Tuesday, September 29, 2009
In the Shade of a Hilton
Thursday, September 24, 2009
"The Sigh of the Oppressed Creature"
Most people misunderstand Karl Marx's view of religion. By calling it "the opium of the people," they think he dismisses religion by trivializing it as a needless narcotic. But Marx recognized that religion was a source of comfort in a world where unjust economic conditions created pain and suffering for many. Until conditions improve, solace from pseudo-solutions like religion will be necessary. The full context from his writing in 1844 makes that more clear:Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.Despite the advocates of science and reason over faith and belief, people still turn to religion when times get tough. Materialism and the atheist's credo do not help much when your house has been repossessed, your health insurance canceled because you failed to report a case of acne, your investments plundered by Bernie Madoff, and you've been called up for a fourth tour of duty in Iraq. What is your opium of choice?
These questions arise because I've joined a study group on comparative religions organized by the National Museum Volunteers, and I've offered to give a presentation a week from Monday on the topic, "What is Religion?" Three men (besides myself, Jimmy from the Netherlands and Jean-Pierre from France), and about a dozen women gathered last Monday morning at the large apartment of an expat from Israel, to plan the structure of the group. I'm the newest member of the NMV which was formed 40 years ago to lead tours in different languages at the National Museum in Bangkok, and the organization now publishes books and sponsors excursions, lectures and seminars on Thai culture, history and art. When I learned of it from a founding member whose daughter is a friend of mine, I wanted to join. The study group on religion was right up my alley.
Jimmy wanted very much to talk about a book he was reading, Religion Explained: The Human Instincts that Fashion Gods, Spirits and Ancestors, by Pascal Boyer, but the precis he provided did not fit easily into the list of topics compiled by the organizers is a cognitive anthropologist, one of many who think religion is an aspect of culture which does not need its own subject heading in university catalogs. I ran across his name when I was studying Richard Dawkins and the New Atheists last year. He uses Dawkins' concept of memes, a kind of cultural DNA, to show how the mind can be programmed to embrace and spread religious ideas. One enthusiastic reviewer of Boyer's book seemed to believe that the author supported his idea that "religion is a collection of fantasies about spirits." I bought Religion Explained on the way home at Kinokuniya, the largest English language bookstore in Bangkok, and quickly read the first chapter on religion's origin. I found his ideas to be provocative and stimulating. “Religion," he writes, "is about the existence and causal powers of non-observable entities and agencies” and is made up of "a limited catalogue of possible supernatural beliefs." These beliefs are counter-intuitive and violate some expectations (i.e., that a virgin could give birth) while preserving others (she gave birth to a human, not a frog).
Many years ago I gave a talk at UC Santa Cruz on "The End of Religion" in which I argued that a religion was the creation of a community that spoke the same language and shared an identity. I found the objects of religious belief (gods, miracles, rules) less interesting than the social context within which people make creative sense of the problems in their world: illness, death, suffering, injustice, etc. I kept the outline of that talk without detailed notes, and now I'm trying to reconstruct my thinking as well as learn about the new debunkers of religion as a substantive category for intellectual and scientific study. I can sense Noel rolling over in his grave. For him the subject of religion was sacred if not its contents (he was less of a true believer than most people thought). Boyer contrasts the well-known claims of religion with some fanciful constructs and asks how we can tell the difference. I'll share my findings in another post.Friday, September 18, 2009
She Sang Out for Justice
I had unrequited crushes on all the folk divas in the 1960's. Joan Baez of course was my first vinyl love. "Silver Dagger" on her first LP sent chills up my spine. I saw Baez sing several times in person on both coasts of the U.S. and once got to ask her a question (now forgotten) at a press conference in LA. There were others -- I wasn't faithful: Judy Collins, Buffy Ste. Marie, Carolyn Hester (we once had lunch in London) and certainly Mary Travers, who died yesterday at the age of 72 (how did we get so old?). Her pure alto voice turned the spiritual "If I Had a Hammer" into a cry of rage over injustice at the 1963 March on Washington for civil rights, singing it with her partners Paul Stokey and Peter Yarrow. I listened to them and watched that momentous event on a small black and white TV from a Berkeley studio apartment. And Peter, Paul & Mary introduced Bob Dylan's "Blowin' in the Wind" to a wider audience and made it into an anthem for the new day we thought was dawning in the 1960's before it all turned sour.
While Peter, Paul & Mary might remain most famous for "Puff the Magic Dragon," the children's song that many thought contained drug references (which they jokingly denied), the trio were known for a willingness to promote liberal concerns. At demonstrations for civil rights and against the war in Vietnam, from raising awareness of US support for a dictatorship in El Salvador, to campaigning for New York's homeless, Travers and her two friends used their fame to champion frequently unpopular causes. The daughter of labor organizers, Travers grew up in New York and while in high school sang backup for Pete Seeger. They were the most successful performers in the folk revival, and in 1963, three of the top six albums in Billboard's music chart were by PP&M. At the 1964 Newport Folk Festival, I stood right in front of the stage in the press section to listen to their music, and I will never forget it. When I learned that David, my teacher and friend at UC Santa Cruz, had a brief affair with Mary while on leave in New York as a young merchant seaman, I was incredibly impressed, and jealous. R.I.P., Mary.
Tomorrow is the third anniversary of the 2006 military coup in Thailand which overthrew the elected government of Thaksin Shinawatra. The red shirt movement, aligned with Thaksin but not totally his tool, has scheduled a major rally in Bangkok and elsewhere in the country. Prime Minister Abhisit has responded by invoking the draconian Internal Security Act which will put 6,500 troops and police on the streets to "insure order." Thaksin was deposed while he was on a trip to address the United Nations, the same journey Abhisit is currently making. Rumors of a new coup are in the air, but as The Economist points out in "Where Power Lies," his government was installed and is supported by the military. The 2006 coup failed to deter Thaksin loyalists who elected their partisans again in the 2007 election and after two administrations were taken down by judicial rulings, the military and power elite managed to put Abhisit and his Democratic Party into power. But Abhisit is apparently in trouble with his coalition partners and has so far been unable to appoint his chosen successor as national police chief. For background, read the excellent blog post by Giles Ji Ungpakorn who is currently in exile in England because of lèse majesté charges. Both articles raise questions about democracy in Thailand. Freedom of speech and the right of assembly are certainly under threat here. Numerous commentators on the left have charged that Amnesty International here is in league with the royalist and military elite to downplay rights violations. According to The Economist (this issue will probably be banned), since 1992 "successive civilian governments failed to overhaul the 300,000-strong armed forces. They still have several hundred active generals, many without even a desk. The tally of 36 four-star officers is just behind America’s 41. But America’s army is four times larger—and at war."Thailand’s army sees itself as the defender of the crown and suspects a republican agenda among reds. For that reason, the generals will be loth to let go until the succession is over. But repressing a mass movement in the name of a charismatic king is one thing. As Nepal’s army found in 2006, doing the same for an unpopular monarch, as Thailand’s crown prince would be, is a recipe for defeat.The succession is the elephant in the room for Thai politics. It cannot be discussed openly due to the lèse majesté law and strict internet censorship. Most of the reds claim to support the monarchy, but some, like Giles, are openly agitating for a republic. What the people outside Bangkok think, where government support is weak, is yet to be known. Maybe what happens this weekend will provide clues.
Despite how well known the doctrine of karma seems to be, Pandit said it was one of the Buddha's "imponderables," something that you cannot figure out, and if you try your head "will be split into seven pieces." The word means action, and the results of action, and I know that it plays a major role in the Bhagavad Gita. Intention, Pandit explained, is as important as the action that results. It is not strictly speaking cause and effect, but only one version of it; the tree that grows from a mango seed is not the result of karma. Pandit disagreed with a fellow monk who said a heart attack resulting from eating fatty foods was caused by karma. "You can't blame everything on karma," he argued. That would be karmic determinism, and the Buddha included it along with two other "wrong views": everything is caused by God and everything is caused by chance. The Buddha talks about the future, not the past, and karma is discussed in the suttas mainly because of its effect on rebirth. Bad karma, Pandit said, can be easily turned around.
Last week Pandit affirmed that "you have a self," and said the ego as the seat of rationality needs to be developed. Destroying the ego, he said, would be nihilism. But behind the ego (below? within?) is a place of pure awareness where we can put our attention, and from which wisdom arises. The problem with consciousness (or what he preferred to call "cognizing," the subject of his talk two weeks ago) is that it puts its attention on sense experience and follows along after it. The self is apparently a construction based on attending to the senses, but this self can lead us astray. “If you put attention on other aspects such as compassion, awareness, perception etc., you train your mind to be calmer and more observant of what is going on. Then things can really change for you." The Buddha said, “By attending to the right things you generate wisdom within you.” It still sounds as if Buddhists want to have their cake (enlightenment) and eat it (develop the egoic self) too. I applaud the attempt to maintain a self that common sense dictates exists. But I still worry that Buddhism want to negate life by denying any positive role to sense experience. And this is still nihilism (if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...).
A week ago I was called on short notice to act in a promotion video for a new Language Center at the Wang Noi campus of Mahachulalongkorn Buddhist University. My friend Panida, who was involved in MCU's three-day Vesak celebration this year, had been asked to help plan the center which currently is operating from the offices of the International Association of Buddhist Universities (IABU) at Wang Noi under the direction of Dr. Phramaha Hunsa Dhammahaso, assistant rector for academic affairs. Assisted by Ratcha and Ben, who will teach Korean at the center, they have designed an elaborate program of courses in a short period of time and are recruiting students to come next month from MCU as well as in the neighboring Ayutthaya district. While not fully understanding the plan, I put on my best teacher's duds and and went off to Wang Noi early in the morning to perform in the educational lakorn (Thai for soap opera).
It was great fun, with a large banquet lunch included at a nearby outdoor restaurant, and I was even offered a job at the new center. But they want to provide 10 hours of instruction per class a week (compared to the 3-hour weekly classes I teach now) and I would have to commute to Wang Noi three days each week. As a gentleman teacher, presently semi-retired, this would mean too much work. And I also suspect that their courses will largely duplicate the curriculum in the Department of Foreign Languages where I now teach, which could present problems.The huge march of selfish nitwits in Washington last week to protest against socialized health care and every other imagined conspiracy is a stark counterpoint to the uplifting civil rights gathering I speak of above in 1963. Evan Handler posted his reaction on The Huffington Post and everyone should read it. He loves America but not necessarily Americans (my sentiments exactly) and is particularly upset by the anti-immigrant hysteria.
As to those immigrants, and the rage I've seen inspired by them, just give me a break. You're all immigrants. Every one of you. Every one of your pink, overstuffed, jiggly "American" asses is stuffed full of tortillas, or pancetta, or paella, or schnitzel, or knockwurst, or moussaka, or Dublin Coddle, or whatever the fuck your ancestors ate before they crawled their way over here. And, when they got here, someone hated them just as much as you're hating whoever's newest here now, and fought against their having anything you now enjoy.Like others, he urges readers to write, call and do something -- Carry signs. Gather. Organize. -- "because the greedy and the foolish are ruling the day even after they lost an election." Handler, in his conclusion, laments that America was once "once a nation of such potential. A nation built on the pride of its self-proclaimed superiority. We've been embarrassing ourselves in front of the world since shortly after 9/11, 2001. In spite of a change of leadership, there doesn't seem to be an end in sight. Shame on the citizens who are trying to obstruct, and shame on the politicians who pandered to them this past week."
Yes, shame on them. Read the whole article.
Monsoon storm clouds outside my window a few minutes ago:
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Reason Vs. Ruin
It's very difficult to explain American cultural values to outsiders. Europeans and Asians find the debate over the role of government in health care rather odd. Since "socialized" medicine is demonstrably cheaper and better than for-profit health care, what is all the fuss about? President Obama gave a "make-or-break" (so the pundits said) speech to Congress Wednesday in which he presented a reasonable case for reform in the health care system, saying that "if we do nothing...our deficit will grow. More families will go bankrupt. More businesses will close. More Americans will lose their coverage when they are sick and need it most. And more will die as a result. We know these things to be true."
"You lie!" shouted one congressman when the president said that illegal immigrants would not be covered under a reform proposal already watered down to accommodate conservative lawmakers who abhor government involvement in the private sector (and why should health care be "privatized"?). I fear that the president's reasonable attempt to guarantee equal access for all to health care in America, an effort that has defeated many leaders in the past, will fail, drowned by a tsunami of lunatic claims -- "death panels," "federal funding of abortion," "Obama the Nazi," ad nauseam. It's impossible to predict the sewers into which the radical right will sink. And these crazies are now in control of the Republican Party. Their response to Obama's speech was given by a "pro-life" representative from Louisiana who has supported the "birther" movement which claims Obama was not born in the U.S. and therefore is ineligible to be president. In addition, he once tried to unsuccessfully purchase the title of British lord from a couple of con men. And of course Sarah Palin is waiting in the wings to carry their demented banner.
Speaking of the Americans who can't afford insurance or who lose their coverage because of obscure loopholes enforced by the insurance corporations to enhance their profit, Obama said, "We are the only advanced democracy on Earth – the only wealthy nation – that allows such hardships for millions of its people." If anything, the president was TOO reasonable. He should have attacked medical corporations for engineering the skyrocketing costs. Why is health care so expensive in America? What is needed is a preacher like Martin Luther King who could inflame passions over what can only be described as a scandal. Obama won't convert the lunatics, but he must forgo fruitless bipartisanship to rally his troops. The ideological divide in the U.S. is deepening and polite political discourse is increasingly ineffective.President Obama referred to his predecessors who created Social Security and Medicare, programs that would never make it through Congress today. They knew, he said, that
the danger of too much government is matched by the perils of too little; that without the leavening hand of wise policy, markets can crash, monopolies can stifle competition, and the vulnerable can be exploited. And they knew that when any government measure, no matter how carefully crafted or beneficial, is subject to scorn; when any efforts to help people in need are attacked as un-American; when facts and reason are thrown overboard and only timidity passes for wisdom, and we can no longer even engage in a civil conversation with each other over the things that truly matter – that at that point we don't merely lose our capacity to solve big challenges. We lose something essential about ourselves.Fine words. I wish that they would govern the health care debate. But I think that the hysterical lunatics of the right will drown them out.
Some of them went to high school with me. When we connected online, they sent me email filled with extremist conservative propaganda until I begged them to cease and desist. We were once good friends and I wasn't willing to write them off over political differences. My closest friend in high school was a dentist during the Vietnam war and has dropped hints that he worked for the CIA; we've agreed to disagree and avoid sensitive topics. I've found several old high school friends on Facebook. Betty, an heiress who drives a Rolls Royce and lives in Nevada, wrote on my Wall that she was a fan of Rush Limbaugh and wondered if I would talk to her. I've been in touch with Gary for a few years and we share an interest in jazz, having once played in a band together. But a week ago he responded to the title of this blog by writing to me in Facebook that there was already too much of my topics online. In another comment, he criticized my support of health care reform and said he wanted to keep government out of the doctor's office. When I asked if he enjoyed the benefits of Medicare, he replied, "None of your business," and disappeared. He defriended me on Facebook.
We all need friends, even ones who disagree with us, and his rejection hurt. Maybe virtual friendships are an illusion made possible by the smoke and mirrors of the internet. The longer I remain in Thailand, the more friends and even family members drift away, unable to feel the intimacy of in-person contact. Few people, it seems, are as able as I am to engage in the give and take of written conversation. Intimacy at a distance requires effort. A hundred years ago I would have written dozens of letters a day while lamenting that not many kept up their end of the correspondence. So as old friends fall away, my community here in Southeast Asia becomes all the more important: Jerry, George, Eric, Pandit, Holly, Marcus, Bill, Rubby and others. But the brightest light of my life now is Nan.
Last Friday I flew up to meet her in Chiang Rai, the northernmost province of Thailand which borders Laos and Burma in an area known as the "Golden Triangle."The statue at left is of the much venerated King Mengrai the Great who founded Chiang Rai in 1262 as part of the Lanna kingdom; it didn't become Siamese until 1786. Nan's village is in Phayao province to the southeast and she made the three-hour journey to meet me at the airport in a Ford truck driven by her mother, Yuan, along with her 15-year-old half brother, Nok, and Edward, 7, the son of her mother's sister, Ban Yen, who died of cancer several years ago. The grandmother who raised Nan has still not been told that she has a farang boyfriend for fear she will pester me with requests for money. Thais are used to foreigners bringing gifts; her aunt brought several boyfriends to the village who were generous and now it's expected. Besides paying many of the expenses of our two day visit, I made a contribution to the extended family's welfare. Differences of cultural values over money are contentious in Thai-farang relationships but not, I believe, insurmountable. Time will tell.
Chiang Rai is a smaller, mellower version of Chiang Mai, it's cousin to the west. We stayed at an almost empty guest house with a garden, feuding cats, and an AUA English school at the rear. One night there was a large festival in the streets several blocks away to celebrate something important, with entertainment on several stages (break dancing!) and hundreds of food booths featuring northern cuisine like Chiang Rai noodles and "knee chicken" (wings). On the afternoon of my arrival, I picked a restaurant out of Lonely Planet that proved to be exceptionally expensive, but it gave Edward his first taste of pizza (he'd seen it on TV but had never eaten it). There was a smattering of farang in the streets and shops (why are so many fat?) but I do not think the city is a major tourist destination. Most probably pass through on their way to Laos or Burma. In the evening we browsed through the Chiang Rai Night Bazaar which I enjoyed more than similar markets in Chiang Mai and at Suan Lum in Bangkok; less crowded, cleaner, and with a better quality of goods. We listened to some beautiful music made with shaken pipes that I'd never seen done before, Nan had her fortune told (things are looking up, as she recovers from the death of her father and a motorbike accident), and we watched the dancers at an outdoor pavillion and ate roasted fish.
Now back at my small apartment in Lumpini Place, Nan and I are beginning our life together. I spent the first day back preparing for my class. I gave my students an oral examination by asking them to talk about why they became monks (the reasons included poverty and the desire for an education with only a few citing love of the Lord Buddha and the dhamma), and I played them "Love is Color-Blind" by TQ and Sarah Connor and talked to them about prejudice and the civil rights movement in America. Nan returned to her old office to help train her replacement and was asked to work there through December. We have decisions to make, where to find a bigger yet cheaper apartment, and where she should go to school, probably starting in May. The current term ends at my school in two weeks and I'll have nearly three weeks off before the next one begins. I hope we can take one or two weekend trips together as we cement our relationship and learn how to live together. She has cooked some wonderful meals for me this week, including a rice soup with pork for breakfast this morning. I am already so spoiled! Today is the sixth in a series of eight talks on "The Way of Wisdom" at Planet Yoga on Sukhumvit in Bangkok given by Pandit Bhikku for the Little Bang Sangha and guests. I hope to say more about this and the last lecture in my next posting. For now, I'm enthralled in domestic bliss.Tuesday, September 01, 2009
In Defense of Desire
"Never let go of that fiery sadness called desire"
-- Patti Smith
A central tenet of Buddhism is that tanha, the Pali word translated as thirst, craving or desire, leads inevitably to unhappiness and suffering. For Christians, sin does much the same. The solution proposed by the Buddha was to renounce tanha. For monks in both religions, this means a radical turning away from the things of the world; the temptation of desire or sin is everywhere. Lay followers of Jesus and the Buddha are left to interpret these teachings in ways that enable them to live productive and satisfying lives within the context of their faith. I believe, contrary to accepted spiritual wisdom, that desire is an essential part of what makes us human, and the attempt to escape it can be a form of nihilism.
All well and good. It is certainly true that we are attached to our sense pleasures and avoid the unpleasant via an inventive and endless quest for distraction. We want happiness to last forever and suffering to remain stillborn. This, on any account, is impossible. Our desires "slightly exceed our ability to fulfill them," Pandit gently noted. You can't always get what you want (or even what you need), but is it possible, as Buddhism seems to advocate, that you can get rid of wanting?
The Tao of Lao-Tzu says that "there is no calamity greater than lavish desire," and suggested:
Reduce selfishness
Have few desires
I interpret this to mean that our desires should be moderate. Live simply is advice more acceptable to me than stop thinking or give up desires. The Buddha renounced home and family and taught his monks to do the same. Although he taught the Middle Way between sensual indulgence and ascetic denial, it's difficult to reframe for a lay audience his rigorous teaching appropriate for monks without cutting corners. In a traditional Buddhist country like Thailand, there is a patriarchal and clerical attitude that the body is bad, particularly if it involves sexual relations (or even touching). Although individual monks and teachers like Pandit Bhikku may soften the blow by offering the carrot of enlightenment to all, the very existence of the Sangha of monks proclaims that, just as for Catholic priests and nuns, this is the better path. Only the truly dedicated can become free of desire and thoughts.
I apologize if I have used and abused Pandit's teaching on desire to climb atop my own soap box. In my limited understanding of the Dhamma as passed down from the Buddha over the centuries, I have found a helpful and useful way to look at the world and my place in it. In the process I have had to test and prune various teachings of of what I see as harmful and misleading accretions. I recall that Fr. Bede Griffiths edited the Psalms for his ashram in India by removing violent and bloodthirsty passages that exalted in the conquering of Canaan. Here in Thailand I've gotten help from the writings of Buddhadasa Bhikku who attempted to purge Thai Buddhism of superstition and ritualism. For him, there was no particular benefit in being a monk if your goal was enlightenment, and, along with his disciple Sulak Sivaraksa, he taught the wisdom of an engaged Buddhism in the world where enlightened action is sorely needed.
All of this is my way of struggling by means of words and ideas to understand who I am and what I must do, a task which began as I recall when I was a teenager. I have pursued mystical insight in "the cloud of unknowing," and I've sought the wisdom that surpasses understanding. Resisting gurus and unable to shed a persistent skepticism about all established truths, I've stumbled from flying saucers to Theosophy, and through the New Age into the postmodern period where grand narratives are no longer acceptable. The thought that I cannot see the promised land that others see is a lingering frustration, but I'm thankful for the steps I've taken. Buddhism has taught me to question the very reality of "me," while Christian activists have shown convincingly that the Gospel message must be lived through service in this world to others. The time is now, in this present moment, and it takes place with love and compassion. Without any desire for the Truth, would I have gotten this far?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
