Fear, dust, roots and emancipation.

Our times and circumstances have changed much in the 13 years since I first wrote, published and posted, this to my blog (as written and quoted below) on 12/21/07.

• In that year, our US President was George W. Bush. 
• On April 16, a student went on a killing spree on the Virginia Tech Campus leaving over 30 students dead. 
• Rupert Murdoch acquired Dow Jones & Co, which includes the Wall Street Journal.
• Violent thunderstorms roared through parts of Alabama and three other US states in the region.
• One of the deadliest tornadoes in Kansas history destroyed Greensburg’s town as it took the brunt of 200 mph winds.
• Blizzards and severe snowstorms swept through Denver and the surrounding areas.
• One of the largest and deadliest fires in US history raged in Southern California, fanned by the Santa Ana winds destroying 400,000 acres and 2,000 homes.
• The Apple Computer Company announced the release of the very first iPhone.
• Apple Introduced its first-ever iTouch with built-in WiFi and touch screen, following the prior release of their iTouch on June 29th.
• NASA launched the Phoenix Mars Lander during August. The Phoenix spacecraft was launched from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida. It successfully landed on Mars during May 2008 and is used as an instrument to thoroughly examine the planet’s soil.
• The presidential candidates who decided to run for the highest office in the land—yes, that too was an election year—were (Republicans:) Mitt Romney, Rudi Guliani, John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Tommy Thompson, Duncan Hunter, Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo, Jim Gilmore, Fred Thompson and (Democrats :) Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Ron Paul, Mike Gravel, Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Dennis Kucinich. Some had already dropped out by the end of 2007 before the race even begun. The outcome, which is now known, was the victory of Barack Obama—our 44th POTUS. 

These and many other circumstances occurred in 2007 and may be found by clicking here.

Now fast forward till today, in late 2020, and observe how times and circumstances have changed. All things are changing moment by moment. Changes too small to notice until a retrospective (such as this post) is presented for consideration. The seeds of current events were planted in 2007, and the seeds that evolved into events in that year were planted eons ago, moment by moment. No real dividing lines are demarcating one moment from the next, as though sequential stone walls were constructed in the space between moments. 

Instead, karma underpins all conditions. It is the foundation of the life we know. It flows like droplets merged into a moving stream, no longer detected as droplets but rather as indivisible water. Such is the nature of conditional life. “What you are is what you have been. What you’ll be is what you do now.”—The Buddha

Some things, however, remain the same. The wisdom that transcends time and place remains the same. That is what follows and may be summarized as fear, dust, and emancipation—being set free, which all desire.

“Also, emancipation is non-apprehension. One who has apprehension may be likened to a king who fears and slanders the strong neighboring state and has apprehension. Now, with emancipation, there is nothing of the kind. This is like annihilating enmity, as a consequence of which there is no longer any apprehension. The same is the case with emancipation. It has no apprehension or fear. Non-apprehension is the Tathagata.

Also, there is no dust or defilement in emancipation as when in the spring months, after sundown, the wind raises up a cloud of dust. Now, in emancipation, nothing of this kind obtains. Where there is no cloud of dust, there is true emancipation. True emancipation is the Tathagata.

Also, emancipation is fearlessness. It is like the lion, who has no fear of any beast. The same is the case with emancipation. It has no fear of any Maras. Fearlessness is true emancipation. True emancipation is the Tathagata.

Also, emancipation subdues all kinds of indolence. One who is indolent is greedy. With true emancipation, nothing such as this comes about. This is true emancipation. True emancipation is the Tathagata.

Also, emancipation is segregating oneself from all existences, excising all suffering, obtaining all aspects of peace, and eternally cutting off desire, ill-will, and ignorance, and severing oneself from the roots of all illusions. Cutting the roots of illusion [ doubt] is emancipation. True emancipation is the Tathagata.”

From The Mahaparinirvana Sutra—Chapter 7

Atlas Shrugged Redux?

I first wrote this post in November of 2012 (roughly 8 years ago), and the world has changed for the worst since then. The chapter of history initiated back then has continued and worsened, by far. So I am reposting now, with some additions to reflect our current situation so that readers might grasp how what is now occurring began.

If timing is everything, then what is contained in this post is nothing. Our world will change tomorrow either toward a return to tried and failed policies that nearly brought the world to the financial abyss or continue with policies that may sustain us for a few more years. What lies beyond those years is anyone’s guess. My timing is admittedly lousy, but the message is critical.

For those of you who are not familiar with Ayn Rand and her views of Laissez-faire (e.g., the government is a demon that saps society of economic incentives and thus becomes the prime-mover of downfall), allow me to provide a short primer.  Atlas Shrugged was considered by Rand as her magnum opus—her greatest achievement as a writer. The book was written in 1957 and portrays a dogmatically dystopian United States where many of society’s most productive citizens refuse to be exploited by increasing taxation and government regulations, and they go on strike. The strike attempted to illustrate that when those most responsible for the engine of economic growth are stifled, society will collapse.

The book was a huge success, championed the spirit of libertarian, entrepreneurial creativity, depicted the government and the less fortunate as blood-sucking leeches who robbed the rightful wealthy of their hard-earned rewards. Rand’s economic philosophies were so convincing that they guided the fiscal policies instituted by Alan Greenspan—Chairman of the Federal Reserve of the United States from 1987 to 2006. Greenspan was appointed by Ronald Reagan in August 1987 and was reappointed at successive four-year intervals until retiring on January 31, 2006—the second-longest tenure of anyone holding that position. During his tenure, the nation’s wealth was increasingly polarized into the hands of a shrinking number of individuals. And less and less into the hands of those who enabled their prosperity.

On the surface, Rand’s philosophy (and Greenspan’s policies) seemed to make good economic sense within a free enterprise system, except for one crucial detail: Greed, which, when left unchecked, caused the near-collapse of the world’s interconnected economies in the year following the end of Greenspan’s reign. 

The financial crisis of 2007–2008 was considered by many economists to be the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s (until now). This crisis did not come about suddenly but rather resulted from Greenspan’s policies that encouraged imbalance. The crisis resulted in the threat of total collapse of large financial institutions, banks’ bailout by the federal governments, and downturns in stock markets worldwide.

In October 2008, Greenspan testified before Congress and acknowledged that “Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders’ equity (myself especially) are in a state of shocked disbelief…I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms.” 

Greenspan assumed the best of the captains of industry and discovered, quite to his surprise, that the nature of man, in an unenlightened state of mind, favors their own self-interests instead of the “…self-interests of organizations…” The Buddha gave forewarning of this inclination 2,500 years ago, but few then and fewer now paid much attention. The heart of darkness is egotism, the perverse attitude of mind that says, “Me first, and none for you.”

Both Rand and Greenspan are no longer, but their legacy lingers. In a nation such as our own—based on individual liberties and a competitive, “free” enterprise system—the notion of freedom becomes, at times, a slippery slope. There have been more than a few variations of the following quote (e.g., coming from different sources), but the essential spirit is the same, regardless of who said it. The quote is this: “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins.”

This morning Paul Krugman (opinion columnist with the New York Times) posted an online article titled, “How Many Americans Will Ayn Rand Kill?.” And his message was timely. What he said wasn’t about striking someone’s nose, but something far more ominous—spreading the coronavirus by those shouting to the highest hills they have a right to exercise their individual liberties and do as they damn well, please.

There is no argument with that fundamental, constitutional right so long as their choice doesn’t affect others. The same point applies to the second amendment right to bear arms or spreading second-hand smoke (which by latest count kills 41,000 people every year in the US and affects many more with chronic respiratory diseases), or other examples. But that is chump-change compared to the number of infections now running rampant throughout our country and beyond. The staggering pandemic numbers are no longer reliable since they climb upward moment by moment, daily. Still, there is little question (to intelligent, not self-absorbed people, with some remaining common sense) that infections are skyrocketing due to irresponsible, deluded individuals.

Krugman’s observations, and my own, run counter to the spreading attitudes about preserving liberties that accompany the spreading virus. By no means does this critique minimize the suffering of thousands who need to get back to “normal” living. All of us need that. But there is one indisputable reality here: There is a 100% probability that living is the most dangerous thing we do. Nobody gets out of here alive. All of us will die a natural death, one day, in many different ways.

The only relevant issue is not if we will die, but when and how. That is not a matter of liberties. Suffering is a certainty in our conditional world. All conditional things go through the same process of birth, growth, and inevitable mortal death. And that begs the question of who and what we truly are and the implications for mortal life. 

Many believe we are nothing more than a conditional bag of bones. I, and those spiritually inclined, believe we are more than that. The religious answer (regardless of persuasion) maintains that within this bag of bones lives a spirit that animates us sustains us and never dies. That is who and what we genuinely are. And that should give us all hope. The implication of that view is that mortal life is critical for what comes next. “If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness follows him like his never-departing shadow.”—The Buddha. And if you prefer that thought from a Christian perspective, consider this: 

“Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.”—The Christ (John 15:13), probably the most misunderstood passage in the entire New Testament. Why? Because, as originally written in Koine Greek (The ancient language employed to write the New Testament), the passage really means, Greater love has no man than this: to lay aside one’s ideas for one’s friends. How so? Because of two Koine Greek words, mistranslated into English. The first of those words is ἀγάπην (agape, meaning unconditional love, the only kind that is the nature of God), and the second word is ψυχὴν, psychēn, meaning ideas. Psychēn is the root word that should be translated into English as psyche (the basis of psychology, psychiatry, psyche, etc.).

This diatribe’s bottom line is simple: Liberty is not freedom when we exercise our constitutional rights and harm another. Your right ends at the tip of my nose. We claim to be a nation of compassionate people, but that is brought into question when what we choose to do, a right or not, violates others’ well-being. 

The great divide.

Political affinity would appear to have little to do with intelligence, education, or any other standard measures used to analyze governing principles or human behavior. Highly intelligent and educated people align themselves with either the Republican or the Democratic parties. Of course, viewed from either party, the opposition always seems wrong-headed and either a bleeding-heart liberal, socialist, or a self-absorbed Nazi. All of these derogatory terms superficially gloss over the essential differences underscoring political affinity.

There are no adequate solutions without first identifying the problems(s) to be solved. If we can set aside (at least temporarily) the name-calling, and sagaciously consider some differences, perhaps we can zero in on the problem(s) and thus identify some solutions that could bridge a widening gap between these two. I’ll boldly go where angels fear to tread and suggest that what lies at the heart of this divide is a fundamental perspective regarding how we understand ourselves. Consider two perspectives:

1. Perspective number one: All people, while they may be created equal, are really very different when it comes to motivation, willingness to work hard, and capacity to achieve their rightful rewards. What I earn is mine. What you make (or don’t) belongs to you. There are makers (people who contribute to the well-being of the world), and there are takers (e.g., leeches who suck off the makers). Standards should be discerned, established, preserved, and maintained by the makers and complied with by the takers. The wealth of the world should be provided for the benefit of the makers. There are winners and losers.
2. Perspective number two: All people are created equal, although opportunities to prosper and realize one’s potential are inequitably distributed, passed on, and preserved by the makers. Life's nature is far too complex to predict, anticipate, and plan for changes that disrupt capacities. Everyone should earn as much as they can and recognize that nobody can genuinely make anything by himself or herself. Cooperation, sharing, and compassion are essential qualities upon which a civilized culture is based. Standards should be discerned, preserved, and maintained by a willing consensus of workers and investors. The wealth of the world should be provided for the benefit of all people. There can’t be any long-term difference between winners and losers. Unless everyone wins, to some significant degree, instability and chaos will reign.

What accounts for these two perspectives? The answer should be self-evident. The first group is concerned with what they consider their just reward, whether it serves the larger good or not. They are motivated out of fear and preservation of the status quo, which is tilted in favor of concentrated wealth. This group is competitive and values winning at the expense of others.

The second group dances to a very different tune. They are persuaded that cooperation must be the prevailing standard and that unless everyone is given an equal shot, an imbalance will ensue. Winning will be unjust, encouraging greed and discouraging incentives.

These are the two views considered by intelligent and educated people, who remain convinced of their own perspectives. It is ludicrous to think that any such analysis, however sage, will suddenly result in one person or many adopting a different perspective. Still, in the heat of political spins leading to the coming elections, it is good to pause and appraise the spin according to this assessment. In the end, it boils down to a single issue: How we understand ourselves, either as an isolated individual or a member of a cooperative human race.

The bucket rule of politics and economics

There's a hole in our bucket

I taught our daughter economics, at an early age. And my teaching device was an old bucket. I punched a few holes in the bottom of the bucket and then she started pouring in water, which of course ran out the holes. Then I punched in more holes and she again poured in water. This time she had to pour in more water at a faster rate. 

Eventually, I completely removed the bottom of the bucket and she discovered that no amount of water could be used to fill the bucket; it ran out as fast as she could pour it in. Then I said to her, “Water is like money. Unless you balance what you pour in with what comes out the bottom you’ll never succeed in having any money left over.” She understood. Our government never has.

Right now the spigot that regulates the flow is severely restricted, yet the out-flow is at a record high. What used to supply our needs—tax revenues from the middle class—is disappearing at an alarming rate leaving only one source: those with money, to pick up the tab. And this restriction is coinciding with a bucket with ever-growing holes. Republicans are crying foul and claiming class warfare. But I have a simple-minded question: Who pays? It requires lots of water to pour into a bucket with a disappearing bottom. The poor can’t pay. The middle-class is rapidly shrinking, so that leaves only those who can pay, but don’t.

There are presently lots of naysayers who say that the wealthy will just pull up anchor and flee to more favorable shores. Indeed they may and have. Nothing can stop them except only one thing: A sense of public responsibility. For far too long just about everyone, from the wealthy down to the chronically poor, have shed a sense of public responsibility and milked the system for every drop. Now we face a serious emergency and it remains to be seen if anyone, rich or poor, will change course and do the right thing. If not, then our prosperity will end rather quickly.

Presently Congress is in the process of making a bad situation worse by creating policies that make the rich richer and the poor poorer. They take pride in enhancing the wealth of the prosperous (knowing if they do so they will be rewarded, under the table) while ensuring the death of millions due to mismanagement of a pandemic, people losing their jobs, and getting tossed out on the streets. Does this have anything to do with Zen? I think it does and here’s how: The essence of Zen is to bypass delusion and see clearly—things as they are, not as we wish them to be. Wishful thinking got us all into this mess and now we have lots of holes, not enough water, and are on the verge of disaster. 

Another parallel is the understanding that we are all connected. The super-wealthy may desire exclusive independence, but such a thing is not possible. In a civilized society, we share lots of things: The air we breathe, the water we drink, a common infrastructure that either allows prosperity or sinks us all, a food and money supply, and many other points of intersection. 

The notion that anyone can milk the system and get off scot-free is delusional. Individually and collectively we create karma either for the good or for the bad. We have no choice except to live with what we collectively create. And to continue with an ideological logjam while people are starving is madness. The resources of our nation do not belong to politicians. We supply these resources through our blood, sweat, and tears, and for the people in Washington to withhold what we have contributed is outrageous! We elected these people to represent us, not kill us. It’s 11:59 and unless we collectively wake up, midnight and the nightmares that come along will soon be here.

“Ide-prison-ology”

Rearranging priorities.

It’s time to add a new word to our contemporary vernacular. The addition is a simple adjustment to the word “ideology,” that reflects where our culture has arrived—in a prison of opposition with no legal appeal for release. 

We already have similar words  that approximate this new word, such as “Mexican standoff” or “logjam.” But the essence of this new word is only glancingly similar to those words. What the new word captures, sums up our current state of irreconcilability: a state of cultural and political “my way or the highway” stagnation where nothing gets done. 

The principle of compromise appears to be lost in the ash heap of time, and this state of mind is not limited to any one country. It is a global phenomenon that results in a preoccupation with the insignificant at the expense of the significant.

There is so much confusion occurring at the same time it is nearly impossible to arrange priorities. Even if we could, wait ten minutes and the entire deck gets reshuffled and we simply cease to think of what’s important and what’s not. Instead, we have fallen back into a time when legalism was abhorred by moral giants such as Jesus and The Buddha, both of whom fought to rectify the problem by pointing out what the laws of the time needed as a substratum—the spirit of the law. 

That focus has been lost as well, thus the need to establish this new word by recognizing what ought to be obvious but is not: We have fallen prey to dogmatic, inflexible positions of opposition where nobody but the rich and powerful—who rig the system to their advantage, perhaps by design, to keep us all confused and distracted by what is happening behind the scene with what is happening in front of the scene—too much of insignificance to enable us to notice matters of ultimate importance.

The question is, why is this happening? That’s a hydra-headed challenge but maybe it is simply a matter of too much comfort by the few at the cost of the many. Money and power are two factors not easily shared. Possessiveness is a stickler and the more a person has the more they seem to want. Maybe what we all need to do (and I’d suggest we begin from the top and work our way down) is go and live in places that aren’t so comfortable, where concern for your life is the common coin. There is nothing quite so transforming as your own experience of suffering. When you are starving, a single slice of bread becomes a feast and the ideology of the whole loaf or none at all descends into la-la-land, right where it belongs.

We have become imprisoned into camps of opposing ideas and values with no escape. It is long past time for us to realize such behavior is shooting everyone in the foot. Life always seems to follow the path we noticed in the Marines: Bad stuff flows downstream, never upstream. The tide needs to turn, and soon.

The suffering of silence.

“There are basically two types of people. People who accomplish things, and people who claim to have accomplished things. The first group is less crowded.”—Mark Twain

In a post from another blog I spoke about putting legs under our words and titled the post, Talk without action is cheap (and worthless). Satirist Mark Twain apparently agreed with Mr. Einstein, given his quote above. The essence of his words, and mine, concerns accomplishments, or worse; apathy and complacency—the death knells of accomplishment.

Far too often our tendency is based on the flawed notion of, “It ain’t my problem,” with the corresponding notion of making nice and not rocking the boat. We maintain a conspiracy of silence, motivated by an unspoken consensus to not mention or discuss given subjects in order to maintain group solidarity, or fear of political repercussion and social ostracism. “Nice people” avoid controversy and ignore the plights of those, seemingly not like us. In so doing we exhibit the mantra of the assumed elite: A “CEO of Self.”

When you cut through the pomposity, a conspiracy of silence is cowardly dishonest and delusional to the point of refusing to acknowledge our connectivity with the interrelated fabric of life. The complexity of living in today’s world is straining this practice to the breaking point. When does rampant disease become our problem? When does injustice become our problem? When does poverty, or the growing economic polarization become our problem? Bigotry? Racism? Hatred? Environmental catastrophes?

We are now engaged in a political campaign for electing the next POTUS and the choices we make will have an impact for years to come. There are many who vote in unthinking ways, toeing the party line or choose to not vote at all, based on the flawed idea that choosing between lesser evils is still voting for evil. We might want to bear in mind that we should never hold the possible, hostage to the perfect. There are no choices that are perfect this side of enlightenment so we must make better choices, not perfect ones.

Lest anyone doubt the proclivity of our current leader, they should read for themselves how his comments are designed to divide and conquer; to draw the line between two possible nations. One of these continues the cherished tradition upon which our nation was founded. The other is an insult to the principles that undergird that nation. It is becoming increasingly difficult to remain silent, stand on the sideline and do nothing to stop the tyrant who wishes nothing more than to rip apart a nation that stands for justice and liberty for all, to ensure his prosperity at the expense of those for whom he was elected.

In 1925, following World War I (the War to end all wars: What a farce!) T. S. Eliot wrote a poem called The Hollow Men. The poem of 98 lines ends with “probably the most quoted lines of any 20th-century poet writing in English.” 

Eliot captured the spirit of apathy brilliantly and concluded that the silent conspirators rule the world, not by force, but rather by inaction. He said, 

“We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
Our dried voices, when
We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
As wind in dry grass
Or rats’ feet over broken glass
In our dry cellar
Shape without form, shade without colour,
Paralysed force, gesture without motion;
Those who have crossed
With direct eyes, to death’s other Kingdom
Remember us—if at all—not as lost
Violent souls, but only
As the hollow men
The stuffed men.”
“Between the desire
And the spasm
Between the potency
And the existence
Between the essence
And the descent
Falls the Shadow
For Thine is the Kingdom
For Thine is…
Life is…
For Thine is the…
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.”

Haunting words to contemplate.

Dreams of safety and a reality of folly.

Ignorance based fear.

A while ago I came across a greeting card, intended as encouragement, that said, “Don’t let reality get in the way of your dreams.” The implied message was that we should not be discouraged by events that can bring us down. 

There was something that troubled me about the message and started me thinking of ostriches with their heads buried in the sand having dreams that ignore what surrounds them.

In 2018 I reposted a title, The high price of choice: winning battles, losing wars (originally written four years earlier) and in that post, I spoke about our normal way of discerning reality, delusion, and how these relate to dreams. The conclusion of the post was—according to the Buddhist way of understanding reality—the vast majority of humanity imagines a reality in a distorted way that leads us to remain completely unaware of what is the ultimate reality. Consequently, we walk around in a dream state, all the while thinking our perceived world is reality.

Persuading anyone of this view is most difficult. Instead, we prefer fantasy to reality, and this dream state is very often based on fear with a consequence of adopting an attitude of denial, pretense, and unrealistic hopefulness. Our attitudes about COVID-19 is a perfect example. The viral pandemic has gone on far beyond our capacity for tolerance, and consequently many have adopted attitudes of wishful thinking, of the firm persuasion that the risk has passed and we can carry on without concern.

In the Nipata Sutra, there’s a conversation that occurred with the Buddha that said: 

“What is it that smothers the world? What makes the world so hard to see? What would you say pollutes the world and threatens it the most? The Buddha replied: It is ignorance which smothers and it is heedlessness and greed which make the world invisible. The hunger of desire pollutes the world, and the great source of fear is the pain of suffering.” 

Twenty-five hundred years later there remain clear examples of this dilemma.

• It is far easier to ignore advancing devastation of global warming and our contributions that exacerbate the growing threat. It is fear of suffering and losing one’s livelihood, or alienating those attached to vested interests with whom we align ourselves. It is likewise a hunger of desire that produces the willingness to toss caution to the wind and refuse to do our part to flatten the curve of viral spread. The desire for shortsighted greed in maintaining a destructive status quo traps us all in states of fear. 

• It is easier to ignore many aspects of family discord that corrupt one’s spirit and fills us with fear of suffering the loss of expected love that could come from a family, based on openness and acceptance. 

• It is easier to ignore our civic obligation to vote as an expression of our moral convictions than it is to risk having others discover our true values that conflict with theirs, and thus suffer the loss of facile relationships, which we reason are better than none at all. 

• It is easier to maintain a duplicitous relationship of pretense where we risk standing nakedly exposed than it is to risk being discovered and suffer loss from being ourselves.

Dreams built on the sands of ignorance are doomed and ensure our ultimate suffering in many ways, none of which we hope for. The very first of the Buddha’s Four Noble Truths is that we all suffer—none can escape. And the second of these truths is the cause of suffering is attachment (e.g., craving) to the blowing sands of change. If there were only two noble truths then despair is the only possible result. However, The Buddha didn’t stop at two. The third is there’s a solution and the fourth directs us to the Eight Fold Path that leads to experiencing ultimate reality and the discovery of our always loved, and always loving true nature. When we arrive at that place of enlightenment we find that we were living, not just in a dream, but in a horrible nightmare that was, and is, based purely on an expected fear of suffering.

The cost of ignorance.

Some say we come into this world as a blank slate, upon which is

A high cost to pay.

 written the moment-by-moment experiences of mortal life. Nature vs. nature is the handle applied to this view. Accordingly, “nature” is the blank slate (with potential unrealized), and “nurture” is what is written, which leads to realizing (or not) that potential.

In Western philosophy, the concept of tabula rasa can be traced back to the works of Aristotle in his treatise De Anima (Περί Ψυχῆς, “On the Soul”). Consequently, given the Western roots, the philosophy continues to this day as an underpinning of Western psychology. This perspective presumes mortal life is a “one-and-done” proposition. One-shot (either for good or not) determines our destiny and where our soul goes following mortal death. 

On the other side of the world, however, an alternate perspective arose—karmic seeds—the essence of karma. When karma is dormant, it sleeps in this seed form. When it is latent, it exists as samskaras, embedded beliefs deep in the mind's unconscious zone, and as liminal fantasies encountered in dreams, hypnotic states, and meditation. When it is active, it is present in all seven levels, and we are aware of the force of craving or desire.

Whereas the Western view is a “one-and-done” proposition, the Eastern view is one of transmigration and reincarnation. In this sense, “life” isn’t purely mortal (which passes away—dust to dust) but is rather the “dust” plus immortality, with the soul being the vehicle within which the karmic seeds travel that predetermines unconscious vectors. Rather than “one and done,” this perspective is a “do-over” until we get it right. Thus, perfection is not an impossible, abstract, flawless mortal condition but is instead the end of attainment, stretching over eons.

These two perspectives produce very different senses of possibility. On the one hand, we believe that we are all flawed beings (and thus excessively tolerant of egregious behaviors) in need of divine salvation, or we’re in for a quick trip to a scorching place. The other perspective is one of infinite grace—recognizing that true life evolves as a learning experience that never ends until Nirvana is realized. The understanding of Nirvana is greatly distorted in the West. In simple to grasp terms, the word means the extinguishment of the three poisons—greed, anger, and ignorance associated with experiencing oneself as an ego. It is not some mythical place but rather a state of mind, achievable by realizing a person’s genuine nature hidden deep within the unconscious mind. 

By the time I arrived at the seminary and learned about tabula rasa, I had experienced a mind-blowing transformation that was not intellectual but rather intuitive. Then I had the advantage of a comparative frame of reference, and upon further exploration, I came to understand matters of my own mind I would never have come to given my own Western roots.

In seminary, I learned how to read the New Testament in the language originally used, that of Koine Greek: A Greek form no longer used but was used when the Greek Philosophers walked the earth. Obviously, Aristotle knew and used Koine Greek but must not have known the significance of the thorny crux of original sin—that everyone is flawed, in need of divine salvation, going back to the mythical sin of Adam and Eve. His lack of awareness concerning this dogma, of course, makes sense, but only when explored. Aristotle was born in 385 BCE and died 62 years later in 323 BCE. On the other hand, The Christian Bible canons (containing both the Old and New Testaments, wherein the creation myth existed) weren’t completed until the 5th century CE. Consequently, he knew nothing of the original sin's ideology, but he did understand the nature of a completed journey.

And how would I know that? Because of one single word (written in Koine Greek) that had to be one of transmigration instead of “one-and-done.” And the word in question is “perfection,” which, when written in Koine Greek, is teleos meaning “the end result.” Instead of using the word as a foundational principle of salvation, Aristotle saw perfection in a frame of nature, saying: “Nature does nothing in vain.” The philosophy itself suggests that acts are done with a foregone purpose in mind—people do things knowing the result they wish to achieve, and this in turn strongly suggest coming into this world, not as a blank slate but rather with seeds growing to a pre-determined (e.g., karmic seeds) conclusion.

The dogma of genetic flaw—going back to the creation story myth—has created countless tragedies over the vast expanse of time. The hope of ever achieving perfection (as a state of being without flaw in a “one-and-done” lifetime has caused untold billions to reach their end in a state of profound fear), all due to ignorance, the very thing The Buddha pointed out that was the heart of suffering:

“What is that smothers the world? What makes the world so hard to see? What would you say pollutes the world and threatens it the most?’ ‘It is ignorance that smothers,’ the Buddha replied, ‘and it heedlessness and greed, making the world invisible. The hunger of desire pollutes the world, and the great source of fear is the pain of suffering.”

Poisonous Children

In Buddhist thought, a poisonous monster lives inside each of us and it has three characteristics—greed, anger, and delusion (or ignorance). The name of this monster is our “precious” ego, the mythical surrogate we all create to identify ourselves. I say precious with tongue in cheek because this is the mother of all sorrow. 

It appears precious until we understand it’s phantom nature. It is who we think we are and we defend it to the death. Different religions refer to ego death as the necessary condition for final liberation—being set free to experience fundamental humanity. Christianity calls this experience being “reborn” (sadly misunderstood) and the mystical arm of Christianity refers to this state as “the dark night of the soul,” the darkness everyone must pass through on the way to freedom. 

The soul is a term, which is often used to describe the ego. When Gautama was enlightened he realized his true nature and came to understand that the ego was not real. He saw it for what it is: an idea rather than something real, and along with his enlightenment, he understood the source of suffering—the idea of ego. If you wanted to reduce Buddhism down to a single statement (which would be a gross devaluation) you could call it the solution for overcoming suffering. I’ll explain:

We have a sight challenge: We can’t see our true, immaculate self. The truth is we can’t see each other either. What I see when I look at you is your outer skin—call it a cloak. And since that is what we can see, we think of a person (including ourselves) as a body, only. But none of us is stupid. We know we are more than just a bag of bones. We know that there is someone inside that bag and we call that inside dimension by a name—“our self.” Unfortunately, this our self is just another cloak, an inside cloak that conceals our true identity. So why don’t we see this identity behind the cloak? The answer is simple (but not so obvious). We don’t see the real us because our true identity can’t be seen, but it’s there in spite of our sight challenge. If it weren’t there we couldn’t see anything because our true self is what’s doing the seeing and it’s called consciousness. Consciousness at its simplest is “awareness or sentience of internal or external existence.”

What can we see? We can see objects. What can’t we see? We can’t see the subjects. Anyone who has studied grammar is taught the difference between an object and a subject. If I write the sentence “I see myself,” the “I” would refer to the subject, and “myself” would be the object. But there is a subtle problem with such a sentence (and a clue). Is it possible for a subject to be an object? Isn’t that sentence illogical? Think about it. Either they are different or they are the same thing with an illusion of difference.

Our real nature is not an object, like a stone—which can’t see. When we objectify anything we devalue it, stripping it of fundamental humanity. We are not only objects. We are not an idea. We are real beings, an incarnate spirit with two dimensions, one part of which can be seen and one part that can’t. These two parts can’t be divided. If our spirit is removed we’ll just be a bag of bones. If our body is removed we’ll be a ghost. We may talk as if they can be divided but such thinking is delusional. And there is an inherent awareness in us all that knows this truth, but it is such a vaporous aspect that it goes beyond our detection. 

It is a conundrum, which produces the three, poisons of greed, anger, and delusion. Why? Because “We”—the real us—wants desperately to be set free and it makes us angry that we can’t find the solution! We are in prison—a prison of our own making—and we can’t find our way out, and the keys to that prison are held by Mr. or Mrs. Ego (the gatekeeper of our prison) who is extremely greedy; who wants to possess and defend; who clings to everything desirable and rebuffs everything deemed as undesirable. Our ego judges with a criterion of objectivity—what it can perceive. If I look good, that is desirable. If I look bad, that is undesirable. If you act well, that is desirable. If you act poorly, that is undesirable. We judge based on our capacity to perceive, not what we can’t perceive.

Since it is impossible to see the real us, we all create a surrogate identity that can be seen. And this surrogate is fabricated (clothed) with a vast wardrobe of ideas, judgments, and points of discrimination. We objectify ourselves and in the process strip ourselves of human dignity. Ego is like a hologram—an image in our mind (a self-image), which we watch with our mind’s eye. We can see this hologram twist and turn, to reach out and be reached at. It is amorphous and in constant motion, subject to both assaults, and adoration.

The ego hates to be assaulted (and become easily offended) and loves to be adored. When we are assaulted we naturally take offense and when we are adored, we love it and gravitate to the one who expresses love. We are yo-yos on the string of life. And you know what ticks us off the most? That we see this manipulation happening and seem powerless to stop it! And that makes us really sad or mad! And then we take the next step: we then learn to hate our self for being so powerless and vulnerable. 

The downward spiral—which in the grand scheme is a very good spiral. Why? Because it hurts so badly and we hate pain. Pain is really our friend. It tells us something is wrong that needs fixing and if we humans are nothing more, we are fixers and very inventive. But what is generally missing is motivation. Suffering supplies motivation.

Suffering is our friend. It is something we experience inside. It is not an outside condition. It happens inside—it is a response (an effect) not a cause. And who causes this response? Our suffering is not caused by another nor experienced by them. It is caused by our response, not by outer circumstances, which can never be altered. And who is behind our responses? Why the keeper of the prison keys—Ego (our surrogate self). Ego is the source of our sorrow; our suffering, and since it is the source, it is there we must turn for a solution. 

Our system is an amazingly delicate instrument with all manner of built-in sensors designed to warn us of impending disaster. When we are being affected by a virus we start to feel poorly and we go to the doctor. When we are not feeling well emotionally we also seek out a doctor. But sadly today’s doctors of emotions either drug us to not feel the pain or reinforce our self-image so that we think better of our ego. These approaches only partially help, but unfortunately, they work to remove our motivation to reach beyond the illusion and find our true substance. Consequently, we never remove the cancerous seed but instead just slap on another band-aid.

Ego is a toxic substance, that produces emotional disease, which is why these children of ego are called the three poisons. Greed, anger, and delusion are toxic children and the only solution to this poisoning is to vanquish the internal creator-mother—the ego and allow our natural goodness to emerge. The answer is not to bolster our self-image or anesthetize suffering but is rather to vaporize the mother—to see it as the phantom that it is.

Meister Eckhart—Christian Mystic and prophet (circa 1260-1329)—said:

“Humanity in the poorest and most despised human being is just as complete as in the Pope or the Emperor.” And we know what sort of clothing the Emperor wears—none.

Fundamental humanity is not flawed in any way. It is complete already. The flaw is what stands in the way of our human birthright that puts one head above another. At the ground level of our humanity, we are equal and good, whether Pope, Emperor, Buddha, or an average person.

Ignorant armies of the night.

In 2002, authors Wayne Gray and Christian Schunn published an article in the Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, titled “Does Positivity Bias Explain Patterns of Performance on Wason’s 2-4-6 task?” 

The Wason being referenced was Peter Cathcart Wason, an English cognitive psychologist at University College in London. Wason was interested in the psychology of reason and was particularly concerned with why people make certain consistent mistakes in logical reasoning. 

One of his research projects was the 2-4-6 task referred to in the article written by Gray and Schuun. That project addressed preconceived notions, personal beliefs, and hypotheses affecting rational thinking. Out of this work, the term “confirmation bias” was formed, which in essence, proved that people tend to filter reality through lenses that reinforce tightly held convictions. Wason concluded that people are far less concerned with truth than they were with finding evidence to support their beliefs, true or not.

On the psychological flip side lies the “backfire effect;” the tendency to defend those tightly held convictions. In many cases (if not most) people will fight to the end to defend those convictions (even when their views are self-destructive). I have never met a single person who believed their actions were based on wrong views. Yet the state of world affairs proves there are actions (based on wrong views) that are destructive to themselves and others. Swaying hearts and minds is a tough task for a simple reason: Close mindedness—the defense of the ego.

In essence, Wason proved the human tendency for choosing ignorance and, in particular the desire for being right, at all costs—the expected outcome of an out of control ego (the misidentification of the self). In a short-handed, everyday way of understanding, the perception of we humans is distorted. Most everyone is looking through “Rose-colored glasses,” only in some cases, the glasses are not so rosy. A term that further explains this psychological inclination is vested interests. We don’t see the world as it is but instead view life in ways that ensure the protection of selfish concerns, in other words, “Greed.”

The picture above (and accompanying words) is the ending stanza of the short lyric poem Dover Beach by the English poet Matthew Arnold. It was first published in 1867 in the collection of New Poems. The metaphor contained within this last stanza is an allusion to a passage in Thucydides’s account of the Peloponnesian War. Thucydides describes the ancient battle that occurred at night, and in the darkness, the attacking army became disoriented, and many of their soldiers inadvertently killed each other. Critics, interpreting the poem, have suggested the metaphor expressed Arnold’s central understanding of the plight of the human condition.

Considering the state of current world affairs, it’s easy to agree with the research of Wason, the poetic conclusions of Arnold and wisdom of The Buddha: We see what we want to see. What we don’t see is the world as Suchness: a heaven on earth that is being turned into a Hell on earth by ignorant armies of the night. It is the fear of suffering that clouds our eyes.

Ajita asked: “What is it that smothers the world and makes it so hard to see? What is it that pollutes the world and seems to threaten it?” The Buddha answered: “It is ignorance that smothers, and it is carelessness and greed that makes it invisible. The hunger of craving pollutes the world, and the pain of suffering causes the greatest fear.”
—Sutta Nipata