I’d like to write briefly about something that has been on mind mind for quite some time. It’s not an original observation that our modern world is moving at an ever faster pace. Nor is it an original observation that this pace is responsible for quite a bit of human pain and suffering along the way; we are not machines.

It was a couple of years ago with a feeling of pleasant surprise, that I discovered the Slow Movement and decided to look a little deeper. This movement was inspired by the book “In Praise of Slow” by Carl Honore, and this movement has at it’s core the idea that faster is not always better and we should do things at the right speed rather than the fastest. In fact, that constant increase in speed does us more harm than good.

It goes without saying that I think they’re right on the mark with this. We have enough aphorisms and sayings that echo these sentiments “the more haste, the less speed”, “haste makes waste”, “look before you leap”. In the east we find the Taoist principle of “Wu Wei” one part of which is observing the worlds pace and doing things at the correct speed, neither too fast or two slow. Anyone who’s done Tai Chi or Qigong, as I have, will understand what I mean.  After all, you can’t make a tree grow by pulling on the branches; and as an IT example you can’t make a file transfer or disk check run any faster than the hardware or connection will allow, you must simply wait!

To rush things often leads to substandard results and problems further down the line that take up more time to sort out. So any time you may have “saved”, is now spent there instead and you’ve had the extra headache that comes with this as well! Still think it’s a good idea to rush? Better to take the time to get it right, “measure twice, cut once” as the old saying goes.

I will finish with a specifically British example “you can’t hurry a good cuppa”, and this is very true. Tea needs time to brew properly and a hurried cup of tea is certainly not a good one.  When asked how I seem to always make a good cup of tea in the past, guess what I say?

“Nature does not hurry, yet everything is accomplished” – Lao Tzu

I was considering this after writing my recent post on my views about God. I remember that in his book “The God Delusion”, Richard Dawkins has a chapter on “The Poverty of Agnosticism”. He takes aim at Agnosticism and tries to demolish it as a valid position, I think he goes too far and that we need to look again.

Agnosticism is more than a simple “I don’t know”, when come at from the point of Buddhism that “I don’t know” gains a vitality and an urgency that is easy to miss. It’s not a wishy washy form of indecision, but a potent statement of humility acknowledging honestly our uncertainty in a world of constantly changing phenomena and events. When everything we try to grasp is constantly shifting and changing, how can we stand on a firm bed of knowledge? When we draw on the Dharma, we rediscover our Agnosticism from the knowledge that all the things we know are just mental constructs of a changing reality, not reality itself. They’re imperfect maps to a shifting and impermanent territory.

It’s easy to say that things are proven and settled, but consider the discovery of Continental Drift. The discoverer, Alfred Wegener, had to overcome the disbelief of his peers; in part due to the fact that some of their supporting theories were plain wrong and also because he wasn’t a Geologist. In fact, even though it was discovered in 1912, it wasn’t accepted until the 1960s. [1] They thought they knew, they were unable to see that they might be wrong, that’s part of my point

In the realm of belief and faith, things are always being interpreted differently by different people and groups. This isn’t limited to one faith, it has caused some fairly awful rows in the past and has even caused sub-sects and new faiths to bud off from existing religions. The differences can extend to every area of doctrine, from the nature of the divine through to . Now, this stuff was being argued over when the Buddha walked the Earth 2600 years ago. It’s not been resolved since then, to be honest, my feeling is that it’s not going to be. This looks like another area where people are refusing to admit that they just don’t know.

The solutions, I feel, is based on an honest acknowledgement of our limitations. The idea that some things may be beyond the ability of the Human mind to grasp is anathema to many, but it may well be more truthful than we’d like to admit. As the Masai wisdom says “One head cannot contain all knowledge”. In the light of all of this, how can our position be anything other then to step away from this constant bickering and engage with the mysteries of the world with an honest “I don’t know”?

[1] The Science of Discworld, page 128-129.

I had a conversation in the car tonight, it got me to thinking and and I have had this at the back of my mind for a while.  It actually ties in, in a way to my punch / counterpunch posts back in April and I’d like to extend the theme of those posts as I write tonight.  I said in April that we are too quick to assume a little knowledge, and then let that knowledge think itself the entire world, when this isn’t often the case.  To push this point a little more I want to directly consider the existence of God, which I’ve always tried to avoid commenting on before.

The existence of God is something that has been debated for thousands of years.  They were debating it when the Buddha walked the Earth, and frankly it’s not been solved since then.  This tells me that we’re talking about something that, let’s face it is likely unanswerable by mankind.  Now, this is going to be something that a lot of people on both sides of the religious fence are going to shout loudly about.  But the point stands, we just don’t know.

It’s said that you can’t prove a negative, this is true.  If I state that there is no God, then I am saying that I have examined every inch of the universe and found no God.  This is impossible; so, the thinking goes, we must look at probabilities.  But this in itself exposes a flaw, all of our judgements about the existence of a creator are based on our arrogant assumption that we understand the nature of that creator!  How exactly are we so sure of this?  I’ve criticised holy books at length before and will refer the reader to my articles and archive for that, but this also extends to Science; what makes you think that a divine presence in the universe would even be something we could comprehend?  Whether we choose to admit it or not, we are limited, flawed creatures.  Who is to say we would even recognise God if we saw it?

This is where I think Taoism has it right, the Dao is beyond our understanding and has no plan, design or preference.  We cannot grasp it with our intellect as we are limited and it, by it’s nature, encompasses the things that are both within our grasp and outside our grasp.  Whenever we try for a God or Gods, we just wind up with ourselves, writ large.  But if there is something out there, then my money is on it being something like the Dao, and not just being out there, but in here as well.

I had an interesting moment the other day, interesting and somewhat unsettling.  I realised that the way I was being seen by someone wasn’t the way I’d thought.  This lead me to a train of thought.

We all put a lot of effort into how we come across, we care how we’re seen by others.  This goes to various degrees, depending on the situation and the individual.  But at what point does this behaviour become unethical?  Is it, in spite of our best efforts, ultimately futile?

No matter how carefully we craft our public faces, how carefully we choose our words, they will be seen through someone else’s lens.  The persons you and I are, are the result of our lifelong Karma; choice after choice, event after event.  This is as true of the person you project to the world as it is of the person I am, as I watch your actions and hear your words.  We see each other through the lenses of our Karma.

Ultimately I cannot control how you see me, too much depends on the lens through which you view me.  For me to try and try, ultimately results in me taking (or trying to take) too much control over your perceptions.  Thus taking what is not freely given and violating a precept.

For example, I support and have written Free Software.  I do this because I wish have more control of the software that runs my computer; I wrote SitQuietly for the Linux platform because I wanted to give something back to the community, however small, for all the good their software had done me.

But, through someone else’s eyes, am I the enemy?  No matter how compassionate my motives and aims?  Think not? Look again….

When using open source makes you an enemy of the state.

Should Open Source Be An Enemy Of The State?

My entire Karma led me to this point, if you are an intellectual property lobbyist or an advocate of certain proprietary software companies then you will quite possibly see me as the enemy.  Whether I want you to or not.  But drawing on my point above, for me to go too far in trying to change your mind isn’t just unethical, it’s unskilful.  At what point does it cause suffering for us both?  I’ll also wager the attempt will fail.  So it would seem easier for me to present myself as you find me, and simply allow you the room to make your mind up then live and let live.  No, not just better, more ethical, more skilful.

Interesting train of thought, isn’t it?

Yesterday I wrote about my take on Religion and our illusions.  I took what might have seemed an anti religious stance, but there has to be balance, tonight I will throw my counter punch.  Let’s see if I can land it.

One of the things about illusions, is our confidence in them.  We believe that they are the truth, the whole truth and we don’t realise otherwise.  Often, we don’t want to.  You may think I am aiming at the religious, but not so, I am aiming this one towards dogmatic Atheism and something called “Scientism”.

Dogmatic Atheism, I define this as the belief that no worldview other than the strictly secular could have any validity.  I have seen this with the New Atheists, some of whom really seem to be off on an intellectual power trip; they reminded me of people kicking apart a dolls house.

Scientism is, at least in my view, closely related to this but not quite the same thing.  Scientific fundamentalists will try to tell you that everything is explained, bar a little filling in of the edges.  You don’t need to look any further than this, we’re right, trust us.  Hmm, sorry that sounds little like “don’t think, believe the dogma”.

As an aside, I used the word “belief”, how shocking.  The interesting part of this is that aversion.  Hey, not all of our illusion are nice, we can recoil away from them as well grasp towards them!  Let me clarify my use of the term “belief”, dictionary.com give this definition, and I use the first one:

1. Something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2. Confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3. Confidence; faith; trust: a child’s belief in his parents.
4. A religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.

This is where I realise, with some shamefaced embarassment, how long it’s been since my last post.

I have spent some time over the last few weeks, discussing things with fellow secularists and some Jehovah’s Witnesses we have the acquaintance of.  The discussions are relating to God, Creationism and Evolution; the usual, in other words.  I do try to keep things as polite and civil as I can, I try to make my points gently and without causing offence.  But I do begin to understand why many secular people get frustrated when dealing with true believers, so I’d like to open the can of worms here; at least part of the way.

I write from the perspective of a Secular Buddhist, and my understanding is this.  Our problems stem from the fact we do not see clearly. We clutch after things we believe are solid and permanent without realising that they are changing and impermanent, our illusions blind us to the basic impermanence of the world and also of ourselves.  This is why you’ll sometimes hear Buddhists referred to as believing the world is an illusion, that’s because the world most of us inhabit is; it’s an illusion that exists only in our minds.  The trouble starts when we respond to this illusion as if it were concrete reality, then we start storing up trouble for the future (think Karma).  There’s a lot more I could say, but I’ll save it for another time.  Believe it or not, I’ve expressed the above to an Anglican and a Jehovah’s Witness and both have agreed with the sentiment that responding to our illusions as if they were real is nothing but trouble.  I can’t imagine that either would agree with what I have to say next.

When expressing ideas to believers, I’ve found that no matter how well you put things or how you back things up with proof, there is a wall.  You can get so far, then you’re up against faith and you can get no further.  From what I can see, the whole position of ‘supernatural’ religions would seem to be exactly the problem I describe in my last paragraph; they have their beliefs from their book and regardless of the evidence will stick to those beliefs with varying degrees of rigidity.

The level of intellectual evasion can be quite breathtaking at times.  I’ve seen false dichotomies and strawman arguments presented confidently as fact in articles sourced from around the Internet and thought “Why?”, “Why distort things like this, when it undermines everything you’re trying to do?”  I can understand defending a cherished belief, I can genuinely empathise, but if you can’t defend it honestly then why is it worth defending at all?

But it’s when I see believers taking these things and accepting them as accurate logic without a peep, not even a murmur; when I start to realise how many people are doing this, and not bringing even a shred of critical thought to bear on these things, it’s then that I start to get a glimpse of the sheer enormity of what the Buddha meant.

I’ve been a party to a few conversations at work regarding Atheism and Religion.  I’ve also been fortunate enough to speak to some Muslims and Sikhs, so I have a little perspective now on those faiths.  We have quite a mix of faiths (or lack of faith) at work, though I am the only Buddhist there.  There are a number of Jehovah’s Witnesses there and some are very militant and will not even read an email that might cause them to question their faith (I know this through read receipts).  What interests me is the constant drive they, and other faiths, have for converts.

My thoughts recently, especially as I have been making secular arguments in a number of areas, have been really more towards the ethics of conversion.  When does proselytizing and converting someone become wrong?  Yes, I appreciate that a given Atheist or Agnostic might have lots of answers and ammunition to fire.  The same it true for a door knocking Theist, but at what point does it become unethical to fire it, no matter how right you think you are?

I was pondering my own secular arguments, as a Buddhist I feel I can make secular agnostic arguments quite comfortably, as I find that Buddhism is a very agnostic thing at its root.  But I must also make the effort to observe the first precept, “I undertake to refrain from harming living beings”.  It’s not just physical harm, but emotional and mental hurt as well.  This left me wondering if was there a point at which I would have to tactfully remain silent.

Let me give an example of what I was pondering.  What happens when someones faith is all that is allowing them to cope with a personal tragedy?  Yes we may discuss things, but once I learn this is it right for me to continue arguing when I know it will cause suffering?  Does there come a time when, because of the high ethical cost, it’s not worth winning or being proved right?

On reflection, I think at this point I would have to try to suggest that we simply agree to disagree and simply respect one another’s views.

After Tai Chi tonight I was driving home mulling on things.  Once again that feeling of sort of “forgetting the self” had come very very briefly and it seemed to work.  Last time I trained I must’ve been having a bad week as nothing went right for me, but this week it seemed to work.

I was considering the habit of Procrastination in light of my Tai Chi practise.  You don’t think about the things in Tai Chi, you just let them happen, so why doesn’t this happen outside the class so much?  I am wondering if the trick is to realise that the Tai Chi form never in fact stops, when we’re walking down the street or washing our hands, we’re still doing Tai Chi!

I’m thinking of how it feels to do the form and the best analogy I can think of is that it’s like a railway journey.  At first, each position in the form is like a station, the train stops at each one and changes onto a new section of track.  Later on, as you practise more, the position changes become more like signal boxes.  What I mean by this is, they’re still there but you don’t stop for them, the train shifts fluidly onto its new track.

So what I’m driving at, is the idea of bringing that feeling from Tai Chi into everyday use.  We procrastinate when we stop at the station, maybe it would be better to realise that they’re only signal boxes.  We don’t in fact stop, we just flow from place to place, from event to event, from task to task.  Perhaps, I wonder, when we come to forget the self would it be true that the separation of tasks and events is only in our minds?

Am I making sense?

I’m away this weekend, and for a change I got the train.  I’m writing this on my phone while waiting for trains and while travelling, so if it seems a little disjointed then I apologise as I’m unused to writing on this device.

I love driving my car and the freedom it brings and would normally use it for a journey like this.  I decided to use the train as I think that this is the way things will go in terms of long distance travel, with walkable cities and metro services among the local options.  Besides, it’s different and trying something new is good.  I’d like to muse further on this as the English countryside whizzes by.

I was thinking of my visit to the Buddhist temple in Birmingham the other week and between that and this, plus an encounter with a pair of Jehovah’s Witnesses earlier this week, it started me mulling faith and the way we live.

We tend, in my opinion, to live and believe in the groove of our habits.  These habits don’t change much and we will defend them vigorously.  For an example, consider the future of the car.  Everything that can be done to assure the future of happy motoring is being done.  For my part, I think that in the long term there is nothing else to do but prepare for a carless future, but we will see.  There are always unexpected surprises.

So it is with our mental habits, not just of faith but of thought and behavior.  We defend these habits from the things that would change them without considering that the change might be just what’s needed!  Unless we allow our habits of thought and behavior to change and to evolve, then we will be defending them to their stagnation and the death of our hopes for future personal growth.

I’ve very briefly mentioned my disillusionment with Skepticism before, but I found a quote with re-reading Dracula that I think expresses part of how I feel about the whole thing.

“He meant that we shall have an open mind, and not let the little bit of truth check the rush of the big truth, like a small rock does a railway truck.  We get the small truth first.  Good! We keep him, and we value him, but all the same we must not let him think himself all the truth in the universe.” (Van Helsing speaking to Dr Seward)

I also see this as a warning not to hold an idea in contempt prior to investigating it.  I am beginning to suspect that Skepticism may be used to either inflate the ego or as a form of faith.  In any event, I personally feel that it can be an impediment to seeing.  I said last time that we often see our prejudices and thoughts about the world, not the world itself.  I should added that we can often see our skepticism instead of the world.  But I’m not the only one whose thought wandered in this direction:

“It is really quite amazing by what margins competent but conservative scientists and engineers can miss the mark, when they start with the preconceived idea that what they are investigating is impossible.  When this happens, the most well-informed men become blinded by their prejudices and are unable to see what lies directly ahead of them.” – Arthur C. Clarke, 1963

On that note I’ll log off as it is rather late here!