Bodhi Tree Diary: Story - Grace for Liberation

This is a narrative I wrote for one of my assignment tasks at UQ. The objective was to write approximately 2000 words about a fictitious personage who is dying (or terminally ill) and trying to explain and embrace his or her religious tradition. In this case I chose Pure Land Buddhism. As far as my friend was concerned, it was a fantastic story. I hope it is engaging, and if I've done my job correctly, touching as well.


*Note: Only the nembutsu and specific Japanese references to Amitabha (such as Oyasama) are written in Japanese pronounciation. All other Buddhist terminology is written in its original Sanskrit enunciation.


The shaking young woman took a deep breath, her heart beating weakly in her ears as she watched a man across the small room, her vision blurred. It would not be long before her body succumbed.
He had been preparing tea when he heard her stir, rasping desperately for air. He bit his lip as he looked over his shoulder at her. It was painful to watch.
She moved again, her breathing quickening uncontrollably. “Hiko-senpai?”
He paused before saying aloud, “Yes, Uyo-chan?”
Her voice was quiet. “Are you there, Hiko?”
“Yes.”
“Come and sit with me.”
Hiko complied, placing the cup of tea on the table and sitting on her bed beside her. She struggled to rise into a sitting position, but he eased her back down, gentle hands pressing lightly onto her quivering shoulders and stroking back her long dark hair. “You should be lying down, Uyo. Your body is fragile, but I’m here. I won’t be leaving you.”
They sat in silence for a few minutes as she eyed the tea, her eyes blinking slowly.
Then, he broke the gentle tranquility. “Is there something you want to say?”
She glanced at him, then nodded. “Hiko-senpai? I have believed all my life. But I haven’t done more bad than good… have I?”
Hiko stared at her, before shaking his head more vigorously than he would have liked. “You have never committed great evil. You have never slandered or obstructed our faith. You will never be reborn in a Hell. I am absolutely certain Amitabha will take you straight to the Pure Land.”
She nodded, holding his hand. “You would always tell me of the saving grace of Amitabha. You had me grow up with the love and compassion of the Buddha of Infinite Light, with the promise that chanting the nembutsu before death would grant me a Pure Land rebirth and a chance at Liberation. Hearing his homage ten times is all Lord Amitabha wants before coming to anyone but the most heinous sinner’s side, and they may rejoice when He leads them to Sukhavati, the Western Paradise.”
He nodded. “It is real, don’t you know?” he did his best to smile. “It’s all real. The promises. The happiness you will find when you meet Him.”
She felt urgency overwhelm her being. There was no guilt that stemmed the tide of this urgency; the moment she understood Amitabha’s loving offer of rebirth in the Western Paradise she knew she needed His support. “Then I must call Him to my side before it’s too late,” she rasped, clutching Hiko’s hand. “I must… recite His homage ten times, or He will never hear me.”
“No,” said Hiko firmly. “I will call to Him on your behalf. He will hear you, most certainly. He will come and bring you to His Pure Land.”
She nodded. “I never doubted once that He existed. When I… when I …” she lowered her head. “It was no one’s fault but my own. Perhaps I had committed a grave crime in a previous life.”
Hiko shook his head. “Why don’t you tell me about Him? What He will do?”
“Our Parent,” whispered Uyo. “Oyasama. He will come, won’t He? He’s our loving Parent. He will take me to the Pure Land. I can practice the faith without any hindrance.” Her eyes began to wander. “I can almost see it already. I can meditate on it. Infinite life in infinite light…”
“Tell me more,” he urged. “Don’t stop.”
“I have meditated on His grace several times, and I could almost see it once again. I saw…” she swallowed. “The setting sun, its gentle radiance. And there He was, towards the west, tipping below the beautiful horizon. Amitabha was like a just and forgiving king, bright but not blinding, shining but not harsh. I saw water…”
“And lapis lazuli?”
“Yes. It was almost like a divine vision, even though I knew I was only meditating.”
“What else did you see?”
“The lotus leaves of the Western Paradise. The flowers and the jewel-trees; even they were joyously proclaiming the compassion and love of Amitabha to all who resided in the Pure Land. I was walking beside the trees; I was stroking them in wonder, and they awakened a meditative calm in me, and I saw in my mind countless other universes, where everything was just as I wanted it to be. Free from defilement, I saw the compassionate Avalokiteshvara, who was offering three wish-granting jewels… and the wise Mahasthamaprapta, whose power pervaded the entire land… these two great beings flanked a giant lotus flower of eighty-four thousand petals… all glimmering in luminosity, reflecting the entire cosmos in themselves.
“And finally…” she smiled, blinking away tears, “I saw Amitabha. His gentle face, eyes slightly open… smiling with infinite compassion. Loving-kindness too profound and powerful to understand completely. Ineffable love, divine and holy mercy that showed all, even unbelievers, a path to the Pure Land.”
“You did well,” murmured Hiko, stroking back her long hair. “So, tell me about Dharmakara. How he and Amitabha are one and the same.”
She looked at him, her eyes clouding. “The monk?”
“Yes.”
“Many eons ago, the compassionate Dharmakara vowed… to become a Buddha of a Pure Land, where devotees could devote their meritorious life into practicing the Dharma. He wanted…” she swallowed. “He wanted a universe where those who had died, and accumulated meritorious karma, to be able to work without hindrance towards the great Liberation. His new universe would combine all the merits of other Pure Lands together… and his Buddha-Field would exceed them all. He succeeded. He really succeeded…”
“And now you are on your way to this universe, dear Uyo-chan.”
“Oh… Amitabha… He is Dharmakara. The ultimate ideal of compassion. And I will be able to meet Him soon…”
“He enters through your heart, dispelling all the delusions of this decadent world. Whatever you request of Him and His Pure Land, it is possible.”
“Should I wish it, I can have eternal life,” whispered Uyo. “Amitabha vows that whoever wants eternal life can have it in His Pure Land. Or, should I want to be a wisdom being, I can be reborn as many times as I want into this samsaric universe to help sentient beings.”
“And which boon do you want to enjoy from His grace?” asked Hiko, biting his lip and suppressing the urge to hold her to him and never let go.
“I want to be a bodhisattva, a wisdom being… like Avalokiteshvara. I want my own heart to be filled with endless love, pity and compassion for the suffering sentient beings of the world because I know, like so many others, what it is like to suffer. I will alleviate the suffering of others, so they may be happy. And then, I will cease completely the suffering of others, so they may be liberated. And…” she looked longingly at him. “I want to see you again, Hiko-senpai. One lifetime like this is not enough to repay your kindness. I want to be reborn many more times, so I can repay my debt to you.”
“But you are wrong. I will see you again. There… there is no debt to repay. There is no debt…” Hiko grunted back a sob. “I will see you again very soon,” he continued, determined to have her hear his words of comfort. “We will encounter one another, for many more lifetimes. So,” he tried to smile, but his voice was weak. “Treat all living beings with respect, love and sincerity. For it might be me.”
She looked at him, her eyes softening, and struggled to sit up again. Momentary, subdued silence hung in the air as Hiko finally relented and reluctantly helped her against the wall, propping up a pillow behind her back.
“I thought… I would be able to recall so much more of what you taught me,” she mumbled, her hand trembling. Instinctively Hiko reached out and held hers in his. “But… but… ” She began to wonder aloud. “Who will I see there? How am I supposed to know which of my friends have the privilege of seeing Amitabha?”
“It’s alright, Uyo. Listen to me. Don’t be afraid. Amitabha is not a Judge. He is not a punisher. There is no hate, or anger, or resentment for Him. Only love.”
She smiled, her lips shaking. “I was the one who wanted you to teach me all this. And now I can’t say anymore… forgive me, Hiko.”
Hiko smiled. “Other-power,” he whispered.
Her eyes widened momentarily, and for the first time since that day, she beamed. “Ah, yes. How could I forget? I… I must have faith. Must have faith…”
“Do you remember when you were just a small child, and you could not accomplish something you wanted to do? What did you do then?”
“I… I asked my father if he could help me.”
“So…” he urged gently.
“So Oyasama will most certainly help me. When we die, we must give up our self-power, no matter how much it helped us in life. We now must rely on Amitabha’s other-power, so we can give ourselves completely to His transcendent love.” She gazed at him, eyes shining. “Am I right? Hiko…”
“Once your Buddha-nature shines, Amitabha will hear you. You will be assured of rebirth in the Pure Land.”
Uyo closed her eyes momentarily as she breathed out a quick prayer. “Oyasama…Let me cross into your vessel of Grand Compassion, away from the turbulent sea of suffering. Be the raft to my Liberation, the shelter to samsara, be the shore of love and radiance on which I sail to.”
Hiko remained silent, pressing his forehead to hers. She wrapped her small hands around his, kissing it. “Hiko. Do not be sad for me. I am not afraid anymore,” she whispered firmly. “You were right all along. You, and the grace of Amitabha, have given me this strength. So when I leave, mourn not. Be free of suffering. We will meet again, I and I will be the first to call out to you.”
Hiko stared at her. She really had… “You have great strength, Uyo,” he said, his smile quivering. “There is no greater gift, than to die in peace, full of love and gratitude, and without hatred. This is how you will see Amitabha, and all the other Buddhas. This is what it means to be a Buddhist. You have realized this long ago, and for that, I can let you go with no regret.”
She nodded, her trembling easing slightly. “Amitabha, the unconditioned embodiment of the law of love,” she said, smiling and holding Hiko close. “Oh, Hiko-senpai. No more pain. No more of this… agony.”
“No more,” he agreed in a whisper, his mouth dry.
I feel the grace of Amitabha working deep within me; my Buddha-nature is shining… she thought. I must bid farewell before I… “Hiko,” she murmured, as he kissed her forehead, and her voice was quiet and steady. “My voice will be strong enough to chant His homage. He will hear me. Please, chant with me so I may hear your voice one last time. You have given me so much.” She smiled. To depart this universe with no resentment, from this man whom I love so much, and into the arms of the Lord of Infinite Light… what more can I ask for? “Goodbye, my dearest Hiko. And thank you.”
He held her tighter. “I will help send you on your way to His realm. Go in peace, child. I love you.”
Several more moments passed as Uyo breathed deeply in Hiko’s warm arms, quietly exultant. And at a silent accord, they began to chant.
“Nama Amida Butsu. Nama Amida Butsu. Nama Amida Butsu. Nama Amida Butsu. Nama Amida Butsu. Nama Amida Butsu…”
Three more times.
Two more times.
One more…
“Nama Amida Butsu.” Uyo fell silent, her eyes closing, and her weak grip loosened slightly on Hiko’s warm shirt. Her smile was radiant, and no longer was her face damp with grief. Hiko placed his cheek close to hers, and she sighed in rapture. “Goodbye, Uyo,” he murmured. “Goodbye.”
They remained in that position, wrapped in the gentle comfort of each other’s arms, trusting in the enlightened grace of Amitabha, until Uyo’s soft breathing ceased. Her head slumped, and her grip on Hiko’s hand relaxed completely.
A single tear left Hiko’s closed eye and trickled slowly down his face.





The end

Chinese San Shou

"San Shou is the quintessence of Wu Shu."


Recently I have been reading up on a Chinese style of kickboxing called San Shou, or unrestricted hand. Developed by the Chinese military in the 1960's, it has now become a popular combat sport as well as the martial art used in the army. As far as the military form goes, it seems to do as well as Krav Maga. In its sport form, it doesn't seem to be as vicious as freestyle fighting. It resembles kickboxing because all ranges of combat are permitted, although knees and elbows (not sure about groundwork) are banned in the sport form. Recently some San Shou fighter called Cung Le defeated a Muay Thai fighter in a MMA tourny. Nice.

Should San Shou continue to be pitted against Muay Thai, Karate, Taekwondo and the most prominent martial arts, we may see Chinese martial arts once again come to the fore, like it did alongside Japanese martial arts in the late 20th century.



E.N. For those who are wondering which martial arts are at the fore right now in terms of effectiveness, I would say Brazilian JuJutsu, Mixed Martial Arts, and submission grappling.

Consolation for the terminally ill.

I am doing a course at uni called Death and Dying. It is classified as a religion course, but focuses more on counselling and pallative care for the terminally ill. I am writing a narrative for my critical essay which requires me to write a short story of a terminally ill person who reconciles with death through a certain religious tradition. I've been writing a lot about Christian theology recently, so I decided to focus on Pure Land Buddhism this time. I will post the narrative when I am finished.

It seems that the dying person must express at least five things to be able to depart the world without regret: "forgive me", "I forgive you", "thank you", "i love you", and "goodbye". Of course this is simplifying a lot - but for one to die without at least some kind of reconciliation with those most important to them is often a terrible end.

Western society is still very uncomfortable with discussing death openly. However there are encouraging signs when those without long to live are supported by both friends and family, their community, and often spiritually. Next week we will be studying "children and grief". I look forward to these very informative and often moving lectures. It sounds strange, it's uni after all, but I think it's safe to say that Death and Dying is a very unique course.

Kyrie Eleison.

It's interesting how Christianity is a "Western" religion, yet it began as a messianic movement in Jerusalem - far from being a Western city like Athens, Rome, or London. Even Judaism and Islam are lumped together as "Western" religions only because they worship the same God (some may not like to admit that, but that's their problem). None of these religions have geographical or spiritual references to the West as we know it; they are Middle-East centric. So what happened here? Perhaps because much of Christianity was inspired by Plato and his philosophy of "forms"? Or that much of the Christian liturgies and masses were composed in Europe by the great European composers?

I wonder why this is? Is it just a reference of the religion that stuck? Or is it presumptuous and rather strange? I'd like to discuss with anyone who is interested.

Foreplay.

Love has been said to be best left to amateurs to explain. This is understandable - love is too unpredictable, too random, a friend once complained, "too screwed up" - to allow scientists to explain.

Divorce in the developed West runs at 50% - in many cases it is higher - when one enters into a committed relationship one can be almost certain that he or she has been in serious relationships with partners previously, whether married or not. Is a new model of romance needed, seeing as how often the current one fails?

Lately I have encountered a growing online movement called MGTOW - Men Going Their Own Way. The main objective of this movement is to expose much of the myth created by contemporary feminism, and also to restore respect for the traditional model of Judeo-Christian marriage. I'm not part of their movement, and I don't agree with everything they advocate, but MGTOW is a refreshing new look at contemporary society and relations between men and women in America, Britain, Canada and Australia.

Love is a subject that has the potential to outlast even the most prolonged philosophical debate or religious discussion. And this is what makes it, one of the craziest and in my opinion, best things in life.

Bodhi Tree Diary: Total Body Workout with only dumbbells

I have developed a total body workout with four "hybrid" exercises, which blend two exercises together in smooth motions. All you need is a pair of dumbbells to work every muscle in your body... do this workout 3 times a week and rest for at least a day in between sessions, since it is a total body workout. Do 2 to 3 sets of 6 to 8 reps for each exercise. Alternate between 1A and 1B, then move onto 2A and 2B.

1A. Reverse Lunge/Shoulder Press Hold a pair of dumbbells in line with your shoulders with one leg in front about 1 foot. As you do a reverse lunge, lift the dumbbells upwards above your head in a shoulder press. Return to starting position, then repeat with other leg.

1B. Dumbbell Jump-Squat to Squat-Thrust/Push-Up Hold a pair of dumbbells at your sides, squat, then jump as high as you can. Land softly into a low squat, then shoot out your legs so you're in the push-up position. Do a push-up, then reverse the motion so you are back in the starting position.

2A. Bent Over Row/Back Extension: Holding a pair of dumbbells at your sides while your upper body is parallel to the floor, lift the dumbbells up to your abdomen. Then, drive your heels into the ground and move into an upright standing position. Reverse the motion to repeat.

2B. Dumbbell Crunch: This one is actually not a hybrid exercise. =) But it is a good dumbbell exercise nevertheless.

The outcome? An efficient and time-saving total body workout. =)

Whole Body Workouts.

As a beginner in martial arts, I think weight training can bring great benefits. My favourite type of workout is the whole body workout, which is performed 3 times a week (preferably Monday, Wednesday and Friday), resting for at least 1 day after each session. I'm not a bodybuilder, so unless time permits, I don't really attempt many isolation exercises. I generally do dead lifts, bench presses, pull-ups, pulldowns, swiss ball exercises, and shoulder presses. Because I believe that the core is the most important part of the body to develop, but also that you should have an evenly balanced body muscle distribution, I workout the whole body. My objective is function, not aesthetics.

Here is my modified version of Alwyn Cosgrove's minimalist workout:

Dumbbell Dead Lift
Dumbbell Incline Press
Bent-Over Row
Wide-Grip Lat Pulldown
Swiss Ball Pike

I particularly emphasise abs - my idol is Bruce Lee in this respect. Leg raises are a great exercise for the lower abs, and if you supplement that with the Swiss Ball Pike, you really have a good abs regimen going.

Split bodypart workout routines are good for those who focus specifically on weight training. Because my main focus is karate and boxing, I can't really risk uneven bodypart development. Total body workouts are my thing, also because they are more fun for me and not so boring (let's admit it, lifting weights is so much more boring than sparring with other people).

Boxing will make you brain dead, son.

I recently received an email from someone which I found, quite frankly, to be a narrow-minded insult to the martial art and sport of boxing. While I know he was concerned for my safety, he seems to have disregarded all the technique and skill and power required in boxing and focused his concerns on one thing: how professional boxers suffer from long-term brain damage and head injuries. This would be perfectly justified, except for one small catch.

I'm not a professional boxer.

Was there ever one person in human history who suffered brain damage by spending a couple of hours skipping rope, shadowboxing, practising technique on a punching bag and floor-to-ceiling ball, some light partner-sparring, then taking a shower and going home?

A very unfortunate person, I suppose. But that's my usual boxing routine. And I don't think I'll ever be that unfortunate.

See, it's not enough that modern martial artists dogmatically stick to one style - if there was a perfect style, there would be only one. One needs to study the entire spectrum. And when it comes to punching and footwork, boxing can contribute greatly to your arsenal of offensive and defensive moves. Yet people ignore the possibility that some will practise boxing simply for fitness, or for self-defense. I wonder, why so many think of boxing as a sport where two brutes beat the shit out of each other with no regard to technique. Once again this is a stereotype of a martial art, which I discussed earlier in my "Misconceptions of Martial Arts" post.


Granted, boxing might give you a couple of bad habits you must watch out for, eg. locking your elbows when you punch. But otherwise, people only get seriously injured in professional boxing.

To be honest, I am getting extremely tired of defending boxing - and the funny thing i'm noticing is, all these unfounded accusations against boxing so far come from people who have never done martial arts before.

If you don't want to get brain damage doing boxing, don't participate in the events that can cause said brain damage, which is professional boxing. I certainly won't.

Thought for the Day.

Why does everyone disagree on matters like religion, God, gods, philosophy, politics, the military, the emotions, altruism, hatred, love, sex, desire, passion, heroes, criminals, life, death, an afterlife, the nature of the universe, the transcendent?

Because the most interesting things in life are always different from the mundane. =)

Worth of my Fist.

Tonight I will be starting an essay for my course Introduction to Ethics. I find that philosophical egoism is the silliest and most contradictory moral position I have ever studied. Essentially, it is the belief that only one's own interests and pleasures matter. Only one's own, no one else's. Superficially this makes sense. But consider the wording, as all philosophers do: ONLY. And herein lies the key. Both normative and descriptive psychological egoism are false because the belief that humans are ALWAYS selfish just isn't true, nor are humans ALWAYS altruistic. Self-interest will always be prevalent, and I'm glad, because otherwise I would starve myself to death, neglect my talents, and never maintain my bulletproof rock-hard shoulders. But helping out a crying kid? For sure. Listen with full attention to someone going through emotional trouble? I'll be there. Why take an extreme path?

Even worse, philosophical egoism is arbitrary. And an arbitrary position cannot be maintained by most rational people, if you consider the following example.

Imagine an occasion that I commit perjury against you in court for one million dollars. You get screwed over due to my perjury, and I walk out never having to work again. Who was "right" in this situation - me or you? Well, there is an answer - but it is certainly not going to come from egoism, because I did the right thing - for me - by committing perjury because my own interests have been advanced. Yet for you - it was totally the wrong thing because YOUR interests were shattered.

And that comes to an even bigger question: How can the worth of my fist be any more than that of a common thug's if all I do is serve my own selfish impulses?

Look, I know people get fed up of my obsession with virtue and warriors - but an ideal warrior fights with virtue. We have plenty of healthy self-interest - it is what keeps us strong, smart, and vital - but we also have a healthy amount of altruism, for this is the measure with which we gauge our higher capacities.

Break through the fog of lies created by egoists and emerge into the beautiful universe. A fist of virtue is enough to achieve this.

On the defensive.

I generally prefer an offensive approach to fighting. But I also enjoy the defensive aspect of any martial art. As a beginner the best method of learning is to keep an open mind. Evasion, parrying, beating someone to the punch... I'm particularly proud of the progress I've made in my footwork. There are various exercises which you can use to improve your footwork, which is a staple foundation in all martial arts. Hopefully I will go into these, in time.

But when it's time to go crazy, go crazy. =)

Bodhi Tree Diary: Quirks of Cartoons

There isn't enough anime to go around these days. The home of anime - Japan - churns out new cartoons and manga everyday, but in Brisbane it takes more than a semester for the first DVD instalment of a new anime to come out in the shops.

The state of manga is even worse. One volume of Full Metal Alchemist in Hong Kong costs $30 HK - about $5.50 Australian. The same volume costs a whopping $27.00 Australian in Brisbane. Talk about a ripoff.

I've heard that Sydney is a much better source for anime and manga than Brisbane is. I wouldn't be surprised. I only know of a few shops that sell good comics and anime in the Central Brisbane District area - I've always liked Daily Planet, and I used to go to Ace Comics at least once a week in high school.

What a pity... =(

Adore Life.

To me, there is something morally hollow in the belief that death isn't that bad because not being born is no different to life, or that one should not fear death because it is a natural state of affairs. This position is held by many in the modern world - by scientists, religious ascetics, Stoics, people in depressed moods, emos... Unfortunately, these people have confused fearlessness of death with indifference to death. You can be the greatest warrior, but your power need not, and should not, compromise your sensitivity and humanity to the dreadful suffering of the world.

And the Egyptians, as an ancient civilization, loved life and existence more than any other. I have been fascinated with the spirituality of the ancient Egyptians since childhood. We can truly learn from them, because they feared literal annihilation more than eternal torment in fire. While their mythology certainly had an underworld, unlike many other ancient cultures, there was no Hell, no Tartarus, no Nifhelm. Rather, when you arrived in the Hall of Judgement in the underworld, your heart would be weighed on a scale against the Feather of Truth. The god of Wisdom and Time, Thoth, would record the result and announce it to the Lord of the Dead, Osiris. If Osiris decreed that you had done more evil than good, your heart (which was seen as the vessel of the soul) would be sacrificed to the Devourer, a monster who literally consumed your essence.

So how can we understand this in a modern context? Well, I can understand why many lose faith in others, in themselves, in life. This world is by no means the best of all worlds. In fact, its existence is characterized by suffering. In Buddhism we call this world "samsara", or the normal universe, where all unenlightened beings are subject to suffering, whether they are gods, humans, animals or demons. But if there is no life, there is literally no reason to love. And if there is no love, there is little reason to live. See where I'm getting at?

"To love a thing means wanting it to live," said Confucius. Except in extreme circumstances, like during cases of terminal illness or need for euthanasia, it is important to remember it is because of life that we can love. We love a breathing, blinking person, not his ashes or coffin. Anyone who has suffered a loss of a loved one would be the first to tell you this. And we all lose loved ones.

So what is my point? Death is worse than life, and if we want to be true warriors for the cause of good, we should embrace life in its totality, and truly love. Our will to protect life should be as strong as our clenched fist.

Only then, perhaps, may we overcome our darkest fears.

A life philosophy anyone can adopt.

A friend of mine once said, "You hesitate, you masturbate." He was, of course, referring to hooking up with the ladies in bars and clubs. Talking about how to best pull women (typical bloke talk), he suggested once you set your eyes on one of them, you have to follow through - lest you let the chance slip.

"You hesitate, you masturbate" sounds awfully superficial. But I don't think so. As a philosophy, it's easy to remember, humorous, and most importantly, has a worthwhile message. And it is this: Hesitate to do what you want to do, and eventually you're going to have to settle for something second-best.

While you need not use the word "masturbate" for "second-best", this does not diminish its relevance. If you're having trouble deciding a simple yet effective credo to live by, why not choose this one?



E/N. This post is meant in jest and not to be taken seriously. "You hesitate, you masturbate" is hardly a suitable philosophy in the face of ones like Aristotle's Golden Mean or Socrates's "Gadfly". =)

Exploiting Buddha?

Is the popularity of the recent "Buddha Bars" a harmless method of attracting patrons or a cynical exploitation of the beauty of Buddhist themed art?

I don't drink much, but personally I feel it is the former rather than the latter. I can understand Westerners', in particular Americans', fascination with Buddhism since it comes from the East; they'll jump at a chance to advertise it as something exotic, foreign, and exciting. Nevermind that it is a religion and philosophy; if one can spice up a bar with a statue of the Lord Shakyamuni, why not?

I don't think these bar owners are exploiting Buddhism... yet. I guess I see it like this: it's not good to throw up in front of a statue of the Blessed One from overboozing. A couple of martinis and bourbons savoured before a smiling Buddha, on the other hand, should be of little harm.

Misconceptions in Martial Arts

A person who does karate thinks kata are the best way to practice fighting. A person who does karate must also always get his arse kicked against kung fu experts (That's what it's like in the movies, right?)

A boxer is either: a big brute who is arrogant and loves picking a fight, or an underdog who can go for 15 rounds against a drugged supersoldier (Rocky IV fans please stand up).

A kung fu expert MUST know chi. He must be a mystical fighter who can levitate and use cool-looking stances that function well while at the same time looking good. You know, like Matrix or Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon style.

A Brazilian Jujutsu fighter is T3H B3$T AT GROUNDFIGHTING!!!

All these misconceptions, and more, are outright harmful to the wider martial arts community. Some of the karateka I know have beaten Muay Thai fighters before. "WHY MUAY THAI GUYS AREN'T THEY SO MUCH TOUGHER THAN KARATEKA RAY?!??!" Well, these karateka were trained by a good sensei who was knowledgable in the atmosphere of the modern martial arts world. Where mixed martial arts and Brazilian Jujutsu have become staples of many champions, learning one style of fighting often is not enough. It's organizations like modern Shotokan karate, and in particular, the absolutely worthless Go Kan Ryu karate conglomerate (invented by Robert Sullivan, so it's not even a native Okinawan style), which has diluted so much of mainstream karate into useless training and emphasis on black-belt acquisition that would not stand against a freestyle fighter.

The World Taekwondo Federation is also just as worthless. There are too many "McDojos" around where so-called masters are just out to make a quick buck and not provide quality martial arts education. Taekwondo, unless taught in the best manner possible, is completely worthless for self-defence - and even worse, is completely worthless against styles like boxing, Brazilian Jujutsu and Tang Soo Do. I mean, high flying kicks advertised as a method of self-defence? Barely any handwork compared with styles like Goju-Ryu karate and a sloppy emphasis on kicks below the abdomen?

Ridiculous. And harmful.

I recently went to another boxing class. The coach in charge of that session is not a big guy. Rather, his body is functional - slim, agile, and powerful. And moreover, he is friendly and looks like any normal guy living a normal life. Martial artists are PEOPLE. Living in the strengths and weaknesses of their own humanity. There is no Rocky. There is no big brute. There may be a few, but they're always quickly put in their place by the coaches who really know what they're doing.

Finally, everyone knows Eastern martial arts have been done harm by quacks who claim to be able to train you in mystical powers. Those people who believe you can learn "dim mak" or pressure point attacks within a couple of years should be stripped of their qualifications and prosecuted for business deception. Chinese martial arts have copped a lot of criticism for having so many fake masters. I understand. When "fighters" use training stances like the horse stance in ACTUAL battle, it shows how little they really know. You can wave your arms in an extravagant fashion while beckoning your opponent forward? Ooh, pretty. *Smack* Heh. Out for the count.

Never believe the movies. Never believe the cartoons (They're still awesome though). Never believe the adverstisements of most mainstream martial arts. Train for real. Fight for real. Win for real.

6. Omnis Determinatio est Negatio

Can you become an Ubermensche, or Overman/Superman, by denying God? Nietzsche certainly thought so. His ideas are revolutionary and fascinating, in particular his concept of the "Will to Power" - humans are alone, there is no God, and adherence to a creed like Christianity is nothing more than obeying a slave morality - where values typically valued in slaves, like meekness and obedience are revered, in contrast to strength, dominance and power - which is morality akin to the master. Nietzsche disliked Christianity because he hated the reversal of values which led to the "Last Man", an antithesis to the Ubermensche. Only by re-evaluating or destroying old ideals can one become a Superman.

Thus Spoke Zarathustra is perhaps Nietzsche's most famous work, where he details the steps to become an Overman:

1. By his will to power, manifested creatively in overcoming nihilism and re-evaluating old ideals or creating new ones.

2. By his will to power, manifested destructively in the rejection of, and rebellion against, societal ideals and moral codes.

3. By a continual process of self-overcoming.

Nietzsche was an anti-Christian, yet admired Jesus as an Ubermensche. This existentialist philosopher is essential for anyone who seriously studies all aspects of theological and moral debate.

Boxing's Egyptian Origins

Everyone thinks boxing is a Western style of fighting; primarily an English form of combat. This is a reasonable assumption, given that much of the sweet science's history has been from England and Continental Europe. However, there is evidence that boxing has been around for thousands of years in North Africa before arriving in southern Europe, where it would be practised as an often brutal duel between atheletes in the Greek Olympics, and later in Roman prize-fights. I'm sure many have heard of the metal spikes the fighters attached to their leather gloves (or equivalent of). It had, however, already existed as a sport in ancient Egypt.

Given my academic obsession with everything Egyptian (or anything that has to do with Ancient History, really), I will intensify my boxing training - just as my personal tribute to that great ancient civilization.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/sport/boxing/early_history.shtml

Bodhi Tree Diary: The Courier Mail

From this Sunday onwards I will post a Bodhi Tree Diary entry (named after the bodhi tree of Buddhism) every week in an attempt to make my blog a bit more versatile. It's just a post about what I have been up to during the week or weekend. My current posts on religion and philosophy will continue, along with all my posts on martial arts, fitness and cartoons/manga.



The feeling I get while reading the Courier Mail is about the same as reading this absurd comic strip, except without the chuckling that I get out of the comic. By the way, I am not sure which webpage this comic is from: if you happen to know, please send me the link so I can properly credit its source.

There are two mainstream newspapers in Brisbane - the Courier Mail and The Australian. I have to say that I don't particularly enjoy reading the Courier Mail, especially its Sunday edition. I think it's at least 60% mindless drabble. It's filled with pointless celebrity gossip, banter and sucking up to recently successful people - and with countless useless things like horoscopes and comic strips. If I want to read comics, I buy a comic book - simple as that. Why not replace the comic strips with what really is meant to be in a newspaper - news? Furthermore, The Australian doesn't have comic strips - why should the Courier Mail need them?

What annoys me even more is profound lack of coverage on international news. The front page will always cover some (relatively) unimportant international event, or some local event that not many overseas could really honestly care about. Also, the current conflict between Israel and Hezbollah gets only about 2 pages of coverage near the back of the edition, while there's a whole section on home gardening and fashion spanning at least 6 pages. Peculiar, if not outright silly. Sadly, this is the direction many other newspapers are heading, all over the world. What happened to decent journalism?

If you live in Brisbane and want to read the newspaper, read The Australian. It's not perfect, but a lot better than the Courier Mail.

Historical Representation

After my post on "Faith" I now take another break to write about something different.

Ever wonder how a certain being or a concept comes to be revered as something holy or transcendent? Sure, there's a bit of superstition, perhaps, but often it's more to do with the representation of the subject in question that is essential to how it comes to be seen by future generations.

Take the statue of the Buddha in the photo above (which also happens to be my wallpaper). This is one of the earliest representations of the Buddha in human form. It is easy to tell because not only has it been subject to decay and damage, but it is also relatively simple in its depiction, unlike the more fancy East Asian statues. And why the curly hair? I'll get into that shortly.

Previously the Buddha had not been depicted as a human being: early historical sources in India indicate He may have been represented as a footprint, or a bodhi tree. However, when the Greeks under Alexander the Great first made contact with the Indians (334 BC), the Greek King established several cities that allowed Buddhism to flourish. The Greek and Indian Buddhist cultures, in fact, had interacted in peace with each other for several centuries, and several cities in the Hellenistic Empire had Buddhist (Indo-Greek) kings. In time, an anthropomorphic depiction of the Buddha began to emerge - such statues had much more facial and physical detail, typical of Greek design - and the Buddha was elevated to a man-god in Greek eyes, as a shining example for humanity. So in many ways this version of the Buddha was meant to be revered, like a statue of Zeus or Athena. Also, considering curly hair was not too common among Indians, it may also have been an addition by the Greeks.

Of course, each culture that embraced Buddhism would come to incorporate its own artistic style into Buddhist art and sculpture, but it is very likely the Greeks had laid the foundation for the anthropomorphic representation of the Buddha - and contributed greatly to Buddhism's devotional tradition.

5. Faith, God, and Morality

Café One, Brisbane City

David: Good morning, Thomasina!

Thomasina: Hi there, David.

David: I’m just grabbing some breakfast. What have you been up to?

Thomasina: Well, I went overseas a couple of weeks ago.

David: Where to?

Thomasina: To Rome, actually. I had an audience with a couple of the priests there.

David: Oh, good. And what did you talk about together?

Thomasina: Well, I might be able to work at the Vatican within a year or two.

David (laughs): But why work with old, celibate men with phallus-shaped hats?

Thomasina (crossly): I know you’re being sarcastic, but the Vatican is the centre of the Catholic faith and most important to the believers of today.

David: So you’re still Christian?

Thomasina: Yes, I am.

David (sighs): I remember how often we used to argue about the existence of God.

Thomasina: But surely –

David (jokingly): Oh, don’t start.

Thomasina: How much time do you have?

David: I just don’t think we’ll get anywhere with this.

Thomasina: I never said I wanted to ‘get anywhere’ with this.

David: Alright. Let’s hear your reasons.

Thomasina: Well, one of the things I discussed with the priests was morality as proof of God’s existence.

David: Morality?

Thomasina: Yes. God is the Divine Lawgiver, and we draw our morality through the Ten Commandments and the grace of Jesus Christ. This is one way to recognize his existence. Without God, there is no such thing as objective morality. What is truly good is nothing more than the will of God.

David: I can’t see the connection. We can decide our own morality.

Thomasina: Being the supremely perfect being that He is, all our moral guidance comes from Him. In fact, God is morality. Even as you do a good deed, the Spirit of the Lord is speaking through you.

David: I don’t think so. It’s a bunch of hardwired neurons in my brain telling me to do what my conscience thinks is best.

Thomasina: Maybe, but your conscience is limited. God’s love, by definition, is infinite. It has an infinite possibility over which it disposes without being limited by it. That is why the Lord speaks through your limited conscience.

David: That is not a logical explanation of why God exists. All you’ve told me is that God exists because I feel some kind of goodwill or benevolence.

Thomasina: Yes, I am. Remember, pagan morality is not true morality: “For when the Gentiles which have not the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: which shew the work of the Lord written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness”.

David: You seem to have made the quintessential mistake all Christians do – by elevating what is best about humanity into something that has supernatural properties. What’s good and evil about humanity are humanity’s alone; nothing more, nothing less.

Thomasina: Humans are inherently depraved, but the beauty and goodness of God intervenes to give us powers of goodness also, so that we may glimpse what heavenly delights are to come if we believe in Him.

David: Still, God does not exist through me. I decide my own morality.

Thomasina: But God, by definition, is Providence, or the Divine Will which shapes history and influences acts. So every act done in the world is a step towards the realization of such a Providence. Even as you decide your own morality, God is influencing you to do so.

David: I think you’ve lost me.

Thomasina: God, as the force of general Providence, can be heard only by the faithful. His gracious will is still apparent amongst non-believers, but they don’t listen. To me, I always see the presence of the Lord’s purpose, whether it’s a law of nature or something that affects an individual. For someone like you, you just haven’t heard the Lord’s voice yet. God is not just a proposition or a theory that can be proved or disproved, He is an Existence.

David: I think you’re just making excuses to defend the untenable position that God exists because he is the voice of objective morality. Just because you feel the presence doesn’t mean it is.

Thomasina: Remember, you’re just living without God. People can live without His love, but they can never live without His Judgement. St. Anselm once wrote: “And so, should any man or bad angel be unwilling to submit to the divine will and rule, yet he cannot escape from it; for when he would escape from under the will that commands, he does but rush under the will that punishes.”

David: Now you’re just resorting to the argumentum ad baculum, which is nothing more than an appeal to force – hardly a logical way to convince someone to act morally.

Thomasina: But the Church needed a claim of authority so that the will of God could be made known upon Earth. In other words, it was a neccessity that the apostles of the Church act with authority in regard to doctrine as well as morality so the existence and glory of God could be proclaimed. Right after the Resurrection, it was the apostles’ mission to carry the message. And without moral authority their voices would have no bearing. You’re a philosopher; haven’t you heard of meta-ethics before? It is the study of what makes an ethical theory an ethical theory. And God’s will is what makes an ethical theory a true ethical theory.

David: Look, I’m not going to give you an outline of the whole Euthyphro dilemma – I’m sure many have used that argument against theistic moralists. But what I want to say is that if something is good, it has to be inherently good in itself, not because of what some invisible policeman says.

Thomasina: I do agree with Plato on the Euthyphro dilemma. But such things are inherently good because good is an inseparable aspect of God. And even these moral imperatives are beneath God.

David: But that’s circular reasoning.

Thomasina: The human mind can only go so far to reason with the ineffable nature of God; the rest is up to faith.

David (sighs): Well, at least that’s not philosophically contradictory.

Thomasina: How about I approach this question from a slightly different angle: what do you find so unbelievable about a living, loving God? I say one of the reasons He exists is because there are objective morals. God is the foundation of all morality. Therefore, he exists.

David: You are presupposing this living, loving God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent – omnibenevolent as in being the foundation of good morality. Suppose he were: he would have created a world in which there was no unneccessary evil.

Thomasina: But now you’ve fallen into the trap all philosophers do: defining good and evil. And without God, it’s all subjective.

David: I never said God should have created a perfect world. I’m saying if he existed, he would have created a world with no unneccessary evil. Yet in the world there is clearly a tremendous, and pitiable volume of unneccessary, arbitrary and excess evil. All explanations so far have been unsatisfactory to explain this. I conclude then there is no God.

Thomasina: Regarding your position on evil: remember that if you’re talking about God, you must remember that His ways confuse us. This is when He shows us the true objective reality. He shows our reason to be inadequate in explaining his existence. He shows our morality to be inferior to his. He compels us to adjust to His ways. Because the nature of God is not only moral, it is Holy and Perfect. So God not only exists, He intervenes in human history in a calculated and moral way. We should listen to His morals, not the ones we make up.

David: I’m still not satisfied.

Thomasina: How so?

David: Well, Epicurus once said, “The blessed and immortal nature knows no trouble itself nor causes trouble to any other, so that it is never constrained by anger or favour. For all such things exist only in the weak.” He means that if a being of such grandeur and perfection exists, this being really couldn’t care about the trivalities of the human condition. So you can’t use morality to justify God’s existence anyway, because he probably wouldn’t care.

Thomasina: But that is the whole point! God is most certainly grand, yet He is so perfect He loves us fallen and sinful human beings enough to actively intervene in our history!

David: But even now your position is flimsy because your own theologians disagree with you. British priest Right Reverend Holloway himself argues that religion is not best for morality. To secular liberals like me his position is already very familiar and a welcome one. Moral debate does better without God because “sin” is disobedience to God. Real morality comes from personal decisions and interests. There’s a difference.

Thomasina: I stand by my position that sin is inextricably tied with morality – and because sin has to do with God, it follows that morality also has to do with God. And thus God’s existence can be explained through morality.

David (sighs): While I’m still not convinced, you’ve put forward some decent arguments. I’ve got to go to work now, I’ll call you tonight and we can continue this debate. Say, nine o’clock?

Thomasina: Sure, David. I’ll be waiting.



References:

Brunner, Emil (1947), The Divine Imperative, translated by Olive Wyon, Lutterworth Press, London (chapter 9)
Ferre, Nels F. S. (1951), The Christian Understanding of God, SCM Press Ltd., 56 Bloomsbury Street London (pg 27)
Romans, ii., 14 – 15
Grayling, A.C. (2002 edition), The Meaning of Things: Applying Philosophy to Life, Orion Books, London (pg 105)
Ferre, Nels F. S. (1951), The Christian Understanding of God, SCM Press Ltd., London (pg 144)
Murray, John Courtney (1964), The Problem of God: Yesterday and Today, New Haven and London, Yale University Press, Yale University (pg 77)
Baille, John (1939), Our Knowledge of God, Oxford University Press, London (pg 3)
St. Anselm, Cur deus homo, Bk. I, Chapter XV
Geldenhuys, J. Norval (1953), Supreme Authority, Marshall, Morgan and Scott Ltd., London (pg 77)
McCloskey, H. J. (1960), God and Evil, from The Philosophical Quarterly 10, no. 39 (pg 97 – 114)
Danielou, Jean (1957), God and Us, A. R. Mowbray and Co. Ltd., London (pg 105)
Blackburn, Simon (2001), Ethics: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press, New York (pg 16)
Grayling, A.C. (2002 edition), The Meaning of Things: Applying Philosophy to Life, Orion Books, London (pg 105)


This was actually a draft of a research project I was to do for one of my university courses. The final copy is pretty much the same, except the names of David and Thomasina are highlighted, along with other parts of the dialogue. Also the names of the sources referenced are highlighted. I just couldn't be bothered using Blogger's inefficient blogging tool. =P

Martial Arts - the Ultimate Workout

As I promised I am taking a break today from writing heavily about religion and philosophy. I also started writing up an assignment yesterday for one of my courses and that may take precedence over the religion columns at this blog for a short while.

I believe that whatever style you do, martial arts is the best workout. Let me elaborate. I do three main "types" of training - boxing for aerobic and fighting endurance (I don't actually compete), weight training for strength, muscle power and aesthetics (i.e. looking good and keeping my sixpack), and karate for fighting technique (I always look at other styles, although I formally learn karate and stick with it). In a typical week my schedule will be karate on Sunday and Thursday, weight training on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, a full day rest on Tuesday, and a boxing circuit on Saturday. This usually gives me a fully-rounded workout for the whole week.

If you give it your full devotion and attention in your life's health or self-defence program, martial arts lasts far longer beyond your prime. Whereas the typical man will probably cease to weight-train or box after 50 or 60, it is common to see elders still doing karate, tai chi or other martial arts. Take Yip Man for example. Yip Man was a master of Wing Chun and a teacher of Bruce Lee. If you look at him in his old age, he looks like a complete snap - thin and fragile. Yet no one could defeat him in sparring - he was so skilled not even Bruce Lee, despite his genius and flair, could even touch him significantly. This is because martial arts adopts a holistic approach to health, and an emphasis of correct technique. It is more than about fitness of looking good - it is a lifestyle until you die. I wonder how many bodybuilders can say that.

4. Will the real God please stand up?

Before I get into my fourth post, this time focusing more on religion, I would like to mention a Japanese manga and anime by Kaori Yuki, Angel Sanctuary. It's about an incestuous relationship between an elder brother, Setsuna, and a younger sister, Sara, both whom happen to be reincarnations of the angels Alexia and Jibril (Gabriel) respectively. Naturally, such an ambitious story covers many aspects of what critics of this series might call controversial, such as the incest between the protagonists and the depiction of the angels (who are far from perfect. Many are also manipulative and vengeful. In unusually refreshing fashion, St. Michael is depicted as a rather short archangel with a fiery and childish temper against those who insult his size, and the healer Raphael is depicted as a pervert who is in love with Barbiel, another angel and his second-in-command. Furthermore, not all the demons in the story are completely evil). But most importantly, it also touches on the nature of God. Would God allow an incestuous relationship, even if it was between his angels (and note that Alexia and Jibril, while also twin siblings, do not love each other in the same incestuous way as Setsuna and Sara)? Does God approve of love between his angels, whether it be platonic or sexual? The strangest part of the God in Angel Sanctuary is that God is "sleeping" and not present within almost all of the manga and anime - how can God "sleep"? Is He not meant to be omnipotent? Obviously Angel Sanctuary need not be taken seriously when one undertakes theological study. But we can find similar questions arising when we study the Torah, the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qu'ran together. Can we reconcile the different aspects of God of each monotheistic religion (Judaism, Christianity and Islam)? And if we can't, can we at least have them tolerate each other? If not, can we still find any way to keep the peace?

Incest abounds in the Old Testament. Perhaps this is because the God of the Israelites in the Old Testament is foremostly a tribal deity - true monotheism does not emerge until the advent of Christianity, where Jesus, shortly after his resurrection, commands his disciples to spread the Good News, that "I am always with you, even until the end of the world." A monotheistic God, in passing, may be seen to have a stronger set of morals than a tribal deity, hence the reduced occasions of genocide and razings, along with female genital mutilation committed by the Jews in the name of Yahweh. Already we see the problems arising in regards to omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence - if God really is such, why the need to make so many claims to power?

And within the holy texts we find problems. The first of the Ten Commandments given to Moses, and no doubt the most important, is "Thou shalt not kill". Yet there have been countless people, both criminal and innocent, killed in the name of God. That is contradiction enough. Extremists can interpret certain passages within the Qu'ran to be commands of physical Jihad against non-believers. Even Jesus said some rather strange things that could be interpreted literally as useless rambling, or metaphorically as words of wisdom. Words such as "If your eye offendeth you, pluck it out." The problem is not that he said such things, but that so many people have interpreted him in so many different ways. Who is the real God then? Is there any satisfactory answer to this? Who exactly is this most perplexing being we call Yahweh, God, Allah? Are they manifestations of the same being? Are they different? Is there any hope that the religions of these names of God can live in harmony?

So we finally come full circle. This is why, in my first post, I outlined one of the main questions was how religion is relevant in the modern world: how can these contradictory texts be part of ethics in the 21st century? Contemporary British philosopher A.C. Grayling, a strong atheist and a staunch anti-Christian, wrote: "Churchmen are people with advowedly ancient supernatural beliefs who rely on moral casuistry which is 2000 years out of date; it is extraordinary that their views should be given any precedence over those that could be drawn from the richness of thoughtful, educated, open-minded opinion otherwise available in society." He was making a valid point that the priests of churches should not be given a privileged place over others in moral debate, in particular debates about contraception and abortion (He sees the Church as immature and insensible in its hardline views concerning such matters).

We have reached a dilemma. It is clear that no strong rationalist would accept a case for religion in the modern world. This is when we must take into account and even more complicated matter: Faith in its spectrum of subjective experience.

Next up will be a short break from this series, before my fifth post on this subject: "Faith".

3. But that's just your opinion!!

Since becoming a university student, I have become even more addicted to 3 things I already loved: martial arts, comics, and writing. I am very happy to have been able to expand my writing fields beyond trivial things like school essays and vulgar fanfiction to include Buddhist opinion and personal reflections on philosophy. This continuing series of new posts is a testament to my happiness. So without further ado, this is my third entry on my posts about religion and philosophy. Last time I attempted to refute the agnostic person. Today I will get straight into it and address what has become to be seen as a far more sinister force, especially against philosophy: relativism. Just as its name reads, it is the belief that everything is relative. On first glance, it does not sound too bad - advocates of relativism claim it is the only truly tolerant ideal. But herein lies the weakness of relativism. People have beliefs. People have opinions. As long as they are reasonable and not taken too far, these opinions should not be dismissed quickly and should count for something. The relativist looks at any claim to inherent moral value or morality, such as a religion or political creed - and just gives those claims a simple, "Good for you, but it's not objective. Nothing is inherently morally objective."

For example, when the Chinese government imprisons and tortures Tibetans in the name of national sovereignty over Tibet, it's just "their business"... right?

Wrong. It is wrong to ignore the plight of oppressed - especially when it is their "superiors" who are committing the oppression. Even worse, relativists do not bother to dig deeper into the issue - in general, the Chinese people do not want the oppression of Tibetans to continue - the Chinese government does. Likewise, in many different parts of the world, what relativists see as "their culture/religion/custom, therefore their business" is actually not representative of the majority of people, rather the tiny minority in power and those who gain to benefit from such oppression. African women do not want their vaginas mutilated in the name of controlling their sexuality. Muslims do not like being seen as untrustworthy potential terrorists - rather, groups like al-Qaeda thrive being seen as such. The relativists dig themselves into a deeper hole when one asks them if the Holocaust of the Jews or the Killing Fields of Cambodia were "relative". When such atrocities are committed that they scream, "Crime!", the relativist puts himself in a philosophical and moral quandary by denying it was inherently criminal. By now it is almost impossible to have a meaningful discussion with the relativist. Also, because relativists themselves have beliefs and opinions - some stronger than others - that, if they have their buttons pressed in the way they don't want, they will rise to the challenge and defend their views passionately - conveniently forgetting that they hold everything to be relative and of no objective value!

Here is a classic example of confusing scientific principles with metaphysical or ethical concepts. Science has demonstrated that only with the right conditions can life thrive, and the diversity of such sciences like biology, physics and chemistry have led many, not incorrectly, to believe that everything in nature needs to be relative and conditioned in order to be able to be understood. But metaphysical and transcendent truths are completely different; most of them are not natural in any sense of the word. But hardly everything in nature is admirable anyway.

As Simon Blackburn wrote: "There must be a course between the soggy sands of relativism and the cold hard rocks of dogmatism." Even then, a dogmatic position may be preferable to a relativist one - especially when you compare one who feebly announces that human rights are relative, and we should not worry about innocents being tortured in other countries by their superiors - with another who dogmatically and relentlessly pursues an activist protest in the name of the oppressed and weak. Who would achieve more, I wonder? And that is the key.

Having addressed the position that claims there are no inherent moral standards, I will now turn to those who claim they hold the Truth through their Divine Revelation. Of course, the fight against moral relativism cannot end here. One post cannot address all the arguments relativism has thrown at philosophy through its long history. However, for the meantime, this short explanation will suffice for my purposes. Furthermore, there are philosophers who would jump ship altogether, saying that while relativism is useless as a life philosophy, religion also is useless. They believe only one's moral standards can weather the stormy nights of life. They are mostly right. But what if those moral standards are religious? Is there anything wrong with that, or is one taking an easy path? In my next post: "Will the real God please stand up?"

2. Against Agnosticism

This is my second post on the rather interesting questions I outlined in my last entry, as well as: what does it mean to have meaning in life? I am concentrating on two aspects: religion and philosophy, for they are the ones whose sole purpose is to bring meaning and direction to us. Concepts such as love, justice, and various views of politics may be their own philosophies (or even their own religions!) but without their own basis in their own philosophy they cannot exist with a firm foundation. These new posts are not my excuse for an argument, they are rather my own thoughts condensed and organized into something coherent for your reading pleasure.

In this post, I want to state my position on agnosticism (not atheism), and next post I will make a stand against relativism. Why? An agnostic position cannot truly understand religion, and a relativistic opinion is the bane of all philosophy. Once these two concepts are addressed, we can see if conventional religions and altruistic philosophies (not fundamentalist or extremist) are relevant to our mindful and rational search for meaning, peace and happiness.

William James (1842 - 1910) once disagreed with agnosticism by claiming: "By remaining skeptical and waiting for more light... we lose the good, if it be true, just as certainly as if we positively choose to disbelieve." He goes on to present an analogy: "It is as if a man should hesitate indefinitely to ask a certain woman to marry him because he was not perfectly sure that she would prove an angel after he brought her home. Would he not cut himself off from that particular angel-possibility as decisively as if he went and married someone else?"

The 'woman' in question is obviously the 'religion' in question. Of course, one could counter this argument of the angel-possibility: the woman might probably turn out to be a bitch-possibility! But the point stands; no orthodox religion suddenly turns out to be vile hateful propaganda; it may have been one already, or you didn't do your research enough. Humans, doubtless, have the potential to suddenly change and become bad people, but it takes generations for schools of religions to become hateful ideologies - and some do, but not most orthodox denominations.

According to thinkers like William James, there is something comfortingly attractive in agnosticism: it is impossible for an agnostic to be wrong. A religious person is prepared to risk error and delusion for a chance at securing a vital good, which is what his religion's blessings are. An atheist risks error and the loss of a vital good, or of a religion's blessings, for an attempt at truth. Both risk 'error'. But the agnostic will risk a loss of truth and the loss of a vital good for the certainty of avoiding error.

Certainly, a powerful case against the agnostic can be made. "You indecisive coward!" might be too harsh a criticism, yet long-term agnosticism will only raise more questions than answers. Life certainly has enough questions already. However, one should not blindly jump onto the Christian boat, or the Muslim boat, or the Buddhist boat, or the atheist boat so eagerly. A period of examination can help tremendously in regards to the belief-systems of the religions in question. Certainly when one decides to search for meaning, a degree of caution must be adopted. Yet when one chooses the easy way and opts for a life of agnosticism, one cannot help but wonder if he could ever find the answers he originally sought to discover. The happy fact is that they still can; only that it takes a lot longer than anyone would have preferred. A religious and philosophical path takes enough time already; ideally it is a lifetime commitment, like marriage. Many would scoff at the idea of marriage being a simple long-term game of selecting the 'easiest' and 'safest' option (it could very well turn out the opposite later, so one might as well take the calculated risk. This is where one's personal feelings and needs come in). Why should religion and philosophy be any different? No one said either would be easy.

So pick a side. But pick a side. It is useless to sit on the fence. No one said it has to be perfect. The gods are perfect, pantheism is not. Yahweh is perfect, Christianity is not. Buddha is perfect, Buddhism is not. But as long as you remain tolerant, picking a side need not be picking a fight.

Thus ends my second post: "Against Agnosticism". I hope you enjoyed reading it. If you have comments or objections please e-mail me at buddhacidefervour@gmail.com.

1. Meaning, Religion, and our Modern World

Starting from today I will attempt to address a few of the questions that has plagued the philosophy and religion departments for many decades: Does religious belief hold no relevance to the modern world? Are altruistic philosophies outdated? Are we nothing more than selfish egoists who should just give up on the search for meaning? Can all meaningful activity be reduced to how much I can benefit myself? Are personal religious beliefs deluded and dangerous?

To be honest, many before me have answered these questions, and many have answered negatively to the aforementioned questions. Starting from this new post, I will present a series of thoughts that aim to be firstly, entertaining, and hopefully on another level, thought-provoking. I am also going to present both religious and philosophical arguments, from East and West that refute notions of selfishness, moral apathy, and egoism. Finally, I will add my own humble opinion on such refutations, and explain why they are important to us.

I would like to concentrate on religion and philosophy because these are probably the two aspects of human existence that matter most to people. Even atheists, in their denial of a living God, will worship science, elevating it to a monopoly on truth. Another reason why I am concentrating on these two is because they are the only human concepts that can grant true lasting satisfaction. Why? In the First World people are even less satisfied and happy than their predecessors - we can assume, then, that faster cars, hot wet sex, and a huge stock portfolio do not constitute the good life - although they certainly add to it.

No matter what age of history, someone lying on his deathbed will not look back and count proudly the number of lovers he has had, nor will he eagerly ask the doctor if his six-pack abs are still around. He will hope that he was a good child to his parents, a good husband or lover, and a good guardian to those younger and weaker than him. Sometimes, the less time he has devoted himself to helping and protecting those who would need or deserve his attention, the more desperate he will be when he nears death. So more than anything, a firm faith in his achievements and his ability to help others is crucial. All kinds of religions and philosophies come to you promising to give you meaning, lend you strength, and grant you fulfilment. As such powerful agents they cannot be ignored. So the first thing for the individual is to discern what they truly need out of a religion or philosophy. However, as with all endeavours of life, one needs knowledge of the path, and the faith to embark on it. How can one achieve a harmony of these two 'opposites'? Are they irreconcilable?

In the modern world, a growing number of people hold Reason, Logic and Science as the paramount prerequisites to happiness, and ironically in my view, as new objects of worship. It seems to prove the ancient theologian Tertullian's remark: "What does Athens have to do with Jerusalem?" By Athens, he meant the bastion of Greek and classical Western civilization, and by Jerusalem, he meant Christianity. At first glance, he is right. During the Middle Ages when the Catholic Church's intellectual grip over Europe was strongest there was almost no opportunity for free thought or scientific discovery. Conversely, nowadays many will say that they would rather flick on an electric switch for light than pray to some invisible God for it.

I argue that one needs to have a balance between Reason and Faith, Logic and Emotion. Some will argue that emotions are unreliable and one should totally rely on logic. I can understand why. Human achievement has relied a lot more on logic than simple emotion. But we still fall in love. We still have children. We still laugh, cry, hate, hurt. Even the most cynical and calculating of men leave behind their descendants. What does that say about the indestructibility of emotion in the human condition? Faith, therefore, according to St. Thomas Aquinas, "falls between knowledge and opinion." By opinion he not only meant the subjective biases every unenlightened individual has, but also that faith cannot be simple fact, or it would simply be knowledge. Faith must appeal to the heart. And such an appeal is far more powerful than a simple appeal to knowledge. A religious hymn sung in exultation is far more inspiring and uplifting than a bland, "3 + 6 = 9".

How can we have faith without becoming deluded, and how can we have knowledge without becoming neutered machines? I will address these questions, and more, in no particular order, in my next posts.

Finally, I would like to point out that the concepts I am using are mostly from Christian theology and Western philosophy. I am not Christian, and I do not believe Western philosophy has contributed more to human flourishing than the philosophies from the Middle East, India, China, Tibet or Japan. However, such common terminology and concepts will be most useful at this early stage. In a few posts I will bring in Buddhist terminology and concepts to help with my arguments. Why? The answer is simple and is probably my greatest incentive for using Buddhist concepts: The West has never experienced anything like Buddhism. It blurs the line between Faith and Reason even more. It is not "scientific" - practices like meditation can only be experienced subjectively - but it is atheistic. While some schools of Buddhism revere divine beings, others do not. So in these ways, the West has had a much harder time understanding Buddhism than Christianity or modern science. As a balance between Faith and Reason, however, Buddhism can be very useful.

Until next time, have faith.