Your Meditation Guide Blog

The news coming out of the recent, and much trumpeted, Vatican-sponsored conference on evolution isn’t that good, according to a brief article that appeared in Science magazine on November 14. Molecular biologist John Abelson commented on the most controversial figure at the conference, Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schönborn: “He believes there are gaps in evolution and [that] God acts in those gaps.” Oh boy, not the “gap theory” again?

Schönborn is infamous for an op-ed piece he published in the New York Times, “Finding design in nature,” in which he referred to neo-Darwinism as a “dogma,” a word that really should never be uttered with contempt by any member of the Catholic Church, ever. Despite Pope John Paul II’s conciliatory statements toward science in general (he pardoned Galileo) and evolution in particular, Schönborn dug himself deeper and deeper in the editorial: “Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.” Ah yes, as opposed to those most empirically based of all doctrines, the teachings of the Catholic Church!

Apparently, good ol’ Christoph gave an acceptable talk at the Vatican conference, making the distinction between “evolution” (ok) and “evolutionism” (bad). The problems started during the following Q&A session, when the Cardinal apparently felt more free to speak his mind, so much so that even Francis Collins complained! Collins, you might remember, is the former director of the human genome project, who recently flirted with intelligent design in his book, “The Language of God,” nonsensically subtitled “A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.” Even so, Collins wasn’t too happy about Schönborn’s reservations concerning evolution’s ability to explain “all aspects of biology.”

The above mentioned Abelson, on his part, didn’t mince words: “It was preposterous … a step backwards.” For Gereon Wolters, a philosopher at the University of Konstanz in Germany, Schönborn “is just repeating this creationist gibberish” so popular in the USA. Just about the least damaging statement that the Science reporter could find for Schönborn was from director of the Missouri Botanical Garden’s Peter Raven, who commented that the Cardinal’s lecture was “confused.”

Why, why, why, one would want to ask. Why is Schönborn insisting in picking a fight with science, knowing full well the past history of such conflicts, where the Catholic Church has invariably come out looking foolish? On the part of the scientists, why did eminent cosmologist Stephen Hawking agree to lend credence to the conference, and even to be touched on the head by the Pope? (What for, a benediction of the man who famously said that his theories allow him to look into God’s mind?)

The answer to the question of why scientists are so complacent with the Church is that it is hard to refuse a free trip to Rome and the occasion to schmooze with the Pope. Heck, even I would have accepted the invite, though I might have tried to steer clear of any head touching by Ratzinger and his associates. The answer to the question of why people like Schönborn keep spouting patent nonsense is more complex, but it must have a lot to do with the realization that if the Church were to fully embrace the Darwinian view of the world it would be really hard to hang on to silly notions like the trinity, original sin and my favorite, transubstantiation. The God-of-the-gaps retreat is a desperate position, but it does allow Schönborn to keep both face and a steady income. Which is why scientists should not attend religious conferences: let the religionists deal with “the problem” as best as they can, but do not lend them a crutch on which to fool the world into thinking that what they are saying makes any rational sense at all.

Mary Frye (1932)

James: I have long ago decided to have my body cremated when I die so that my ashes can be scattered into the soil, the air, the water and into a fire as a final act of giving before being reborn anew. I have always found cemeteries to be odd places--not scary necessarily but just strange in that we section off parts of towns where we collect dead bodies dressed in sumptuous clothing lying in a fancy box.

Even in death we try to cling the body and status by demanding the most ornate coffin, headstone, mausoleum and even dressed in our finest suit or dress as if we are off to a ritzy party. It is somewhat humorous that we try and keep the body preserved in coffins to keep the elements from decomposing it when those elements already exist in those very bodies and have since our birth!!! They are apart of who we are--we can not escape that. We wouldn't exist without those elements.

~Peace to all beings~

As man of you know yesterday was Thanksgiving Day in America, which is a day when friends and family come together to celebrate all the things that they are thankful for during the past year. It has also become an orgy of eating as much food as can possibly eaten. I myself find it odd to be thankful for having food to eat and then engorge yourself on more food than necessary when a good portion of that food could have been donated to homeless shelters.

Well given America's great lust for buying and owning "things" the day after Thanksgiving (today) has turned into what people call "Black Friday." Black is the term used to describe when a company/business makes a profit, (red being losing money) and Friday being the day after Thanksgiving, which is the busiest shopping day of the year. There are often great deals on this day with retailers offering many products at much lower prices. This often creates long lines of people who are looking to buy up these discounted products and people often wait over-night for the stores to open. It's considered the official start of the Christmas/Chanukkah shopping season.

Black is also a traditional color of mourning the death of friends and family.

This year there was one store where the crowd was so large and built up pressing on the doors that the store clerk was trampled and killed by the stampeding crowd racing to snatch up the discounted items!! AND a pregnant woman was injured so bad that she miscarried her child!!

(UPDATE: Two people were killed by gunshots at a Toys R Us toy store in California. Two teen-age girls were seen fighting over something in the electronics area of the store when a third person who accompanied one of the girls fired a gun).

There is no better example of the kind of suffering that is created through greed then these tragic story. So much of the stuff we buy ends up tossed in the trash bin after a few months of enjoyment of these products before moving on to the next gadget. We have literally become a throw away society, which now apparently includes life. We are willing to put the lives of others in danger for just the possibility of "happiness" through money and gadgets.

But it's not about denying myself of all gadgets and "things" but rather finding that glorious middle-way, which allows enjoying some of what the world has to offer yet with moderation. I, nor anyone else I know needs something so bad that I will line up at 3a.m. with a rowdy, pushy, selfish crowd of people willing to jostle, shove and apparently trample others to buy up the store. It is extremely sad that the Christmas gift giving tradition once being a way to remember and learn to give to others as those who gave gifts to Jesus upon his supposed birth did has turned into this animalistic tradition of mayhem and greed.

I try my best to be happy with what I have and to be responsible in what I buy and how I buy it. I find it sickeningly ironic to push someone out of the way and fight over products and position in line to bring some happiness to your child, friend or brother. It's making someone else suffer so that you can bring just the possibility of a little happiness to someone else. Is it really worth it? Not to me. I prefer people wanting to buy me something to donate to a charity in my name.

Incest monster Josef Fritzl says he's turned to Buddhism - and wants doctors to help cure him so he can be reunited with his wife Rosemarie. Fritzl spends much of his 23 hours a day in his cell studying the peaceful Far Eastern philosophy and is considering formally changing his religion in prison.

Speaking through his lawyer Rudolf Mayer, Fritzl said that he has found a lot of comfort in reading Buddhist literature and finds the religion "fascinating". Fritzl first discovered Buddhism on a family holiday in Thailand but has only started studying the religion in depth while behind bars.

Fritzl's facing the rest of his life in jail after imprisoning his daughter Elisabeth as a sex slave in a home-made cell under the family home in Amstetten, Austria. She was locked up for 24 years where she gave birth to seven of his children. An eighth child was miscarried.

James: Clearly Mr. Fritzl is extremely mentally disturbed and needs to be imprisoned to protect innocent people from his horrific impulses. However, as a Buddhist who stands against killing human beings I stand against the death penalty for even this deranged man. It's hard to find any good in a human being such as this Fritzl but he is afterall a fellow sentient being and as I am a believer in karma I feel that his punishment has already but laid out by his actions, which will extend probably into several lifetimes.

I've never done anything nearly as horrible and disgusting as this man but I do know something about how Buddhism can heal and bring about personal change and growth. I use to be a very bitter, angry nihilist who wasn't taking medication for my severe mental illness and at my lowest wanted to blow up the entire world with nuclear weapons. Living in a psychoticly deluded state of mind I thought such a destruction would be doing everyone a service because of all the suffering. This was of course before I discovered Buddhism and now I'm as peaceful as I have ever been in my life and I literally don't hurt a fly.

I hope that Mr. Fritzl will benefit from the greatness that Buddha and the Dharma have to offer. I hope that none of my readers assume that this man has no more value to this world because of his horrific crimes. If so consider the example of the seriel killer Angulimal and Buddha:

Angulimal means a man who wears a garland of human fingers. He had taken a vow that he would kill one thousand people; from each single person he would take one finger so that he could remember how many he had killed and he will make a garland of all those fingers. In his garland of fingers he had nine hundred and ninety-nine fingers--only one was missing. And that one was missing because his road was closed; nobody was coming that way. But Gautama Buddha entered that closed road.

The guards said to Buddha, "Don't unnecessarily take the risk." And do you know what Buddha said to them? Buddha said, "If I don't go then who will go? Only two things are possible: either I will change him, and I cannot miss this challenge; or I will provide him with one finger so that his desire is fulfilled. A very beautiful man of such immense charisma was coming towards him [Angulimal]. Who could this man be? He had never heard of Gautama Buddha, but even this hard heart of Angulimal started feeling a certain softness towards the man. He was looking so beautiful, coming towards him. It was early morning... a cool breeze, and the sun was rising... and the birds were singing and the flowers had opened; and Buddha was coming closer and closer.

Finally Angulimal, with his naked sword in his hand, shouted, "Stop!" Gautama Buddha was just a few feet away, and Angulimal said, "Don't take another step because then the responsibility will not be mine. Perhaps you don't know who I am!" Buddha said, "Do you know who you are?" Angulimal said, "This is not the point. Neither is it the place nor the time to discuss such things. Your life is in danger!" Buddha said, "I think otherwise--your life is in danger." That man said, "I used to think I was mad--you are really mad! And you go on moving closer. Then don't say that I killed an innocent man. You look so innocent and so beautiful that I want you to go back. I will find somebody else. I can wait; there is no hurry. If I can manage nine hundred and ninety-nine... it is only a question of one more, but don't force me to kill you."

Buddha came very close, and Angulimal's hands were trembling. The man was so beautiful, so innocent, so childlike. He had already fallen in love. He had killed so many people... He had never felt this weakness; he had never known what love is. For the first time he was full of love. So there was a contradiction: the hand was holding the sword to kill the person, and his heart was saying, "Put the sword back in the sheath." Buddha said, "I am ready, but why is your hand shaking?--you are such a great warrior, even kings are afraid of you, and I am just a poor beggar. Except the begging bowl, I don't have anything. You can kill me, and I will feel immensely satisfied that at least my death fulfills somebody's desire; my life has been useful, my death has also been useful.

But before you cut my head I have a small desire, and I think you will grant me a small desire before killing me." Before death, even the hardest enemy is willing to fulfill any desire. Angulimal said, "What do you want?" Buddha said, "I want you just to cut from the tree a branch which is full of flowers. I will never see these flowers again; I want to see those flowers closely, feel their fragrance and their beauty in this morning sun, their glory." So Angulimal cut with his sword a whole branch full of flowers. And before he could give it to Buddha, Buddha said, "This was only half the desire; the other half is, please put the branch back on the tree." Angulimal said, "I was thinking from the very beginning that you are crazy. Now this is the craziest desire. How can I put this branch back?"

Buddha said, "If you cannot create, you have no right to destroy. If you cannot give life, you don't have the right to give death to any living thing." A moment of silence and a moment of transformation... the sword fell down from his hands. Angulimal fell down at the feet of Gautam Buddha, and he said, "I don't know who you are, but whoever you are, take me to the same space in which you are; initiate me." By that time the followers of Gautam Buddha had come closer and closer. They were all around and when he fell at Buddha's feet they immediately came close. Somebody raised the question, "Don't initiate this man, he is a murderer!"

Buddha said again, "If I don't initiate him, who will initiate him? And I love the man, I love his courage. And I can see tremendous possibility in him: a single man fighting against the whole world. I want this kind of people, who can stand against the whole world. Up to now he was standing against the world with a sword; now he will stand against the world with a consciousness, which is far sharper than any sword. I told you that murder was going to happen, but it was not certain who was going to be murdered--either I was going to be murdered, or Angulimal. Now you can see Angulimal is murdered. And who I am to judge?"

James: I don't want nor have the right to deny someone looking for help the Dharma and I truly hope that this man will find relief and clarity from Buddhism and begin to make ammends for his horrific crimes.

I’ve recently touched on the delicate topic of human nature. Now it's the turn of the even more inflammatory subject of race. The occasion is provided by a short commentary in Science (7 November 2008), reporting on a meeting of the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI). The reason that meeting was contentious is because of increasingly common research on differences in the genetic susceptibility to diseases among human populations, where “population” is often a thinly veiled synonym for race.

Apparently, participants to the meeting were trying to come up with new language that was based on “non-fraught” terminology, such as “geographic ancestry,” even though researchers acknowledged that they cannot control how the media and the public will interpret what they do anyway. For instance, Carlos Bustamante of Cornell complained that a paper he published was understood by the media to imply that blacks are fitter (presumably, in evolutionary terms) than whites. What Bustamante had actually said was that African-Americans have fewer deleterious genes in their genomes than European-Americans. Not exactly (or even approximately) the same thing!

Apparently, an interesting exchange occurred between Celeste Condit (a professor of speech communication) and Bruce Lahn, who in 2005 had co-authored a paper on natural selection in two genes regulating brain development, genes that are more frequent in Eurasians than in Africans. Condit complained that this sort of study may easily be read as having a “political message” embedded in it, suggesting for instance that Eurasians’ intelligence evolved faster than Africans’, an implication that Lahn firmly denied.

I often discuss the issue of race with my good friend Guido Barbujani, of the University of Ferrara (who occasionally comments on this blog). He is a population geneticist, and doesn’t believe the concept of human race has any biological foundation. I disagree, although with my other friend Jonathan Kaplan (a philosopher, and also occasional commentator on Rationally Speaking) we published a paper in which we made it clear that we don’t think “folk races” exist. (See: Kaplan, J. and M. Pigliucci (2004), On the concept of biological race and its applicability to humans. Philosophy of Science 70: 1161-1172.) That is, we think that what most people call “races” are actually independently evolved sub-populations, but that human races exist in the same sense as ecotypes exist among other animals and plants. An ecotype is a locally adapted population (say, characterized by an “alpine” phenotype for a plant, or a “high light intensity” phenotype for a human), which is not genetically much different from other populations of the same species, except for genes specifically influencing whatever traits are adaptive in that environment (say, short and branched stalks in alpine plants, to protect against strong wind; or dark skin in humans living near the Equator, to protect from high light intensity).

Be that as it may, the question of what a race is, and whether it is a useful biological construct, is an empirical one, though with interesting implications for philosophy of science. It is not, however, something that should be dictated out of political correctness, as in the above mentioned rather silly (and intellectually offensive) statement by Condit. As another participant to the NHGRI meeting, philosopher Allen Buchanan (Duke) put it: “A visible, concerted effort to change vocabulary for moral reasons is likely to trigger a backlash.” Not to mention that it would look really stupid.

Last night I had a strange experience: I was having dinner in Manhattan, near New York University, surrounded by a group of pleasant and smart people, who happened to be Marxists! It was a nice evening, following a panel discussion at NYU on morality without gods. Still, I couldn’t help the feeling of having been thrown back to my high school days (circa 1977), when people were using terms like “means of production” and “oppression of the workers” with genuine conviction and equal obliviousness to the subtleties of actual socio-economic and political situations.

What I thought I was going to hear from my Marxist companions was something along the lines that Marx’s analysis of class struggle and of the foundations of capitalism was still largely correct, and in fact even relevant to the recent collapse of the worldwide financial system unleashed by the most unbridled (as in unregulated) form of capitalism the world has seen since the era of the aptly named robber barons. That, I think, is actually a defensible position, as much as I don’t believe for a second that Marx’s solution will ever work in any real human society. (My take is that both extreme socialism and extreme capitalism make the same mistake, albeit for symmetrical reasons: they ignore fundamental aspects of human nature. Capitalism puts too much emphasis on self-interest, dismissing the fact that we are social animals with strong cooperative instincts; Socialism errs on the other side, proposing an ant-like society where individualism is progressively squeezed out of the human experience.)

If one actually reads Marx’s The Communist Manifesto, one can hardly disagree with most of his theses. That a key to human history is the economic struggle among classes is true, though my view of history does not admit of a one-cause-fits-all sort of explanation. That a more just society would be created by a fairer redistribution of wealth and especially of the control of “the means of production” is also true unless your definition of “justice” is that (economic) might makes right. And that people’s understanding of their own condition is largely shaped by a system that wishes to perpetuate itself despite its flagrant injustice is also something I don’t dispute.

But my Marxist dinner companions really stunned me when they claimed that Stalin “wasn’t all that bad,” and that “Mao was even better.” Come again? Let’s start with Stalin. His radical policies and pursuit of power killed millions through famine, and that was just the beginning. His regime was one of the most violently repressive in human history, with again millions of people exiled to labor camps or simply eliminated, and entire ethnic groups “resettled” because they were not to his liking. Oh, and while Stalin gets a lot of credit for resisting the Nazi invasion, thereby helping to turn the tide against Hitler during World War II, let us not forget that he also pushed the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, which paved the way for Hitler’s invasion of Poland, and thus the onset of the war. My Marxist friends quibbled on exactly how many millions were killed (to me, one million is one too many), and claimed that Stalin’s was the first experiment in applied communism, and he had to make up stuff as he went. Well, let me declare the first experiment such a total and abject failure that I really don’t think we should attempt a second one.

But of course many other such “experiments” were carried out during the 20th century, one of the most cruel being Mao’s. Far from me to be able to offer an in-depth analysis of Maoism (or Stalinism, for that matter) here. But let us consider some examples of what the great leader of communist China did. Mao admitted to the execution of about 700,000 people just in the 1949-53 period, justified, in his mind, because of the necessity of consolidating power. The real number is more likely to be somewhere between 2.5 and 5 million. Moreover, another 1.5 million Chinese were sent to labor camps to be “reformed.” During the so-called “great leap forward,” Mao’s second five-year plan that began in 1958, his policies resulted in widespread famine that killed tens of millions of people. The exact numbers are in dispute, depending on the method used to calculate the deaths. A widely accepted figure is of 20 million, though other estimates take that to be a conservative number, with a range going all the way to the mind-boggling figure of 72 million. Again, if this is the hallmark of success, I’d hate to see a failure.

Why is it that otherwise intelligent, nice people, clearly concerned with justice in the world, can still whole-heartedly claim that communism is a good idea? I suspect it is for very similar reasons to why Christians (just to pick another random group of reality-challenged people) can read the Old Testament and seriously claim that all those instances of god commanding his people to slaughter, rape and pillage “in his name” are really quotes taken out of context. In what context, pray, does that sort of injunction become morally acceptable? The problem, in other words, is the uniquely human penchant for adopting an ideological position and then sticking to it, reality be damned.

As my favorite Marx, Groucho, aptly said (ironically, while talking about matters of economics in the masterpiece movie Duck Soup): “A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.” That is not that different from what I wanted to scream at several points during last night’s dinner. Luckily, the neo-Marxist is one club I simply cannot join, on the grounds that they really wouldn't allow someone like me to be one of their members.

On Thursday, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin appeared in Wasilla in order to pardon a local turkey in anticipation of Thanksgiving. This proved to be a slightly absurd but ultimately unremarkable event. But what came next was positively surreal. After the pardon Palin proceeded to do an interview with a local TV station while the turkeys were being SLAUGHTERED in the background!! Seemingly oblivious to the gruesomeness going on over her shoulder, she carries on talking for over three minutes. Watch the video below to see for yourself. Be warned, it's kind of gruesome.James: Yes it's gruesome but it should be gruesome because we're talking about slaughtering another living being. People should be able to stand watching the animal that they are about to eat on Thanksgiving be killed. If you want to eat meat then I think you should be prepared to kill the animal yourself because someone has to do that for you for every scrap of meat that you eat. If you don't think that you can do it like I didn't then you might want to become a vegetarian.

This ironically occurred while yesterday a hidden video caught workers at a turkey farm throwing the animals against the floor, kicking them and abusing them in other ways. I hardly even remember what Palin said during this video with the brutality occuring in the background.

A reporter asked Palin if she was okay with the backdrop. The Alaskan Governor answered, "no worries." As the bird's head was removed, the man looked over his shoulder at the governor and reporters and flashed a toothy grin.

I understand people having to eat meat because their survival depends upon it but now many of us can survive and live well without meat. In closing, I leave you with the words of the great Mahatma Gandhi: The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.

An anti-conversion law titled, "Prevention of Forcible Conversion Bill," is being considered in Sri Lanka's parliament. It is a bill that I generally disapprove of because I believe in the freedom of religion and while I don't personally like proselytism I think it should be included in a country's freedom of religion rights. In a country, which is 70% Buddhist (Sri Lanka) I do not understand how Christianity is such a threat that it needs to basically be outlawed.

In addition, the structure of "Buddhism" itself can be yet another attachment. Without practice and mindfulness a Buddha statue is nothing but another chunk of wood or stone and temples become glorified houses. I'm not saying that such things aren't beneficial and needed but that Buddhism will evolve how it will and if it disappears in a free world then so be it.

Besides, some say that Buddha himself said that one day Buddhism will no longer be taught in this world. Even if I am the last "Buddhist" on Earth I worry not for the Dharma as it will always be reborn in one form or another either here and/or on other planets. And if not then I am confident that it will have served its purpose. I have faith that karma and change will take the course that it must.

Now. That said I do agree with a limited version of this bill if it simply bans using humanitarian aid, education and health care as a tool to force people to listen to sermons/scriptures and be converted. If these services can not be donated without stipulations then I consider that using unethical behavior. It is taking advantage of the needy to forward your religious ideology instead of giving because it's the right thing to do--period. After all my years of reading the Bible and practicing Christianity I do not believe that Jesus would condition help to proselytism or conversion. It is pure manipulation usually of those whom are vulnerable both spiritually and otherwise. It is not right for religions (whether Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Muslim, etc.) to use peoples' suffering to advance the interests of their belief system.

Also, I wonder if these Christian organizations will now stand up for the freedom of non-Christians here in America to be free of Christian influence in government such as prayer in school, nativity scenes on government property, etc. As a Buddhist I stand up for them to have the right to proselytize in America and abroad but they need to back off a bit on some of the demands that they are placing upon the American government and other secular based governments. There is no reason that religions can not exist together nor is their any reason that religious people and non-religious people can not exist together. I reject extremism on either side of the spiritual spectrum. Whether it is fundamental Christianity (or fundamentalist Buddhism) or militant atheism.

Former presidential candidate and extremist Christian Mike Huckabee claimed on the American t.v. show, "The View" that gay marriage is not a civil rights issue. Yet surely he wouldn't say keeping blacks from marrying whites wasn't a civil rights issue?

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee was on The View Tuesday talking about same-sex marriage and declaring that gay rights are not civil rights because gays have not had violence inflicted upon them like Blacks have.

HuckabeeSaid: "People who are homosexuals should have every right in terms of their civil rights, to be employed, to do anything they want. But that's not really the issue. I know you talked about it and I think you got into it a little bit early on. But when we're talking about a redefinition of an institution, that's different than individual civil rights. We're never going to convince each other...But here is the difference. Bull Connor was hosing people down in the streets of Alabama. John Lewis got his skull cracked on the Selma bridge."

James: So in other words gays need to be beaten and killed more often before we will grant them the right to marry??? As for marriage between a man and a women being an institution I'd remind him that segregation was an institution too and yet we ended that "separate but equal" discrimination. Civil unions are "separate but equal" too. And gays haven't faced violence? Clearly he doesn't remember Matthew Shepard who was a gay American university student who lived in the American state of Wyoming and was beaten to death by two homophobes. I live only about an hour away in northern Colorado from where he was killed. They tortured him and crushed his skull with the butt of a gun before tying him to a fence post out in the country side to die. The beating was so severe that the only areas on Shepard's face that were not covered in blood were those where his tears had washed the blood stains away. All because he was gay. Is that not violent enough for you Mike?

And what about the Holocaust, which saw at least 15,000 homosexuals slaughtered along with millions of Jews. Was that not enough violence for you Mike? Or maybe the assassination of gay San Fransisco city supervisor Harvey Milk wasn't violent enough? And what about, The death of Julio Rivera in New York City on July 2, 1990 by two men who beat him with a hammer and stabbed him with a knife because he was gay. Then there was the case of the rape and later murder of Brandon Teena, a transsexual man (1972 – 1993). The events leading to Mr. Teena's death were depicted in the movie Boys Don't Cry. Click here to read more cases of violence against homosexuals. Homosexuals have been around since man first walked the Earth and have faced horrific violence, intimidation and discrimination for eons so it is highly ignorant to say that gays haven't faced similar violence as African-Americans have here in America.