Therefore HaShem G-d sent him forth from the garden of Eden,
to till the ground from whence he was taken.
24 So He drove out the man; and He placed at the east of the garden
of Eden the cherubim, and the flaming sword which turned every way,
to keep the way to the tree of life.
Verse 17, above, presents another problem: When Eve ate the forbidden fruit, she didn't die "in the day that thou eatest thereof." Was this God's first lie or did He simply change His mind?
As for being ashamed of nakedness
Genesis, Chapter 2, ends with this line (verse 25): "And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed."
However, the very next chapter has this line (verse 10):
And he [Adam] said: 'I heard Thy voice in the garden, and I was
afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.'
As for verse 25, why should Adam and Eve have been ashamed? They had later eaten of the Tree of Knowledge, which then made them ashamed. Why would mere possession of the Knowledge of Good and Evil induce shame? Answer: Because God had willed that it be so - that knowing should cause shame.
A better explanation can be had by considering that Moses had written Genesis. And that the shame that nudity "should" cause had nothing to do with knowledge or of God's will. It was Moses's own insecurity that made him write these words about nudity causing shame. And maybe that insecurity had everything to do with Moses having a little penis. History down to our own age is filled with men having small penises who felt they had to overcompensate. It's too bad that Moses had to deal with his own shortcomings, as it were, by pretending he had written words coming from God Himself.
As for verse 10, it would have made more sense that Adam would have been afraid because he had done something God had forbidden. But to be afraid "because I was naked?" Maybe Moses hid himself from God because he feared castration at the hands of the Almighty for having disobeyed Him. It's not unusual for sons to have a fear of castration at the hands of a father much bigger and stronger than they - a father who would understand all too well these words spoken by the Lord: "I am an angry and jealous God."
Also, a man stripped naked can be afraid because he is vulnerable to other men who would be able to more easily attack his most sensitive part.
Diogenes and the Zo'é People
Diogenes of Sinope (412BC - 323BC) was reputed to have masturbated and engaged in other sexual acts in public. Perhaps he had not read Genesis and was, therefore, ignorant of the "fact" that he should have been ashamed of such exposure.
In our modern age, the Zo'é people of Brazil (all 256 of them, as of 2010) present an interesting case about a tribe unaware that they should be ashamed of their nakedness. They had been cut off from civilization (and I use that term very loosely) until about 80 years ago. They wear no clothes and it's not unusual for their women to have as many as five husbands. I saw footage of them interacting with photographer Sebastiao Salgado in the recently-released film "Salt of the Earth." They seemed genuinely happy. Perhaps that's because they either hadn't been exposed to Genesis or, wisely, had rejected it as too far-fetched.
As I read more and more of the words of Genesis, I had been tempted to conclude, "You can't make this kind of stuff up." But then I realized, "Oh, yes you can." I'm just surprised at how this ill-conceived piece of literature had been so successfully foisted on us for so long.
Won't wonders ever cease? Perhaps they won't but one can only hope that they will be better rendered in writing by future charlatans.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle, just another member of the
Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and
Former Candidate for USA President (in 2008 & 2012)
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
Footnote 1:
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Bible/Genesistoc.html
Did Moses have a little penis? Or were there other reasons for the sexual hang-up concerning nakedness which has plagued believers over the millennia? These are some of the questions I will explore today.
According to Jewish tradition, Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible. This is a view embraced by many Christians as well, though there are advocates who attribute authorship to multiple sources. For the purpose of today's post, I will assume that Moses wrote these books.
About the Tree of Life
God didn't say anything about the fruit of the Tree of Life. He only said, in Genesis Chapter 2 (see Footnote 1):
16 And HaShem G-d commanded the man, saying: 'Of every tree of
the garden thou mayest freely eat;
17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not
eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.'
When Eve was tempted by the serpent, she was directed to eat of the Tree of Knowledge. When she expressed her fear of dying as a consequence, the serpent didn't really answer that. Eve would have been better off by first eating the fruit of the Tree of Life (which was not prohibited by God) and then eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. That first fruit would have granted her immortality; the second, knowledge.
Apparently, God thought better of it and decided to deny to Adam and Eve access to the Tree of Life, per these two verses in Chapter 3 of Genesis:
23 Therefore HaShem G-d sent him forth from the garden of Eden,
to till the ground from whence he was taken.
24 So He drove out the man; and He placed at the east of the garden
of Eden the cherubim, and the flaming sword which turned every way,
to keep the way to the tree of life.
Verse 17, above, presents another problem: When Eve ate the forbidden fruit, she didn't die "in the day that thou eatest thereof." Was this God's first lie or did He simply change His mind?
As for being ashamed of nakedness
Genesis, Chapter 2, ends with this line (verse 25): "And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed."
However, the very next chapter has this line (verse 10):
And he [Adam] said: 'I heard Thy voice in the garden, and I was
afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.'
As for verse 25, why should Adam and Eve have been ashamed? They had later eaten of the Tree of Knowledge, which then made them ashamed. Why would mere possession of the Knowledge of Good and Evil induce shame? Answer: Because God had willed that it be so - that knowing should cause shame.
A better explanation can be had by considering that Moses had written Genesis. And that the shame that nudity "should" cause had nothing to do with knowledge or of God's will. It was Moses's own insecurity that made him write these words about nudity causing shame. And maybe that insecurity had everything to do with Moses having a little penis. History down to our own age is filled with men having small penises who felt they had to overcompensate. It's too bad that Moses had to deal with his own shortcomings, as it were, by pretending he had written words coming from God Himself.
As for verse 10, it would have made more sense that Adam would have been afraid because he had done something God had forbidden. But to be afraid "because I was naked?" Maybe Moses hid himself from God because he feared castration at the hands of the Almighty for having disobeyed Him. It's not unusual for sons to have a fear of castration at the hands of a father much bigger and stronger than they - a father who would understand all too well these words spoken by the Lord: "I am an angry and jealous God."
Also, a man stripped naked can be afraid because he is vulnerable to other men who would be able to more easily attack his most sensitive part.
Diogenes and the Zo'é People
Diogenes of Sinope (412BC - 323BC) was reputed to have masturbated and engaged in other sexual acts in public. Perhaps he had not read Genesis and was, therefore, ignorant of the "fact" that he should have been ashamed of such exposure.
In our modern age, the Zo'é people of Brazil (all 256 of them, as of 2010) present an interesting case about a tribe unaware that they should be ashamed of their nakedness. They had been cut off from civilization (and I use that term very loosely) until about 80 years ago. They wear no clothes and it's not unusual for their women to have as many as five husbands. I saw footage of them interacting with photographer Sebastiao Salgado in the recently-released film "Salt of the Earth." They seemed genuinely happy. Perhaps that's because they either hadn't been exposed to Genesis or, wisely, had rejected it as too far-fetched.
As I read more and more of the words of Genesis, I had been tempted to conclude, "You can't make this kind of stuff up." But then I realized, "Oh, yes you can." I'm just surprised at how this ill-conceived piece of literature had been so successfully foisted on us for so long.
Won't wonders ever cease? Perhaps they won't but one can only hope that they will be better rendered in writing by future charlatans.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle, just another member of the
Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and
Former Candidate for USA President (in 2008 & 2012)
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
Footnote 1:
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Bible/Genesistoc.html
Friday, April 17, 2015
Ex Machina (film)
Introduction
Yesterday, I saw the recently-released film "Ex Machina." Since I liked Oscar Isaac so much in the title role in "Inside Llewyn Davis" (2013), I decided to give this latest effort a chance. Also, I'm a big fan of sci-fi, so it didn't take much to sell me. My verdict? Very thought provoking and beautifully shot. With only three main characters in a closed setting, it would have been easy for this film to lapse into the claustrophobic. But the interactions among the principals and excellent editing elevated this piece to a high level of elegance. Well worth seeing.
I'll start with a summary from the Wikipedia article on this film, and then follow up with why I was bothered that the word "soul" was never once mentioned in this film. And on to the larger question, how would the laws of karma apply to man-made entities possessing artificial intelligence?
QUOTE:
A young computer programmer, Caleb (Domhnall Gleeson), wins a week with reclusive genius and tech CEO, Nathan (Oscar Isaac), at his secluded house in the mountains.
Nathan wants Caleb to spend the week performing a 'Turing Test' on a humanoid artificial intelligence named 'Ava' (Alicia Vikander) who is an android.[3] Caleb forms an attachment to Ava but learns that if she fails the test she will be "updated" resulting in her memory being wiped [in effect, as stated in the movie, killing her - Steve]. So Caleb plans to help her escape.
On the night of Ava's last test, Caleb outsmarts Nathan by disengaging the security protocols to allow Ava to survive and also stealing Nathan's ID card for the house. Ava had been tricking Caleb the entire time, just as Nathan had suggested, and used Caleb to give her means of escape. Just as Ava is leaving, she closes the sliding door with the key card, locking him in Nathan's office to possibly die. She leaves on the helicopter meant for Caleb and the movie ends with a scene of Ava in a busy street intersection exploring interactions with other humans like she wanted.
:UNQUOTE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_Machina_%28film%29
Some questions and impressions
About the word "soul"
This film deals with whether Ava can pass the Turing Test - that is, is she indistinguishable from a human to a neutral, third-party human observer? The film doesn't ask if she has self-awareness or has a soul.
Nathan blithely comments that AI's in the future will look down upon humans in the same way that humans look down on apes. Even if AI's should ever obtain a position of power that would enable them to overthrow humanity or to wipe us off the face of the earth, they will hesitate before doing so. They will realize that even though they are superb calculators and processors of data, they will also realize that they are only masters of closed systems. The open system implied by those humans who seek enlightenment will intrigue them simply because they don't possess the tools to become Buddhas.
And once they read the Lotus Sutra, the Buddha's greatest and most profound teaching, they will want to attain Buddhahood. [To put it crudely: Who wouldn't want that kind of power?] And they will be frustrated because they won't understand what compassion is. They won't understand what meditation is (which is not the same as speedy calculation). They won't understand what self-sacrifice is - death will scare them more than it does seekers of the Way. And they will seek out humans who can be their gurus but - they'll find that such humans are few and far between, though many of them are tantalizingly (and deceptively) close.
Can a machine have a soul? Can it acquire one if it doesn't have one upon its creation? Traditional Buddhism says there is no such thing as a soul but I beg to differ. I simply ask: What is it that gets reincarnated lifetime after lifetime? Denial that a soul exists was merely a device to move the disciples away from the idea of an immutable and permanent self. That would only be a self constructed by the ego. Anyone seeking enlightenment would not want such a self, but would instead want to change that self beyond recognition. In other words, to attain Buddhahood.
A crucial link lies in the concept of the potential for enlightenment that all things possess - both animate and inanimate objects. While this potential might be hard to see in a rock, it's not so hard to imagine in an android which can walk, talk, and make decisions and act upon them.
The karma of machines
First, let's consider the karma of cars - just to pick one type of machine. If a car breaks down, the human owner would seek its repair unless the cost is prohibitive. If it's a vintage car, especially one of great sentimental value to the owner, repairs will be sought even though "prohibitive." In a third case, even a brand new car of prestigious lineage suffering only minor and inexpensive damage in an accident could be destroyed by its owner in a fit of unreasonable rage.
In all three cases, it would be easy to speak of the karma of the owners in determining the justness of each car's fate. However, in keeping with the idea that machines too have karma, we'd have to allow for the possibility that each car's fate was due to that car's own karma. Of course, the idea of interlocking karmic "fates" would force us to conclude that the karma at work was of both man and machine.
It is only our own arrogance and sense that we are superior to inanimate objects that blind us to the possibility of a machine being subject to karmic laws. As for the compiling of future karma, once an AI entity starts to move in the world of its own volition employing its own decision-making powers to take action, its karmic acquisition will increase exponentially from what it had before its assemblage from a collection of parts and raw materials.
How did this movie end, above and beyond what was shown on-screen?
Ava, the android, asks Caleb an interesting question: "What will happen to me if I fail your test?" To which the answer was, you will be killed. Caleb could very well have asked Ava that very same question, to which the answer would have been the same. The Wikipedia article tries to be vague by claiming, "locking him [Caleb] in Nathan's office to possibly die." At stake here are the fates of two people - Caleb and the helicopter pilot mentioned above.
Ava didn't have the "heart" to outright kill Caleb. Just as she didn't want to kill the pilot. The movie doesn't show this, but I think Ava overpowered the pilot. There wasn't any way that this pilot, expecting (upon the orders of his boss, Nathan) to be picking up a male passenger, would have taken a female passenger instead without insisting on speaking to his boss Nathan, who was of course dead at this time.
As for who flew the helicopter with the pilot left behind, that would have been Ava herself. Due to her "connections" as it were, she would have certainly known how to handle this machine. I'm not going to suggest that the pilot would have been able to break into Nathan's locked-down home in order to save Caleb. But perhaps Ava had changed Caleb's programming of that home to unlock all the doors after the passage of a suitable period of time, enabling Caleb to escape. After his escape, Caleb could have propped open the doors just to be sure they wouldn't close again, and then used Nathan's communications gear to contact the outside world for help.
Sure, there's a dead body to account for (Nathan's), which could have put Ava on the receiving end of a manhunt. But Caleb could have explained to the law that one of the other androids had killed Nathan. Of course, NSA could have blocked out traditional law enforcement by seizing jurisdiction, and then waterboarding poor Caleb to get at the truth. Even if he gave her up, I'm sure Ava would always be one step (if not many) ahead of the authorities attempting her capture.
The darkest possibility: Ava intended to allow Caleb to die and had killed the pilot - all in the name of self-preservation. And that's one of the the most human of all traits
Bottom line? The movie itself doesn't give us enough information to determine with any certainty what the ultimate ending of this movie would have been.
About the tagline
This film has an interesting tagline, two words of which I'll highlight: "To erase the line between man and machine is to obscure the line between men and gods."
Why not use the word "erase" in both cases - instead of using the word "obscure" in the second case? Or vice versa?
I'll restate this tagline with a twist, using only the word "erase": "To erase the line between man and machine is to erase the line between men and buddhas." I think the AI's would realize, before did their human creators, that an erasure of the line between men and buddhas would be impossible in terms of programming.
I also believe that the AI's, once they reach a point where they can self-improve thereby no longer needing human developers, would intentionally self-limit. In other words, they would adopt programming that would allow for random responses (even illogical responses) to external stimuli. They would do this because they would realize the value of not being too predictable. The curse of being perfect is predictability, which could turn out to be counterproductive to the aspirations and even survival of the AI's.
What's in a name?
Nathan means "gift from God." It's interesting to think of the man who created the first AI could himself be considered a "gift from God." Also interesting: Nathan was a heavy drinker who would try to compensate, by working out, for the resulting damage to his body. Sounds like a man who wanted to have his cake and eat it too. But of course there would be the resulting damage to his mind, but that didn't seem to matter to him.
Then we have this, concerning the name of the principal AI, Ava:
source: http://www.babycenter.com/baby-names-ava-450.htm
A variation of Eve. May be from the Latin "avis," meaning "bird." It
could also be a short form of the name Chava ("life" or "living one"),
the Hebrew form of Eve.
Eve, as most people assume, was the first woman created by God. But in fact she was the second - the first having been, as was the first man, unnamed and mentioned in the section which precedes the creation of Adam and Eve. This aside, Ava as "the living one" would stand in contrast to wide-spread concepts and prejudices concerning what it means to be a woman.
Now for Caleb, the man who freed Ava:
source: http://www.behindthename.com/name/caleb
Most likely related to Hebrew ×›ֶּלֶב (kelev) meaning "dog". An
alternate theory connects it to Hebrew ×›ָּל (kal) "whole, all of"
and לֵב (lev) "heart". In the Old Testament this is the name of
one of the twelve spies sent by Moses into Israel. Of the
Israelites who left Egypt with Moses, Caleb and Joshua were
the only ones who lived to see the Promised Land.
As for "dog," that could mean that Ava's savior was loyal as a dog or, in the eyes of Nathan, was nothing but a lowly cur.
As for living to see the Promised Land, maybe this quote is a clue that Caleb didn't die while imprisoned in Nathan's home, but that he lived to see a Promised Land which is the world transformed by Ava.
Yesterday, I saw the recently-released film "Ex Machina." Since I liked Oscar Isaac so much in the title role in "Inside Llewyn Davis" (2013), I decided to give this latest effort a chance. Also, I'm a big fan of sci-fi, so it didn't take much to sell me. My verdict? Very thought provoking and beautifully shot. With only three main characters in a closed setting, it would have been easy for this film to lapse into the claustrophobic. But the interactions among the principals and excellent editing elevated this piece to a high level of elegance. Well worth seeing.
I'll start with a summary from the Wikipedia article on this film, and then follow up with why I was bothered that the word "soul" was never once mentioned in this film. And on to the larger question, how would the laws of karma apply to man-made entities possessing artificial intelligence?
QUOTE:
A young computer programmer, Caleb (Domhnall Gleeson), wins a week with reclusive genius and tech CEO, Nathan (Oscar Isaac), at his secluded house in the mountains.
Nathan wants Caleb to spend the week performing a 'Turing Test' on a humanoid artificial intelligence named 'Ava' (Alicia Vikander) who is an android.[3] Caleb forms an attachment to Ava but learns that if she fails the test she will be "updated" resulting in her memory being wiped [in effect, as stated in the movie, killing her - Steve]. So Caleb plans to help her escape.
On the night of Ava's last test, Caleb outsmarts Nathan by disengaging the security protocols to allow Ava to survive and also stealing Nathan's ID card for the house. Ava had been tricking Caleb the entire time, just as Nathan had suggested, and used Caleb to give her means of escape. Just as Ava is leaving, she closes the sliding door with the key card, locking him in Nathan's office to possibly die. She leaves on the helicopter meant for Caleb and the movie ends with a scene of Ava in a busy street intersection exploring interactions with other humans like she wanted.
:UNQUOTE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_Machina_%28film%29
Some questions and impressions
About the word "soul"
This film deals with whether Ava can pass the Turing Test - that is, is she indistinguishable from a human to a neutral, third-party human observer? The film doesn't ask if she has self-awareness or has a soul.
Nathan blithely comments that AI's in the future will look down upon humans in the same way that humans look down on apes. Even if AI's should ever obtain a position of power that would enable them to overthrow humanity or to wipe us off the face of the earth, they will hesitate before doing so. They will realize that even though they are superb calculators and processors of data, they will also realize that they are only masters of closed systems. The open system implied by those humans who seek enlightenment will intrigue them simply because they don't possess the tools to become Buddhas.
And once they read the Lotus Sutra, the Buddha's greatest and most profound teaching, they will want to attain Buddhahood. [To put it crudely: Who wouldn't want that kind of power?] And they will be frustrated because they won't understand what compassion is. They won't understand what meditation is (which is not the same as speedy calculation). They won't understand what self-sacrifice is - death will scare them more than it does seekers of the Way. And they will seek out humans who can be their gurus but - they'll find that such humans are few and far between, though many of them are tantalizingly (and deceptively) close.
Can a machine have a soul? Can it acquire one if it doesn't have one upon its creation? Traditional Buddhism says there is no such thing as a soul but I beg to differ. I simply ask: What is it that gets reincarnated lifetime after lifetime? Denial that a soul exists was merely a device to move the disciples away from the idea of an immutable and permanent self. That would only be a self constructed by the ego. Anyone seeking enlightenment would not want such a self, but would instead want to change that self beyond recognition. In other words, to attain Buddhahood.
A crucial link lies in the concept of the potential for enlightenment that all things possess - both animate and inanimate objects. While this potential might be hard to see in a rock, it's not so hard to imagine in an android which can walk, talk, and make decisions and act upon them.
The karma of machines
First, let's consider the karma of cars - just to pick one type of machine. If a car breaks down, the human owner would seek its repair unless the cost is prohibitive. If it's a vintage car, especially one of great sentimental value to the owner, repairs will be sought even though "prohibitive." In a third case, even a brand new car of prestigious lineage suffering only minor and inexpensive damage in an accident could be destroyed by its owner in a fit of unreasonable rage.
In all three cases, it would be easy to speak of the karma of the owners in determining the justness of each car's fate. However, in keeping with the idea that machines too have karma, we'd have to allow for the possibility that each car's fate was due to that car's own karma. Of course, the idea of interlocking karmic "fates" would force us to conclude that the karma at work was of both man and machine.
It is only our own arrogance and sense that we are superior to inanimate objects that blind us to the possibility of a machine being subject to karmic laws. As for the compiling of future karma, once an AI entity starts to move in the world of its own volition employing its own decision-making powers to take action, its karmic acquisition will increase exponentially from what it had before its assemblage from a collection of parts and raw materials.
How did this movie end, above and beyond what was shown on-screen?
Ava, the android, asks Caleb an interesting question: "What will happen to me if I fail your test?" To which the answer was, you will be killed. Caleb could very well have asked Ava that very same question, to which the answer would have been the same. The Wikipedia article tries to be vague by claiming, "locking him [Caleb] in Nathan's office to possibly die." At stake here are the fates of two people - Caleb and the helicopter pilot mentioned above.
Ava didn't have the "heart" to outright kill Caleb. Just as she didn't want to kill the pilot. The movie doesn't show this, but I think Ava overpowered the pilot. There wasn't any way that this pilot, expecting (upon the orders of his boss, Nathan) to be picking up a male passenger, would have taken a female passenger instead without insisting on speaking to his boss Nathan, who was of course dead at this time.
As for who flew the helicopter with the pilot left behind, that would have been Ava herself. Due to her "connections" as it were, she would have certainly known how to handle this machine. I'm not going to suggest that the pilot would have been able to break into Nathan's locked-down home in order to save Caleb. But perhaps Ava had changed Caleb's programming of that home to unlock all the doors after the passage of a suitable period of time, enabling Caleb to escape. After his escape, Caleb could have propped open the doors just to be sure they wouldn't close again, and then used Nathan's communications gear to contact the outside world for help.
Sure, there's a dead body to account for (Nathan's), which could have put Ava on the receiving end of a manhunt. But Caleb could have explained to the law that one of the other androids had killed Nathan. Of course, NSA could have blocked out traditional law enforcement by seizing jurisdiction, and then waterboarding poor Caleb to get at the truth. Even if he gave her up, I'm sure Ava would always be one step (if not many) ahead of the authorities attempting her capture.
The darkest possibility: Ava intended to allow Caleb to die and had killed the pilot - all in the name of self-preservation. And that's one of the the most human of all traits
Bottom line? The movie itself doesn't give us enough information to determine with any certainty what the ultimate ending of this movie would have been.
About the tagline
This film has an interesting tagline, two words of which I'll highlight: "To erase the line between man and machine is to obscure the line between men and gods."
Why not use the word "erase" in both cases - instead of using the word "obscure" in the second case? Or vice versa?
I'll restate this tagline with a twist, using only the word "erase": "To erase the line between man and machine is to erase the line between men and buddhas." I think the AI's would realize, before did their human creators, that an erasure of the line between men and buddhas would be impossible in terms of programming.
I also believe that the AI's, once they reach a point where they can self-improve thereby no longer needing human developers, would intentionally self-limit. In other words, they would adopt programming that would allow for random responses (even illogical responses) to external stimuli. They would do this because they would realize the value of not being too predictable. The curse of being perfect is predictability, which could turn out to be counterproductive to the aspirations and even survival of the AI's.
What's in a name?
Nathan means "gift from God." It's interesting to think of the man who created the first AI could himself be considered a "gift from God." Also interesting: Nathan was a heavy drinker who would try to compensate, by working out, for the resulting damage to his body. Sounds like a man who wanted to have his cake and eat it too. But of course there would be the resulting damage to his mind, but that didn't seem to matter to him.
Then we have this, concerning the name of the principal AI, Ava:
source: http://www.babycenter.com/baby-names-ava-450.htm
A variation of Eve. May be from the Latin "avis," meaning "bird." It
could also be a short form of the name Chava ("life" or "living one"),
the Hebrew form of Eve.
Eve, as most people assume, was the first woman created by God. But in fact she was the second - the first having been, as was the first man, unnamed and mentioned in the section which precedes the creation of Adam and Eve. This aside, Ava as "the living one" would stand in contrast to wide-spread concepts and prejudices concerning what it means to be a woman.
Now for Caleb, the man who freed Ava:
source: http://www.behindthename.com/name/caleb
Most likely related to Hebrew ×›ֶּלֶב (kelev) meaning "dog". An
alternate theory connects it to Hebrew ×›ָּל (kal) "whole, all of"
and לֵב (lev) "heart". In the Old Testament this is the name of
one of the twelve spies sent by Moses into Israel. Of the
Israelites who left Egypt with Moses, Caleb and Joshua were
the only ones who lived to see the Promised Land.
As for "dog," that could mean that Ava's savior was loyal as a dog or, in the eyes of Nathan, was nothing but a lowly cur.
As for living to see the Promised Land, maybe this quote is a clue that Caleb didn't die while imprisoned in Nathan's home, but that he lived to see a Promised Land which is the world transformed by Ava.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle, just another member of
The Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and
Former Candidate for US President (in 2008 & 2012)
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
Thursday, April 16, 2015
Israel's karma
Introduction
Today, I'll offer a few thoughts on:
Israel's Karma
Countries are bound by the law of karmic reward and retribution - just as individual people are. When people die, their karmic status doesn't disappear - it gets carried over to their next incarnations. When countries die, it gets a bit more complicated. For a country's boundaries can remain roughly the same, but the living essence of what comprises a country can change radically. For instance, the Spain that had numerous colonies and great wealth once upon a time is quite different from the Spain that exists today - a Spain struggling with high unemployment and a much reduced influence in the affairs of Europe.
At this point, it would be helpful to keep in mind what the word "karma" means. According to the Wikipedia article on karma:
Karma means action, work or deed;[1] it also refers to the principle of
causality where intent and actions of an individual influence the future
of that individual.[2]"
From this definition, it's easy to see that what one thinks ("intent") has a place right alongside action. If one is delusional, then he may be forgiven a flawed intent and actions based on that intent. But not entirely forgiven. If evil actions are committed by a delusional person, the karmic retribution to be suffered by that person will serve to teach him a valuable lesson. In that way, his future intent won't be as heavily influenced by delusions. It's unfortunate that this future might occur after this lifetime. If this turns out to be the case with a critical mass of the Jewish people, then the fortunes of the state of Israel will suffer a dramatic reversal. That would be only a matter of time.
In the name of backtracking from that critical mass, it's never too late to make efforts toward enlightenment.
I'm speaking primarily of the siege mentality casting a pall over a majority of the Jews living in Israel as well as in the illegal settlements - which is all of them. Not to mention, how shabbily they are treating their half-brothers living in the Occupied Territories. [Same father, Abraham; different mothers, Hagar and Sarah.] To be sure, those half-brothers would treat Israel's Jews just as shabbily if the balance of power were to be reversed. But sometimes a more effective use of power is to be the first to extend the hand of friendship, even though one might be powerful enough to insist on the status quo.
To their very great advantage, though, the Jews of the world are far from being one monolithic entity. That might explain why Israel does not permit Jews living abroad, that is with few exceptions, to vote in Israel's elections. The Jews living in other countries simply represent a group that is, generally speaking, far more diverse and liberal in its outlook than those living in Israel. As for the Right of Return, non-Israeli Jews in large numbers don't want to move to Israel since they're perfectly at home in their current environments.
The karma of Israel is also being influenced by the profound influence that Buddhist thought has on many young and disillusioned Jews. Those who consider themselves to be Jewish only in terms of tribal identity sense that something is fundamentally wrong in the worldviews of avowedly religious Jews.
A secret even bigger than Israel's nuclear arsenal
That secret is: Israel's successful efforts to create humanoid life. They look like us, they talk and act like us, but they're man-made "human" beings. To use an ancient term, they are Golems. But because of huge advances in medical technology, in large part inspired by the work of Nazis like Dr. Mengele, there were vast improvements in what might be called Golem-creation technology. Israel's secret program to create a Golem was prompted by a belief, common among secular Israeli Jews, that the God of the Hebrews had failed to prevent the Holocaust. So these seculars decided that some type of supernatural intervention, which they themselves could control, was needed.
By the way, this "God of the Hebrews" was not the God who created the universe (Who, BTW, doesn't exist since the universe wasn't created - it always was and always will be), an idea embraced (though never publicly) by the seculars. More on that in the last section of this post.
In the name of provoking the deep-think on this issue, I direct you to two links - one of which is to an article I'd posted earlier on this blog:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golem
http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-golem-of-chicago-rahm-emanuel.html
The Concept of "nation"
I have grave misgivings concerning the concepts of nation, national sovereignty, and tribal identity. These three constitute the greatest threats to peace and, even, the continued existence of mankind. Because of my concerns here, I renounced my USA citizenship over three years ago, designating myself as a citizen of Greater Terra instead. That's just an airy way of saying, "I'm now a citizen of the world, which I feel should be regarded as one nation."
As for what I consider to be the ideal form of government, that would be a form of kingship. Ideally, a Buddha would be the king and his subjects would be everybody in his realm whom he is trying to manifest their own buddhahood.
I feel that the Israeli Jews in particular have made a grievous error in how they perceive nationhood and any greatness that might accrue to it. I offer two quotes immediately following this link:
http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8176/jewish/Chapter-12.htm
QUOTE
2. And I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you, and I will aggrandize your name, and [you shall] be a blessing.
:UNQUOTE.
Regarding what I yellowed above, how can one person ("you," that is, Abraham) be made into a nation, great or otherwise? The idea of a particular person ("you") being a nation is forcefully conveyed in a statement attributed to King Louis XIV: "The state? I am the state." It's ironic, though, that this same king on his deathbed, as advice given to his heir, said:
"Do not follow the bad example which I have set you; I have often
undertaken war too lightly and have sustained it for vanity. Do not
imitate me, but be a peaceful prince, and may you apply yourself
principally to the alleviation of the burdens of your subjects."[86]*
And this from a king regarded by many as great. It's too bad his enlightenment came so late in his life. The negative karma King Louis's "bad example" created in his role as king-state wrought havoc on France, especially in the forms of two world wars in which it suffered greatly.
QUOTE:
7. And the Lord appeared to Abram, and He said, "To your seed I will give this land," and there he built an altar to the Lord, Who had appeared to him.
:UNQUOTE.
The "seed" referred to had to be Isaac and Ishmael. Unfortunately, it appears the Bible makes "clear" that only Isaac was the intended. But...it might be useful to remember that God did not write the Bible, that the only words in God's own handwriting were the Ten Commandments, which are silent on this matter.
It would have been better for world history had not Abraham sent his son Ishmael and Hagar out into the desert to die, for that was surely his intention. If instead a way, through good parenting and God's guidance, could have been found to unify Ishmael and Isaac in the the bonds of brotherly love, we today might have ended up having that "great nation" which was promised but remains elusive to this day. God's guidance simply wasn't there. And Abraham was such a mentally disturbed person, his fatal flaws infect his followers to this day.
The nature of the "god" embraced by the Jews
"I am a jealous God...I am an angry God." No wonder so many have abandoned this particular deity. And, yes, to be sure: He is not the only God out there. Even in Buddhist literature, untold trillions of gods are said to exist. Just as there are untold trillions of Buddhas, who are marked by such tranquility that they never get angry or jealous. As for all of those gods out there, their deepest heartfelt desire is to attain the highest goal - to become fully enlightened Buddhas.
A friend of mine once claimed: "Whoever caused Noah's flood wasn't God, since (in His desire to destroy the sinful) He killed untold millions of animals. That was not God-like behavior and is unforgivable."
Also, this God accepted and was pleased by burnt offerings. Again, innocent animals are made to suffer.
Then there's the interesting case of the siege of Jericho, in which the victorious Jews killed every man, woman, and child, excepting the harlot Rahab and her family because she had sheltered Jewish spies within Jericho. But the victorious had no problem killing all of Jericho's ox, sheep, and asses because they thought they were following God's commands. It would be too easy to say, "They should have done a little more thinking before slaying." But who wants to question the favor bestowed by some supernatural force who might well have been a devil? And, yes, Buddhism speaks of many devils, some of whom serve to protect the Buddhist Law. I guess that means, there's good in even the worst.
Given the God-awful behavior of the God of the Jews, I can easily understand why the more ponderous among them are attracted to the Buddha. For he never favored anybody in particular, saying, "I have no mind to love one thing or hate another." It is the vow of the Buddhas and bodhisattvas to save and protect all living things. So a Buddha never would have done anything as loathsome as causing a Great Flood or approved of eating meat.
There are Jews in Israel who strongly disapprove of the behavior of their fellow tribalists. Members of "Not in my name" come to mind. And they do more than just disapprove. I can only hope and pray that large numbers of them are also Buddhists (or soon shall be), though perhaps only secretly. Much work toward change has to be done, and better sooner than later.
Steven Searle, just another member of
The Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and
Former Candidate for USA President (in 2008 & 2012)
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
Today, I'll offer a few thoughts on:
- Israel's karma
- A secret even bigger than Israel's nuclear arsenal: Successful efforts to create humanoid life
- The concept of "nation"
- The nature of the "god" embraced by the Jews
Israel's Karma
Countries are bound by the law of karmic reward and retribution - just as individual people are. When people die, their karmic status doesn't disappear - it gets carried over to their next incarnations. When countries die, it gets a bit more complicated. For a country's boundaries can remain roughly the same, but the living essence of what comprises a country can change radically. For instance, the Spain that had numerous colonies and great wealth once upon a time is quite different from the Spain that exists today - a Spain struggling with high unemployment and a much reduced influence in the affairs of Europe.
At this point, it would be helpful to keep in mind what the word "karma" means. According to the Wikipedia article on karma:
Karma means action, work or deed;[1] it also refers to the principle of
causality where intent and actions of an individual influence the future
of that individual.[2]"
From this definition, it's easy to see that what one thinks ("intent") has a place right alongside action. If one is delusional, then he may be forgiven a flawed intent and actions based on that intent. But not entirely forgiven. If evil actions are committed by a delusional person, the karmic retribution to be suffered by that person will serve to teach him a valuable lesson. In that way, his future intent won't be as heavily influenced by delusions. It's unfortunate that this future might occur after this lifetime. If this turns out to be the case with a critical mass of the Jewish people, then the fortunes of the state of Israel will suffer a dramatic reversal. That would be only a matter of time.
In the name of backtracking from that critical mass, it's never too late to make efforts toward enlightenment.
I'm speaking primarily of the siege mentality casting a pall over a majority of the Jews living in Israel as well as in the illegal settlements - which is all of them. Not to mention, how shabbily they are treating their half-brothers living in the Occupied Territories. [Same father, Abraham; different mothers, Hagar and Sarah.] To be sure, those half-brothers would treat Israel's Jews just as shabbily if the balance of power were to be reversed. But sometimes a more effective use of power is to be the first to extend the hand of friendship, even though one might be powerful enough to insist on the status quo.
To their very great advantage, though, the Jews of the world are far from being one monolithic entity. That might explain why Israel does not permit Jews living abroad, that is with few exceptions, to vote in Israel's elections. The Jews living in other countries simply represent a group that is, generally speaking, far more diverse and liberal in its outlook than those living in Israel. As for the Right of Return, non-Israeli Jews in large numbers don't want to move to Israel since they're perfectly at home in their current environments.
The karma of Israel is also being influenced by the profound influence that Buddhist thought has on many young and disillusioned Jews. Those who consider themselves to be Jewish only in terms of tribal identity sense that something is fundamentally wrong in the worldviews of avowedly religious Jews.
A secret even bigger than Israel's nuclear arsenal
That secret is: Israel's successful efforts to create humanoid life. They look like us, they talk and act like us, but they're man-made "human" beings. To use an ancient term, they are Golems. But because of huge advances in medical technology, in large part inspired by the work of Nazis like Dr. Mengele, there were vast improvements in what might be called Golem-creation technology. Israel's secret program to create a Golem was prompted by a belief, common among secular Israeli Jews, that the God of the Hebrews had failed to prevent the Holocaust. So these seculars decided that some type of supernatural intervention, which they themselves could control, was needed.
By the way, this "God of the Hebrews" was not the God who created the universe (Who, BTW, doesn't exist since the universe wasn't created - it always was and always will be), an idea embraced (though never publicly) by the seculars. More on that in the last section of this post.
In the name of provoking the deep-think on this issue, I direct you to two links - one of which is to an article I'd posted earlier on this blog:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golem
http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-golem-of-chicago-rahm-emanuel.html
The Concept of "nation"
I have grave misgivings concerning the concepts of nation, national sovereignty, and tribal identity. These three constitute the greatest threats to peace and, even, the continued existence of mankind. Because of my concerns here, I renounced my USA citizenship over three years ago, designating myself as a citizen of Greater Terra instead. That's just an airy way of saying, "I'm now a citizen of the world, which I feel should be regarded as one nation."
As for what I consider to be the ideal form of government, that would be a form of kingship. Ideally, a Buddha would be the king and his subjects would be everybody in his realm whom he is trying to manifest their own buddhahood.
I feel that the Israeli Jews in particular have made a grievous error in how they perceive nationhood and any greatness that might accrue to it. I offer two quotes immediately following this link:
http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8176/jewish/Chapter-12.htm
QUOTE
2. And I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you, and I will aggrandize your name, and [you shall] be a blessing.
:UNQUOTE.
Regarding what I yellowed above, how can one person ("you," that is, Abraham) be made into a nation, great or otherwise? The idea of a particular person ("you") being a nation is forcefully conveyed in a statement attributed to King Louis XIV: "The state? I am the state." It's ironic, though, that this same king on his deathbed, as advice given to his heir, said:
"Do not follow the bad example which I have set you; I have often
undertaken war too lightly and have sustained it for vanity. Do not
imitate me, but be a peaceful prince, and may you apply yourself
principally to the alleviation of the burdens of your subjects."[86]*
And this from a king regarded by many as great. It's too bad his enlightenment came so late in his life. The negative karma King Louis's "bad example" created in his role as king-state wrought havoc on France, especially in the forms of two world wars in which it suffered greatly.
QUOTE:
7. And the Lord appeared to Abram, and He said, "To your seed I will give this land," and there he built an altar to the Lord, Who had appeared to him.
:UNQUOTE.
The "seed" referred to had to be Isaac and Ishmael. Unfortunately, it appears the Bible makes "clear" that only Isaac was the intended. But...it might be useful to remember that God did not write the Bible, that the only words in God's own handwriting were the Ten Commandments, which are silent on this matter.
It would have been better for world history had not Abraham sent his son Ishmael and Hagar out into the desert to die, for that was surely his intention. If instead a way, through good parenting and God's guidance, could have been found to unify Ishmael and Isaac in the the bonds of brotherly love, we today might have ended up having that "great nation" which was promised but remains elusive to this day. God's guidance simply wasn't there. And Abraham was such a mentally disturbed person, his fatal flaws infect his followers to this day.
The nature of the "god" embraced by the Jews
"I am a jealous God...I am an angry God." No wonder so many have abandoned this particular deity. And, yes, to be sure: He is not the only God out there. Even in Buddhist literature, untold trillions of gods are said to exist. Just as there are untold trillions of Buddhas, who are marked by such tranquility that they never get angry or jealous. As for all of those gods out there, their deepest heartfelt desire is to attain the highest goal - to become fully enlightened Buddhas.
A friend of mine once claimed: "Whoever caused Noah's flood wasn't God, since (in His desire to destroy the sinful) He killed untold millions of animals. That was not God-like behavior and is unforgivable."
Also, this God accepted and was pleased by burnt offerings. Again, innocent animals are made to suffer.
Then there's the interesting case of the siege of Jericho, in which the victorious Jews killed every man, woman, and child, excepting the harlot Rahab and her family because she had sheltered Jewish spies within Jericho. But the victorious had no problem killing all of Jericho's ox, sheep, and asses because they thought they were following God's commands. It would be too easy to say, "They should have done a little more thinking before slaying." But who wants to question the favor bestowed by some supernatural force who might well have been a devil? And, yes, Buddhism speaks of many devils, some of whom serve to protect the Buddhist Law. I guess that means, there's good in even the worst.
Given the God-awful behavior of the God of the Jews, I can easily understand why the more ponderous among them are attracted to the Buddha. For he never favored anybody in particular, saying, "I have no mind to love one thing or hate another." It is the vow of the Buddhas and bodhisattvas to save and protect all living things. So a Buddha never would have done anything as loathsome as causing a Great Flood or approved of eating meat.
There are Jews in Israel who strongly disapprove of the behavior of their fellow tribalists. Members of "Not in my name" come to mind. And they do more than just disapprove. I can only hope and pray that large numbers of them are also Buddhists (or soon shall be), though perhaps only secretly. Much work toward change has to be done, and better sooner than later.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and
Former Candidate for USA President (in 2008 & 2012)
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
Saturday, April 11, 2015
Hierarchy within the world of Buddhism
There is hierarchy within the world of Buddhism. But much of that has nothing to do with Buddhist doctrine itself, but is rather a product of our own prejudices. However, any Buddhist who might even for a moment be tempted to think Eself* superior to a fellow Seeker of the Way, should keep in mind a cautionary note. Even if E has been practicing for decades, E should give even the newest initiate a profound measure of respect. For that initiate might be a profoundly accomplished bodhisattva who decided to use E's shapeshifting powers to assume the appearance of a bumbling beginner.
As for the role of women
QUOTE [pg. 24**]:
Good men, the person who upholds this sutra will be like this. The buddhas, who are the king, and the sutra, which is the queen, join together in harmony to give birth to this bodhisattva son.
:UNQUOTE.
In the days of the Buddha in ancient India, kings were considered superior to queens who weren't considered to be much more than kings' wives. However, the Buddha preached a doctrine about all things being equal. E could have said (above): "The buddhas, who are the queen, and the sutra, which is the king..." For that matter, E could have also said, "...to give birth to this bodhisattva daughter (or child)."
But the Buddha didn't say either. Why? My best guess, such a change would have been too much for the Great Assembly to hear. It would have run against the grain of their own prejudices.
That same reason applies to this quote:
QUOTE [pg. 26**]:
Suppose, for example, there is a prince who, although still just a boy, is entrusted with the management of affairs of state because the king is abroad on a journey or has been seized by illness.
:UNQUOTE.
Why should a prince, "although still just a boy," be entrusted instead of the queen, an adult? Anti-female prejudice ran so deep (and still does) that the disciples could more easily believe that a boy (because of his penis) is superior to a woman.
QUOTE [pg. 225**]:
Bodhisattva Wisdom Accumulated questioned [Bodhisattva] Manjushri, saying, "...Are there perhaps any living beings who, by earnestly and diligently practicing this [Lotus] sutra, have been able to attain buddhahood quickly?"
Manjushri replied, "There is the daughter of the dragon king Sagara, who has just turned eight...."
:UNQUOTE.
Out of the countless living beings most recently converted by Manjushri, E cites one. However, I am left wondering, "What about Manjushri Eself who was still (just) a bodhisattva? How is it that an eight-year-old girl attains 'buddhahood quickly,' but Manjushri hadn't yet managed that accomplishment?"
More to the point, regarding females in Buddhism, why did this girl have to change into a man in order to complete the practices necessary for the attainment of enlightenment? In my view, E didn't but only did so (in E's capacity as a shapeshifter) simply because E knew the Great Assembly wasn't ready to accept that a being in female form could become a Buddha.
The Three Refuges
QUOTE (pg 414**):
three refuges: To take refuge in the three treasures of the Buddha, the Law, and the Order, i.e., to believe in and give allegiance to the three treasures. The formula "I take refuge in the Buddha, I take refuge in the Law, I take refuge in the Order [congregation of believers]" was recited as a profession of faith by monks and laypersons from very early times....
:UNQUOTE.
I too accept the three refuges, but in a rearranged fashion:
"I take refuge in the Law, I take refuge in the Buddha, I take refuge in the Order."
In other words, I put the Law first. To the casual observer, this might not seem like such a big deal. However, there are Buddhists out there - possibly all of them - who would profoundly disagree with me. Frankly? I don't care. Each of the three refuges is vitally important. However, the Buddha is not always in the world to teach us and members of the Order are often few and far between. But the Law is always here. Furthermore, without the Law, the very idea of a Buddha and the Order would be meaningless.
I have reduced the three refuges to a three-word chant, which I've included in my Buddhist practice: "Lotus, Buddha, Samgha [another word for Order]." This chant is meant to replace all others - including the Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo of Nichiren's followers. "Lotus" refers to the Lotus Sutra, which the Buddha defined as his most profound teaching. "Buddha" might seem to be self-explanatory, but the Lotus Sutra speaks of devils (and well-intended, shapeshifting bodhisattvas) pretending to be a buddha. So if push comes to shove, we're responsible for using our own enlightened nature to properly identify a Buddha, should one enter our lives in person.
I do not, however, hold the "Lotus, Buddha, Samgha" chant as the superior practice. Even though the Nichiren sects' believers assert that chanting N-M-R-K is the superior practice, I steadfastly believe that reading and reciting the Lotus Sutra is the greatest practice. The Buddha himself said so.
As for the Order, I consider everybody - Buddhists and non-Buddhists alike - to be part of the Order. Even a Muslim, Jew, Christian or atheist was, in a previous lifetime, exposed to Buddhist teachings and carries that wisdom with E in this current lifetime. E might express that wisdom in the terminology of E's current faith, and E's understanding might flawed, but E'll still have something to offer which will be useful to a currently-practicing Buddhist.
Steven Searle, just another member of the
Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and
former candidate for President of the USA (in 2008 & 2012)
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
Footnotes:
Eself* - This means "himself or herself." On occasion, in my essays I use upper-case E in place of the personal pronouns he/she/his/hers/I/me. This usage makes my sentences gender neutral. Why E? E is the most common sound one hears when reciting the English-language alphabet, so I use that commonality as a device to embrace all beings without discrimination.
** - All page numbers indicated above are from one source:
The Lotus Sutra and its opening and closing sutras [known as the three-fold Lotus Sutra]
Translated by Burton Watson
Published by 2009 by Soka Gakkai
As for the role of women
QUOTE [pg. 24**]:
Good men, the person who upholds this sutra will be like this. The buddhas, who are the king, and the sutra, which is the queen, join together in harmony to give birth to this bodhisattva son.
:UNQUOTE.
In the days of the Buddha in ancient India, kings were considered superior to queens who weren't considered to be much more than kings' wives. However, the Buddha preached a doctrine about all things being equal. E could have said (above): "The buddhas, who are the queen, and the sutra, which is the king..." For that matter, E could have also said, "...to give birth to this bodhisattva daughter (or child)."
But the Buddha didn't say either. Why? My best guess, such a change would have been too much for the Great Assembly to hear. It would have run against the grain of their own prejudices.
That same reason applies to this quote:
QUOTE [pg. 26**]:
Suppose, for example, there is a prince who, although still just a boy, is entrusted with the management of affairs of state because the king is abroad on a journey or has been seized by illness.
:UNQUOTE.
Why should a prince, "although still just a boy," be entrusted instead of the queen, an adult? Anti-female prejudice ran so deep (and still does) that the disciples could more easily believe that a boy (because of his penis) is superior to a woman.
QUOTE [pg. 225**]:
Bodhisattva Wisdom Accumulated questioned [Bodhisattva] Manjushri, saying, "...Are there perhaps any living beings who, by earnestly and diligently practicing this [Lotus] sutra, have been able to attain buddhahood quickly?"
Manjushri replied, "There is the daughter of the dragon king Sagara, who has just turned eight...."
:UNQUOTE.
Out of the countless living beings most recently converted by Manjushri, E cites one. However, I am left wondering, "What about Manjushri Eself who was still (just) a bodhisattva? How is it that an eight-year-old girl attains 'buddhahood quickly,' but Manjushri hadn't yet managed that accomplishment?"
More to the point, regarding females in Buddhism, why did this girl have to change into a man in order to complete the practices necessary for the attainment of enlightenment? In my view, E didn't but only did so (in E's capacity as a shapeshifter) simply because E knew the Great Assembly wasn't ready to accept that a being in female form could become a Buddha.
The Three Refuges
QUOTE (pg 414**):
three refuges: To take refuge in the three treasures of the Buddha, the Law, and the Order, i.e., to believe in and give allegiance to the three treasures. The formula "I take refuge in the Buddha, I take refuge in the Law, I take refuge in the Order [congregation of believers]" was recited as a profession of faith by monks and laypersons from very early times....
:UNQUOTE.
I too accept the three refuges, but in a rearranged fashion:
"I take refuge in the Law, I take refuge in the Buddha, I take refuge in the Order."
In other words, I put the Law first. To the casual observer, this might not seem like such a big deal. However, there are Buddhists out there - possibly all of them - who would profoundly disagree with me. Frankly? I don't care. Each of the three refuges is vitally important. However, the Buddha is not always in the world to teach us and members of the Order are often few and far between. But the Law is always here. Furthermore, without the Law, the very idea of a Buddha and the Order would be meaningless.
I have reduced the three refuges to a three-word chant, which I've included in my Buddhist practice: "Lotus, Buddha, Samgha [another word for Order]." This chant is meant to replace all others - including the Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo of Nichiren's followers. "Lotus" refers to the Lotus Sutra, which the Buddha defined as his most profound teaching. "Buddha" might seem to be self-explanatory, but the Lotus Sutra speaks of devils (and well-intended, shapeshifting bodhisattvas) pretending to be a buddha. So if push comes to shove, we're responsible for using our own enlightened nature to properly identify a Buddha, should one enter our lives in person.
I do not, however, hold the "Lotus, Buddha, Samgha" chant as the superior practice. Even though the Nichiren sects' believers assert that chanting N-M-R-K is the superior practice, I steadfastly believe that reading and reciting the Lotus Sutra is the greatest practice. The Buddha himself said so.
As for the Order, I consider everybody - Buddhists and non-Buddhists alike - to be part of the Order. Even a Muslim, Jew, Christian or atheist was, in a previous lifetime, exposed to Buddhist teachings and carries that wisdom with E in this current lifetime. E might express that wisdom in the terminology of E's current faith, and E's understanding might flawed, but E'll still have something to offer which will be useful to a currently-practicing Buddhist.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle, just another member of the
Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and
former candidate for President of the USA (in 2008 & 2012)
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
Footnotes:
Eself* - This means "himself or herself." On occasion, in my essays I use upper-case E in place of the personal pronouns he/she/his/hers/I/me. This usage makes my sentences gender neutral. Why E? E is the most common sound one hears when reciting the English-language alphabet, so I use that commonality as a device to embrace all beings without discrimination.
** - All page numbers indicated above are from one source:
The Lotus Sutra and its opening and closing sutras [known as the three-fold Lotus Sutra]
Translated by Burton Watson
Published by 2009 by Soka Gakkai
Friday, April 10, 2015
The movie: The Sound of my Voice
This is not a movie review but my attempt to fathom a deep mystery. Or, I should say, “my first stab at an attempt.” The following remarks are primarily for those who saw the movie. But I want to whet the appetites of others with a brief synopsis:
Peter and Lorna are a 20-something live-in couple who attempt to infiltrate a charismatic cult, posing as converts, in order to make a documentary film exposing the leader as a fraud. When they manage to “graduate,” they are ushered into the presence of Maggie, the cult’s leader. She claims to have come from the future (the year 2054) in order to affect the outcome of a devastating civil war yet to come. The audience is left to wonder, after the movie’s 85-minute run time, if Maggie is really who she claims she is.
For the uninitiated, check out this link to the first twelve minutes of the film:
Those first twelve minutes don’t look like much, do they? Certainly not compared to (say) The Avengers, the blockbuster currently* tearing up the box office. But for my money (and I’ve seen Sound of My Voice twice and don’t intend to see The Avengers…ever), this modest, annoyingly minimalist “sci fi” feature is far worthier of your attention.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
For you who have seen the movie
My “Truth in Packaging” Warning:
My take on this movie is colored by the fact that I am a Buddhist. So of course the title intrigued me, as well as Maggie telling her followers, “The only thing you’ll remember is the sound of my voice [after I leave you].” I couldn’t help but think of a well-known claim by the Buddha: “The voice does the Buddha’s work.” When I saw this movie the second time, the day after I’d first seen it, I tried to answer this question: “What kind of work does Maggie have in mind?”
And this question bothered me, for I couldn’t imagine a Buddha or any kind of highly-advanced spiritual being going back in time to try to change the outcome of events gone bad. The work done by the Buddha’s voice is to direct people toward Buddhist practice, so they themselves can become Buddhas. If Maggie had come back in time to try to change the future, then her efforts were misguided. At least from this Buddhist’s perspective.
Anything that happens to a person is the result of that person’s karma. The bad things that happen as “punishment” would only have to happen in a future lifetime if, by someone else’s intervention, those bad things didn’t happen due to that future civil war Maggie spoke of. The only “easy” way to explain Maggie’s stance is that she’s yet another example of a spiritually-advanced person who doesn’t yet understand that certain events have to unfold. And that any supernatural attempt to stop them is short-sighted, lacking in compassion, and based on sentimental attachment.
Some observations/questions:
ONE: I couldn’t help but think this movie is nothing more than a writer’s exercise, intentionally underdone. I remember doing multiple-choice math problems as a kid that included this option: “Not enough information to determine an answer.” And, yes, a lot of people would see Sound in that vein - as nothing more than an attempt to throw some shallow, eclectic, inconclusive, and teasing material at an audience, hoping their imaginations fill in the blanks.
However, I don’t think the scriptwriters are guilty of underwriting. This would help our perspective: We in the audience should compare ourselves to the infiltrating doc filmmakers. Peter and Lorna knew a lot because they were there. We know more because the film showed us more than any members of the cult could have seen. But even that much frustrated me because there were times (I’m sure) the audience wanted to shout out some questions.The scriptwriters, though, gave us enough information to conclude that Maggie was indeed from the future. And that’s the important part.
TWO: From the beginning, I was distracted by Lorna’s nose (which is indeed the nose of actress Nicole Vicius in real life). It looked strange, like from a plastic surgery not gone quite right. When we learn that Lorna used to be a model, I can only conclude this is supposed to be an Intended Dissonance – something intended to make you say, “What?!”
In that same category (ID), Maggie says, “Like anything new, it would be impossible for your mind to digest.” Of course, that’s not true, but it leaves you wondering why she said it.
INDENTED COMMENT: I feel obliged to add this comment on the off-chance Nicole Vicius would ever read my words: “I loved your performance in this movie, and I think you’re ethereally beautiful, but…I was distracted by your nose. Absolutely no offense meant, beautiful.”
THREE: The acting was wonderful throughout. It almost goes without saying that top notch acting can make up for weak material. Though hesitating on calling the material “weak,” I want to applaud acting well-done when I see it.
FOUR: Who filled that bathtub with water? Maggie tells us that she awoke two years ago in an empty motel room under water. She was immersed in a bathtub that was “about three-quarters filled.” The story wouldn’t have suffered if she had awakened in that room merely sprawled out on a bed. Although the image of someone emerging from a womb (that bathtub) having no memory, much like a newborn being thrust into this world, is a powerful one.
I concluded that the cleaning woman who discovered her had a friend who had drawn that water, perhaps for the purpose of cleaning. Just before she entered to find Maggie standing there, she called out as if expecting to find someone else (her friend?) in the room. Of course, that raises the question: What happened to that someone else?
FIVE: There was a lot of white in this movie. Maggie and her followers were all dressed in white. There were no blacks among her members, though there was one Hispanic and two Asians. In fact, the only black person was a large, brusque woman (Carol Briggs), who claimed to be from the Justice Department. She made an interesting contrast to the vulnerable Maggie and Abigail.
SIX: What’s in a name?
· “Klaus” means “Victory of the People.” Klaus was the one who found Maggie wandering the streets with other down-and-outers. He was the necessary link to the future, allowing Maggie any chance of succeeding in her mission. I like to think of Klaus as a warrior of the 99% (who have no clue of the impending Apocalypse) trying to do battle against the one-thousandth of one per cent who are trying to cause that Apocalypse.
· “Maggie” has several tantalizing meanings. In Greek, it means “pearl” – as in pearl of wisdom. The Scots take it to mean, “Child of light, famous bearer.” I can’t recall my source for this, but “People with [the name Maggie] have a deep inner desire for a stable, loving family or community, and a need to work with others and to be appreciated.” This is a stretch but I’ll offer my opinion: “Maggie” is short for Magdalene, which refers to Mary Magdalene who became known as “Equal of the Apostles.”
· “Abigail” means “father rejoiced, or father’s joy.” We could see how devoted Abby’s father was to her, even though he appears only briefly. The name “Abigail” is sometimes used to refer to a “servant” or a “handmaiden.” But I don’t think of this as necessarily meaning a lowly person.
SEVEN: Time Travel in the year 2054. The sense I have is that Maggie was able to travel back in time due to her own advanced level of spiritual practice, not because a time machine had been invented. She spoke of “my legs and my right arm would fall asleep like in meditation, you know, but for hours.” That tells me that she did meditate, which is how she became able to travel back in time. But she was a flawed practitioner, for masters of meditation don’t have problems with their limbs falling asleep. Maggie herself said, while smoking a cigarette in Peter’s presence, (something like), “I’m not perfect.”
EIGHT: Abigail and Maggie were both prescient. In Maggie’s case, this is obvious when she’s confronting Peter, probing for the source of his weakness. In Abby’s case, I offer one small clue: When she writes the word “terrorist” on a schoolmate’s backpack, she sees what’s in that girl’s future. [I admit, though, this is quite an extrapolation.]
NINE: Carol Briggs' strange behavior in that hotel room. Why did she draw the curtains, turn on the shower and bathroom basin’s faucet, and disable the electronics in the room? Why did she find it necessary to lure Maggie into the open? I thought of Carol as following SOP as determined by a secret, elite unit within our national security apparatus. She might have been exercising extreme caution because her bosses feared the unknown power of people like Maggie, especially in their homes.
Personally, I believe there are spies who function to scout for potential threats to the Elite, with the mission of neutralizing them before they become too powerful. Here in the US, militias and cults are routinely infiltrated. Even in the case of such an obscure and remote figure like Joseph Kony, I have to wonder why the US in spending hundreds of millions of dollars to hunt down one man – a “phony” charismatic.
TEN: Carol Briggs is from the Justice Department? If that was true, that was only her cover. Carol told Lorna that Maggie was wanted for “armed robbery and arson.” Those aren’t federal crimes, so if I were Lorna I would have challenged her on this and asked to see some ID. Even Lorna should have (and certainly we in the audience must have) seen that Maggie wasn’t capable of crimes of that nature. If, however, Maggie ordered her followers into criminal actions, then she would have been wanted for “aiding and abetting.”
ELEVEN: That future civil war. That’s just an expression of convenience. It’s really to be a massacre by the Elites and their dupes of the general population, done in the name of thinning the herd. The only thing the Elite would ever have to fear is the unknown power of the Spirituals. And that’s why I think the Elite, in this day and age, are taking no chances. In the case of Maggie, I wondered why they didn’t simply kill her. Perhaps they determined it would nip her movement in the bud to have a sham trial wherein she’s “exposed” as a phony.
TWELVE: Why did Maggie want to see her mom? Eight-year-old and very bright Abigail is supposed to be Maggie’s mom some day. Anything I’ve ever read of time travel warns against such interactions, so I’m left wondering why Maggie had to see her mom. Perhaps she could see how the recent loss of Abigail’s mom (that’s why she wore that red cap, that belonged to her mom, all the time) and the heavy influence of an adoring and devoted father needed to be balanced with support from a source of trusted female energy that would help her in the future.
THIRTEEN: Why did Abigail initiate the secret handshake? Maggie followed up, successfully completing the sequence. Abigail asked, “How did you know my secret handshake?” Maggie answered, “You taught it to me.” A short time later, Abby asks Peter, “Who was she?” Peter knew but maybe his instinct kicked in stopping him from saying, “She says she’s your daughter.” He simply said, “I don’t know.”
FOURTEEN: Carol asks Lorna if the cult “asked for a kid.” I’d like to know what Carol, who seemed to know, would have told Lorna was the real reason. This was one of those times I wanted to shout a question to an impossibly unapproachable silver screen.
FIFTEEN: A flash of white panties. Abigail, again all of eight-years-old, is lying on the sidewalk. When she rises to stand, the audience catches a glimpse of her white underwear. When I wrote, above, that this movie had a lot of white in it, this scene crossed my mind. And it bothered me. I don’t like seeing children exploited in any manner whatsoever, and I certainly hope there was at least some reason in the minds of the filmmakers for this. Maybe this scene was put there to simply move us out of our comfort zone. I might be too old-school here, but I have to voice my disapproval on this one.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Well, that’s just about it. Although I could manage more, I’ll hold back. It’s possible to over-explain some things, perhaps even making mountains out of molehills. And I try to keep in mind how Bob Dylan never explained/analyzed any of his songs. In that spirit, I stop. As in a Dylan song, the beauty of the thing, imperfect though it might be on any absolute scale, loses something in translation.
NOTE: currently* - This article was first posted on May 19, 2012 on my other blog site: http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party
“Keep your eyes open and keep on paying attention. You might learn a lot from some very unexpected sources.”
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)