Diary

I’ve booked a ticket to Istanbul for August 1. I want to get away for August, and wasn’t sure whether to go east or west. But, from a journey I made almost forty years ago, I know that I like the city, and it serves as a hub, so I will decide what to do when I’m there; either spend a couple of weeks and come home, or, indeed to extend my journey. If D decides she wants to join me, it will probably be to Europe; otherwise I may decide to go to India.

Spent an hour trying to get an old Rapoo bluetooth keyboard working properly in Linux. It disconnected every few seconds, and I was thinking I’d need to buy a new keyboard. But the problem seems to have been solved or mitigated after uncommenting a couple of lines in the bluetooth configuration files.

keyboard

Demonstrations against the judicial reform shook the country and scores of people were arrested for blocking city streets, highways and the airport. As for me, I was at home, pottering around the house and playing with a new pen that just arrived from China.

paper note with Jinhao pen

The afternoon walks around here are pretty boring actually; maybe even in the best of seasons. A monoculture of pine woods, and fields. But when I go with a camera, I begin to see things that I wouldn’t normally notice. That seems to be the beauty of photography – to help us to train the eye to see what’s out there, and to find new ways of looking at it. I’m having a lot of fun with this.

coloured ribbons - school grounds
school building with shadows of trees

Not many wild flowers to look at in this season, other than these globe thistles.

globe thistle flower
purple-blue flower of the globle thistle

More in the photoblog gallery.

Links

The collapse of insects Well-made and invested piece from Reuters

Is China really leading the clean energy revolution? Not exactly

The country generates more solar energy than all other countries combined, but burns half the planet’s coal. There are lessons here for the rest of us, though.

Practice day / book launch, a film

This morning I took part in a practice day / book launch for the translation of Zen and the Art of Climate Change (the same theme as the book launch that I previously described in Tel Aviv. Here there was maybe a greater effort to describe the common ground between the spiritual approach and the phenomenon of climate change, which Avner Gross managed to describe very well. the event was much smaller (about 40 people) so there was a chance for the audience to express themselves – their remarks were interesting.

In the evening I watched the film The Banshees of Inisherin. I wasn’t expecting to like it, so I wasn’t disappointed. The story seemed weak and phony, as well as being full of overused stereotypes about Irish people and island people. The locations themselves are amazingly beautiful. I recognised some of them from a couple of stays on Inishmor, and it seems that others were filmed on Achill Island in County Mayo – which I haven’t seen.

Culpability

There are a couple at climate sites where one can take a quiz to calculate the quantity of CO2 each of us produce. According to the parameters of the test, it turns that I’m pretty much a climate criminal. My wife and I share a free standing house of about 150 square meters and travel everywhere by car or by plane. That’s enough, apparently, to tilt the scale towards 11 – 13 tons of CO2 per person, regardless of diet or other factors.

I can add that all my electricity is produced by fossil fuels and a third of the water is desalinated by means of electricity.

If these crimes were not enough, I live in an apartheid state where the majority of the land was stolen from an indigenous people whose descendents continue to be oppressed today; a state that makes a living by exporting weapons and cyber-weapons and whose principal friends are corrupt dictators and war-criminals.

Being human, according to many parameters, is already to belong to a species that acts like a cancer on the earth; invading the territories of other species, de-foresting habitats, polluting the rivers, poisoning the oceans, wrecking the atmosphere and bringing about the extinction of many other life forms.

Our presence is as harmful to our environment as that of the rabbits introduced to Australia, which quickly overran the entire continent and ate up most of the vegetation. Or the European settlers in the Americas, who supplanted the indigenous population.

rabbit-wikipedia.jpg

If we were to be put on trial for our crimes, we could claim innocence. We could claim that we ourselves are victims. We could claim extenuating circumstances and express contrition. But if we pardon ourselves and then repeat the crimes, what should be our punishment?

In the case of those rabbits, the favored solution was control or eradication:

Various methods in the 20th century have been attempted to control the Australian rabbit population. Conventional methods include shooting rabbits and destroying their warrens, but these had only limited success. From 1901 to 1907, a rabbit-proof fence was built in Western Australia in an unsuccessful attempt to contain the rabbits.[2][3] The myxoma virus, which causes myxomatosis, was introduced into the rabbit population in the 1950s and had the effect of severely reducing the rabbit population. (Wikipedia)

In the case of settlers (White Americans? Israeli Jews?), they could be expelled, like the Indians of Idi Amin’s Uganda. But since humans are anyway problematic, maybe they should simply be exterminated, like the rabbits?

There has to be another solution. Extreme retribution is exacted only at the cost of losing our humanity. Murder, capital punishment, genocide, even suicide are all crimes against humanity.

Does humanity actually count for anything when humans themselves are the problem?

I would argue that what we actually mean when we talk about humanity is divinity. And divinity, rather than being a quirky religious term, means the essential existence-consciousness underlying everything manifest. We call it humanity, because to be human is to be what we are. For a rabbit, it would be his “rabbitness”. And the essential in us, as in the rabbit, is the consciousness that binds us all together. The what-we-are is the divine.

I am the gambling of the cheats and the splendor of the splendid. I am the victory of the victorious, the resolve of the resolute, and the virtue of the virtuous.

-Krishna, in the Bhagavad Gita 10.36

So essentially, even when we are effectively undermining nature by cause of our existence, we are remaining true to our nature. Because we are part of all nature. We are the thing that we are undermining. We “inter-are”, as Thich Nhat Hanh would say. We cannot remove ourselves from the equation.

This is not to say that we cannot mitigate the damage, offset the environmental costs, or possibly give back to the universe something in return for its generous gifts.

Even by being aware of our connectedness, our behaviour can begin to change. It may dawn on us that birdsong and snow on the mountain peaks are as essential to our existence as the shiny new phone that we lust for, or the new car. We can reevaluate our priorities and begin to make different decisions. The question is whether the changes we make – individual and collective – will be sufficient, and in time.

Extraordinary Times

We are living in an extraordinary time in which the viability of our institutions, the myths of society, and the true worth of leaders, is severely tested. Some leaders, like Donald Trump, are so completely confounded by the challenges that whatever they do or do not do places them in a situation of appearing ridiculous. Others, like Angela Merkle, do not need to be very vocal, since they sit atop functional systems that just work, or at least work better.

Countries like Sweden are being shown that some of the assumptions about themselves as societies are poor companions when they are confronted by a new kind of threat. They do not know how to adapt to it.

The virus managed to out-wait Israel. It is waging a war of attrition against a society that prides itself on being able to pull together in order to fight massive, but short term existential crises. Some of the behaviours that aid it in other circumstances fail it in this kind of crisis.

The pandemic is helping societies learn about themselves and their resilience in times of adversity.

Planet of the Humans (again)

Reading George Monbiot’s critique of “Planet of the Humans” I appreciated his ability to sift through the many details, see where the errors lie and then state the ways in which the film is inaccurate, dangerous and damaging to the cause that it is supposedly trying to support. Environmentalists face so many challenges from the political right and those with vested interests who wish to undermine challenges to the continued degradation of the biosphere.

Perhaps I misinterpreted the film, or saw what I wanted to see in it. Or perhaps I’m right after all. It’s true that everyone experiences reality according to their individual tendencies. What dawned on me while watching it was that however careful we are to produce cleaner forms of energy, and however efficient those processes become, we will simply be encouraged to consume more, and it is built into the capitalist system and our own species’ nature to do so. We will not be able to reverse the destruction because the more we produce, the more we will use. I don’t see this as being a problem of the developing world and its burgeoning population (and growing needs), but a challenge to be addressed by those who are at the pinnacle of progress – who are also the heaviest consumers. They need to provide leadership in learning how to use less, not more.

But I don’t think they will do so.

“Planet of the Humans”

I watched this movie, (it’s available free on YouTube) by Jeff Gibbs and produced by Michael Moore, as there have been appeals from the Green movement to take it down and, who knows, maybe they’ll succeed.  While the film is, as critics say, no doubt hurtful to efforts to lobby for greener solutions, I think the central thesis of the film is correct, that without addressing the root causes of our environmental problems – overpopulation and unrestrained economic growth – any technological fixes we try to find will not work. (Update: See George Monbiot’s critique of the film.)

The main problem is capitalism, and our dependence on its fruits.  Without addressing it, greener energy production, even if it turns out to be better than the dismal examples shown in the movie, is only going to increase demand.  Just as improving the roads to avoid traffic congestion encourages more people to drive to work rather than take the bus, so the traffic congestion remains.

As a species we expand until it is no longer possible to meet our demands.  When we reach that point, it seems than we will not gently restrain ourselves but, like the boom and bust economy, reach a point of total breakdown. That will be a tragedy, a holocaust, for our ourselves or our forebears, as well as for most of the larger life-forms on the planet, because it will coincide with the collapse of the entire biosphere.

It’s capitalism that is driving us to the apocalypse, of course, but turning capitalism into a scapegoat is not the solution.  Our economic system is a product of the way we are. It’s something more fundamental that we need to change. And yet, if we can learn anything from ecology, it is that systems are intertwined and that no one of us exists in isolation, independently from the whole. So it is not as if I, as “an individual” can change anything. We effect change as a group, as a race, as a species, and in conjunction with every other species.

The film says that change can only begin with awareness. Awareness, if it is integral, and not just intellectual, can bring change.  We’ve got to start somewhere.  Let’s start by admitting that we exist in symbiosis with other species in a biosphere that has enough for all of us, if we only limit our share to that which we actually need, and leave enough for everyone else. If we don’t do that, we will soon reach a stage where we will have less than we need (and then we will die). But what constitutes a “need”? If we are asking that question, it probably means we are so remote from our actual needs that we have forgotten.  We can begin by reducing our consumption and finding out for ourselves.

Creating a buzz: Turkish beekeepers risk life and limb to make mad honey

History is littered with stories of the psychoactive properties of deli bal, still produced today in the Kaçkar mountains

Source: Creating a buzz: Turkish beekeepers risk life and limb to make mad honey | World news | The Guardian

Of course, the Sanskrit word for honey, madhu, like mead (the ancient drink made with honey) and mad (which is Sanskrit for hilarity, rapture) all come from the same Indo-European root.

Making clothes last longer

The Guardian has a very informative article on making clothes last longer, with many links to related matters, such as buying second-hand, preferred methods for laundering, which fabrics to buy, how to fix clothes, etc. If we think of our three essential needs – food, clothing, shelter – obviously looking after clothes is one of the most important subjects to learn about, as we go further into the climate emergency. Last week they had a related article about an organization that is working with clothing companies to improve the manufacture of jeans.

Dharma as a spiritual practice that can maybe save the planet

Dharma as a spiritual practice that can maybe save the planet

I. Separation and underlying unity

The world, the universe, reality, can be said to exist both in diversity and in unity. In diversity it exists as a conglomeration of separate semi-autonomous parts. These semi-autonomous parts are governed by laws of self-preservation. But ultimately they depend upon and are absorbed back into the underlying unity from which they have arisen. The universe of things is intimately connected – no thing exists independently. It is joined not only by what we think of as physical “laws” that govern the way in which the parts interact with each other (gravity, magnetism, etc.) but also at a deeper level, in that all of these “things” are manifestations of the same underlying field of existence/consciousness. Each “thing” is not a partial but, in its essence, a full expression of the underlying field.1 This underlying field is what gives rise to the universe of things in the first place; the universe depends upon it for its existence.

Wrong vision

As members of this universe of parts we cannot directly comprehend the underlying unity while simultaneously seeing ourselves and the world as autonomous independent beings. We either see the forest or the trees. However, seeing the one without seeing the other makes our vision of the world incomplete and therefore mistaken, and this has consequences for the way that we relate to our fellow beings, for our behaviour in and towards the world.

Our wrong vision of the world is based on:

a. The basic semi-autonomy of every member of the universe, and the inherent instinct of every individual for self-preservation. In humans, as in other creatures, this manifests as basic drives to satisfy hunger, protect oneself from danger, reproduce, etc.2

b. Extensions based on this semi-autonomy. Thinking of ourselves as existing independently, as separate entities, we adhere to responsibilities towards children, parents, our community, etc. and find a necessity to compete against others for our survival. For our survival and well being, we try to gather around us persons and things, which we must then defend.

Our wrong vision of the world leads to:

a. The inability to see the underlying unity (because we are duped by our conception of the world in terms of division and separation).

b. Seeing the world through a filter and prioritizing action. For the sake of convenience we draw a separation between ourselves and the universe, and distinguish the universe into separate parts. Conceptually we draw distinctions between what is important and less important, what is real and what is false, etc. Out of the myriad objects, the myriad interactions between them, and the events and causalities in space and time, we identify what is important to us in terms of our limited world view and the need to defend ourselves and compete. Our wrong vision is therefore self-supporting and self-confirming; our egoistic vision builds upon itself and further conditions us. Our conditioning further blinds us to underlying harmony, unifying love and laws of cooperation upon which the holistic systems of our biosphere depend.

c. Rivalry, conflict, warfare. Whereas the universe actually depends upon an underlying unity and the symbiosis and mutual cooperation of everything that manifests within this unity, an inability to see this unity leads us into competition, rivalry and conflict.

d. Increasing levels of destruction of our biosphere. Whereas the universe depends on the underlying unity and coexistence of everything in it, a world-view that insists on self-autonomy and perceived separation, eventually brings about the destruction of the elements that it needs for its own existence. Whereas a vision of underlying unity enables a self-sustaining harmony, a vision of separation leads to ultimate destruction. Although in an earlier age it was possible to continue without seeing this, in our Anthropocene age, in which the world is becoming unlivable for the creatures that live within it, in which a tenth of all species in currently facing imminent extinction, it is now possible to see the final consequences of our wrong vision and resultant wrong action. We can now understand that without a radical revision of our actions, based on correct vision, we will be unable to continue.

Overcoming wrong vision

Because we see the world as a subject – object reality, in which we, as subject, exist in a world of other beings or things, we are unable to see the unitary whole upon which the perceived world depends. However, not being able to see the unitary whole does not imply that this does not exist. It also does not mean that we are unable to sense its existence, based on all that we see. In the same way, astronomers can predict the existence of an unseen celestial body by measuring its effects upon other bodies that can be seen. Some scientists, based on their observations, have come to the conclusion that the universe is conscious, or constructed of consciousness. Ordinary perception of the world can lead to the understanding that it is controlled by laws that spring from an underlying unity. The more that we learn about nature and our biosphere, the more we understand that it expresses an inherent harmony and equilibrium. Without this, the world would not be able to exist or continue. The biosphere is threatened when these laws are not respected.

The role of mysticism

In an earlier age, it was more difficult to identify the cause of our misery as a consequence of wrong vision. It was less easy to grasp this rationally because the end result, which we can now see clearly, was not so obvious. Such a conclusion was however reached through the intuition of mystics and sages, through meditation and samadhi. Intuited understanding is difficult to conceptualize intellectually or express verbally and, when it is expressed, often leads to contradictory expressions in various theories and schools of thought. This has resulted in the various darshanas of Indian philosophy, various schools of Buddhism, and similarly contradictory expressions among Islamic, Christian and other mystics, etc. There is no consensus on whether reality consists solely of pure consciousness, the void, is in a relationship of subservience to divine will, etc. However, there is an underlying agreement that our everyday perception of the world is in error and that selfish, unprincipled, egoistic behaviour is destructive. There is further consensus that action should be non-selfish, as expressed in the injunction to “love thy neighbour/companion as our self”.

The mystic vision of sages and the founders of the our religions has been expressed variously through scriptures that carry the injunction towards virtuous and altruistic action. If our actions were truly based on these agreements, we would exist in a state of harmony between each other and our world. However, this is not the case.

The mystics who gave expression to these scriptures had an intuited, integral vision. An integral vision, i.e, one that is not simply rational or intellectual, transforms one’s world in such a way as to produce a harmony at all levels of one’s being. It governs our behaviour and informs one’s actions in a way that a merely rational or intellectual understanding fails to do. There is no question of being at odds with one’s vision because any will to act in a way that contradicts it disappears.

From integral vision to religion

When we comprehend a thing rationally or intellectually, or try to obey religious injunctions out of belief, we introduce the possibility of inner conflict. Our conscience may tell us one thing, but our desires and cravings have a life of their own. So either our actions will be imperfect, or we will fail totally. Our actions may result in partial compliance, non-compliance, hypocrisy, lip-service or repressive behaviour that results in mental aberrations or maladies.

Religions, ethical codes, human laws, have largely failed in their mission to keep egoistic behaviour at bay, create peaceful societies, prevent wars, or create a sustainable future for humankind and our fellow creatures.

Self realisation as a way to effect change

Because of the failure of religions to effect real change, some thinkers have come to the conclusion that there will be no real transformation unless individuals can attain to the same integral and intuitive realization as that of the saints and sages and founders of the religions.

There are several problems with this aspiration.

a. It is impractical to hope that, in the conceivable future, a large mass of people will attain an integral vision that comprehends the underlying unity. The obstacles are great, as is proved by the small number of people who have been able to attain this throughout history. Even with good intentions and diligence, it seems that such a true realization is exceedingly uncommon.

b. There appear to be issues with the attainment of the unitary vision itself. Some who have been able to comprehend the underlying unity have afterwards been unable to function in the real world. Traditional brahmanic scriptures themselves have proclaimed that those who attain to the state of nirvikalpa samadhi die quickly.3 Those who do go on living may embrace a monist vision that upholds the underlying unity, while declaring the “world of things” to be unreal and invalid. Whereas previously they were unable to see the forest for the trees, they are now unable to see the trees for the forest. A real transformation of the human condition requires the ability to see the world in its diversity as well as in its underlying unity.4

c. The unitary vision is not a communicable experience at all. This is reflected in the contradictions in the way that the various sages have described or extrapolated from their experience. It is also reflected in the refusal by many sages to discuss their experience. It is therefore not practical to expect that any individual realisation will lead to real change at the level that is required to transform our plight.

d. There is real urgency to our problem. We are creating untenable conditions for our continued existence on the planet. We are destroying our biosphere. We are setting the ground for multiple disasters as competition over basic resources like water, land, food and air will grow acute to the point of open warfare. We are not even aware of the multiple ways in which pollution, destruction of habitat, climate change, depletion of resources, overpopulation, etc. will interact. Although we know that disaster is looming, we are unable to reverse or even mitigate the practices that lead to it. Our failure to act is a result of our wrong vision.

Dharma

The failure of human laws to create a peaceful world and sustainable future

The laws that govern the universe of things are themselves the manifestation of the unitary existence-consciousness that underlies reality. These laws govern the way the manifest universe interacts with itself. They are based both on the need and tendency of the individual for self-preservation and upon the underlying cooperation and bonding between individual and individual within the universal whole. In eastern philosophies there is the view that the universe functions according to an overarching law of dharma, and within it each individual operates according to his own prescribed dharma within this macrocosmic reality.

Our understanding of the laws that govern the universe is imperfect and this imperfect understanding, often first expressed in religious scriptures, lies at the basis of our human laws. In codifying the laws that govern us, we have tried to mimic cosmic laws, both in the attempt to safeguard the rights of the individual and in the attempt to create harmony between individuals, in society and in the world.

Though the law books are the outward expression of our original attempt to mimic laws that govern the universe, we are also guided by a personal moral compass. This is based on learned behaviour with regard to societal norms, codes of morality received through education and an inner voice which we call conscience. Our behaviour is therefore affected by the fear of punishment through our legal systems, by the wish not to transgress societal norms learned through education, and by our inner voice. Yet none of these have been enough to create peace with our neighbours and fellow beings nor a sustainable future for humankind.

Dharma as a training and a sadhana

We cannot, with the best intentions, create a sustainable future while viewing the world through the lens of our egoism. If we obey laws because we fear punishment, or obey unwritten rules based on the fear of being ostracized from our society, or act according to a wish not to feel ashamed of ourselves, we are still acting within the field of our egoism. We cannot transform our relationship with the world unless we are able to transform our wrong vision. Transformation won’t come about through the fear of punishment but only through a positive sense of participation, cooperation, empathy and love. As seen in Buddhism, and sometimes in other paths like yoga, the practice of dharma is a training or a teaching, towards an intuitive and integral understanding of oneness, rather than a cultivation of obedience to ethical prescriptions and injunctions. Practiced in this way, dharma, such as the five precepts (pañcasila) noble eightfold path of the Buddha, or the yamas and niyamas at the basis of Patanjali’s system of raja yoga, becomes a form of sadhana (spiritual discipline).

Dharma as a tool for transformation

The practice of dharmic sadhana gives us the opportunity to change our relationship with our fellow beings and the world from a state of competition to a state of cooperation and equal participation. This depends not only upon good intentions but the acquisition of skills and knowledge. Interaction with our fellow beings is not simply a matter of following what is lawful, socially acceptable or even unconscionable, but a matter of acquiring skills such as nonviolent communication, the ability to listen and interpret the subtle signs expressed by others, as well as empathy. Environmentally sustainable practices requires a knowledge of how to choose the least damaging or most beneficial course of action, based on science, economics, mechanics, and whatever else is relevant to the case. Living as a good citizen of the 21st century requires awareness and knowledge.

The value of following a practice of dharma as a sadhana is that it provides the only response that can be helpful in the critical stage that we have reached. The situation in the world requires immediate action that is based on the acknowledgment of the underlying unity of all things, because our wrong vision of division has created the problem we now face. Dharma means, among other things, the performance of effective action that is based on correct vision. This is exactly what we need, and basically the only thing that can save us.

Conclusion

This article reasons that our view of the universe as divided into separate objects is flawed in that it fails to acknowledge a fundamental unity. It states that it is this wrong vision that has led to the current crisis we are facing. It casts doubt on claims that the situation can be be changed through solely personal transformation and suggests the practice of dharma as a more practical method of tackling our problems and transforming the world. It claims that the practice of dharma is also a sadhana, i.e. a means to gaining an integral understanding that the “world of things” depends upon underlying unity.


  1. purnam adah, purnam idam purnat purnam udachyate; purnasya purnam adaya purnam evavasisyate (Brihadaranyaka Upanisad 5.1.1) ↩︎
  2. It is sometimes stated that our basic instincts themselves correspond to our threefold inner nature (described in philosophies that derive from the Upanisads as existence (sat), knowledge (chit), bliss (ananda): That our desire for self-preservation and long life is an expression of sat. That our unquenchable thirst for knowledge is an expression of chit, and that our unsatisfiable lust for enjoyment is an expression of ananda. ↩︎
  3. Sri Ramakrishna said the one who attains to this state leaves his body after 21 days. (The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna). ↩︎
  4. See “The Eternal and the Individual”, Chapter 3, The Life Divine, by Sri Aurobindo and elsewhere. ↩︎