I recently came across the article below by Abdus Sattar Ghazali titled "Transforming Islam into acceptable forms for the west is the main neoconservative project.” It's a good article exposing the pride and prejudice of the war monger Reverend James Schall. The very idea of neoconservative extremist Christians telling Moslems to "transform" would be indeed laughable if it were not another tragic big lie.
But like all big lies, Schall's big lie is built around a small truth, that Islam, like Christianity and Judaism (or any religion), should be analyzed objectively from the point of view of reason and not just taken based on faith in revelation. We don’t need to and shouldn’t advocate a “market economy” version of Islam. That would be ludicrous. But we do need to support the pluralist-accepting versions of Islam, just as we need to support the pluralist versions of Christianity and Judaism.
Many of the founders of the USA were Deists who used reason to analyze Christianity and decided that the claims of revelation were contrary to reason and led away from pluralism toward dogmatism, intolerance, and ultimately the Inquisition. They supported moderate Christianity. Jefferson even wrote a synopsis of the teachings of Jesus leaving out the miracles and supernatural events which became called the "Jefferson Bible." http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/
I presume and hope that someone has done a similar thing for Islam, but I fear that to do so would make the person receive death threats by the Islamic fundamentalists who literalize the Prophet’s relationship with Allah while they hypocritically claim they are not idolizing him (PBUH).
If we can analyze and criticize the "Dominion" politics of Scalia and Bush, as we should, then we should be able to analyze and criticize the analogous "Dominion" versions of Islam that the Islamic fundamentalists use to make Islam into tool of a police state.
All forms of "moderate," i.e., reasonable, Islam should be empowered just as Christian and Jewish moderates should be empowered, because in each religion there are extremists who would drown out moderate reason and enforce the tyranny of their own extremist and literalist interpretations of the revelations of their prophets. This should be no problem to Islam since it is sometimes said that Islam maintains moderation in everything.
In essence, any person who doesn't understand that the supernatural aspects of their religion should be taken as metaphors and not literal fact, at least for social purposes, is an extremist. For their strictly personal purposes, an individual may take any revelation as literally as they want, but when it comes to putting the vision of a revelation into practice in the social realm then the revelation must be put forward as and “as if”, that is as a metaphor, for understanding ourselves, not as a dictate from a supernatural being, even a "supreme" one, that others must obey “for their own good or salvation.”
All religions have orthodoxy and heresy, that is not a problem as long as they keep them as road maps of their own religion and not as divinely inspired dictates to humankind to be enforced by law. As the mufti says, “Allah Almighty knows best.” but that doesn’t mean he knows what Allah knows.
The Dalai Lama said it in the most succinct way that I have yet to read:
“I want to share my views about the harmony of different religious traditions. I am a Buddhist; and sometimes I describe myself as a staunch Buddhist because, to me, the practice of Buddhism is the best, and Buddhist explanations are very logical. I truly believe that for me Buddhism is the best, but it is certainly not the best for everyone. People with different mental dispositions need different religions. One religion simply cannot satisfy everyone. Therefore, for the individual, the concept of one religion and one truth is very important. Without this, one cannot develop genuine faith and follow it faithfully. With regard to the community, we obviously need the concept of several religions and several truths — pluralism. This is both necessary and relevant. This is the way to overcome contradictions between several religions and several truths and one religion and one truth. Thus, I believe that one has one religion and one truth on the individual level, and one has several religions and several truths on the community level. Otherwise it is difficult to solve this problem.
“It is hypocrisy to say that all religions are the same. Different religions have different views and fundamental differences. But it does not matter, as all religions are meant to help in bringing about a better world with better and happier human beings. On this level, I think that through different philosophical explanations and approaches, all religions have the same goal and the same potential.” – from Live in a Better Way by Tenzin Gyasto, the 14th Dalai Lama, pp. 132-133.
If a Muslim, Christian, or Jew (or Hindu or any other religionist) can substitute the name of their religion for the name Buddhism in the above statement and say it truthfully then they are a moderate who should be supported. If they can’t make that substitution and feel that not only is their religion the best for them but is necessarily the best for everyone, then they are an extremist who should not be allowed to enforce their extremism upon the rest of us.
Gregory Wonderwheel
*****************************
http://www.amperspective.com/html/revered_schall.html
January 20, 2005
”Transforming Islam into acceptable forms
for the west is the main neoconservative project”
By Abdus Sattar Ghazali
Neoconservatives’ endeavors to create a market economy version of Islam – bereft of its basic tenets - got a boost recently when Reverend James Schall, Professor of government at Georgetown University and a Jesuit priest, vigorously defended their efforts.
In an article entitled “When War Must Be the Answer” published in the December/January issue of Policy Review, Schall writes about “making Islam over into politically acceptable forms.” This is the main neoconservative project and Schall argues that this program can be defended because no one, including the churches, is willing to examine in a serious way the truth claims of Islam. According to Schall, this not only includes Islam’s own understanding of Allah and of Judaism and Christianity, but also its practiced way of life and the direct relation of its religion and its politics.
He also explains the ultimate objectives behind the effort to provide models and forms of “democratic” and “free” political systems. Schall is blunt in pointing out that the neocons effort is to undermine those teachings and customs of Islam that cause the problem, the first of which is the claim of the truth of Islamic revelation and its understanding of the absolute will of God as arbitrary.
Schall’s remarks resonate with the neoconservatives at the Washington-based think tank, the Rand Corporation, who published two studies last year in a bid to create a market economy version of Islam.
The Rand study published in March 2004 - entitled “Civil Democratic Islam: Partners, Resources, and Strategies” – suggested selectively ignoring or rejecting elements of the original religious doctrine of Islam. In order to achieve this objective, the Study called for an alliance with the modernists in the Muslim world. It defines a moderate as a Muslim who believes that the Quran is a legend and that some verses (suras) may have been falsely or inaccurately recorded in the Quran. According to the Study modernists believe in the historicity of Islam, i.e., that Islam as it was practiced in the days of the Prophet reflected eternal truths as well as historical circumstances that were appropriate to that time but are no longer valid. They also believe that Islam is responsible for the underdevelopment of the Muslims because prosperity and progress depends on modernity and democracy.
In December 2004, the Rand Corporation issued another study – entitled “The Muslim World After 9/11” – which also called for empowering the Muslim moderates in the Muslim world. A summary of this 678-page study was issued under the title: U.S. Strategy in the Muslim World after 9/11. As an essential component of an effective U.S. policy toward the Muslim World,
the new study stressed the support to what it called “civil Islam” that is the Muslim civil society groups that advocate moderation.
Keeping in view the two Rand reports in the background of constant media and conservative Christian rights campaign against Islam and Muslims helps us to understand why after 9/11 the so-called progressive, moderate and ijtehadi Muslim groups are cropping in US which are squarely blaming the Islamic faith for all ills of the 1.3 billion Muslims. These agenda driven
groups have joined the chorus of “reject all basic tenets of Islam.”
Clash of civilizations
Reverting to Schall’s views on Islam and war.
Schall strongly believes in Huntington’s theory of the “Clash of Civilizations” and sees the current situation in the world as a new war of civilizations. Huntington says that the centuries old military interaction between the West and Islam could become more virulent. For Huntington, Islam is ideologically hostile and anti-Western.
Drawing upon Huntington’s concept, Schall argues: “Our leaders, both civil and religious, have been loath so to designate it as a civilizational war. Islam is said to be a religion of peace. To suspect that it is a threat on a much broader scale is one of those things that must be classified as “secret writing.” He further says that it goes against the dominant religious mood, namely, ecumenism, and against the liberal mode, namely, tolerance, according to which all issues can be resolved without war.
The 21st Century, it seems clear, will more likely be a century of confrontation with world religions rather than with world ideologies, as was the 20th Century, Schall writes in an article, “Belloc On The Apparently Unconvertible Religion (Islam)”, published in 2003.
He even describes as the current US military operation in Iraq as a war against an expanding Islam. The International Herald Tribune on Jan. 11, 2005, quoted Schall as saying: "I always thought it was a mistake not say what Iraq really was, that is, a war against an expanding Islam. I can put myself in Bush's position, of course, and understand it was a prudential act to say it was a war on terrorism." (Politicus: Bush might be heading for tangle with neocons by John Vinocur)
Borrowing from the French Catholic historian Hilaire Belloc, Schall argues that Crusades (1095-1200) did not split Islam geographically, if the Crusades had cut Africa from Asia, Islam may have declined. He insists that many of the advocates of occupation of Iraq today use this theory of the need to split Islam and hence reduce its geopolitical power.
Schall predicts a long struggle between Islam and the West. He argues that theorizing that the “terrorists” are merely a side-show, a tiny minority which will naturally pass out of existence, is an easy way out of considering the more basic problem of the civilizational movement and what
to do about it. “This consideration is based upon the notion that Islam is a confident civilizational movement, suddenly aware, thanks to the judgment of its more radical leaders, of the possibility of continuing its historic mission: spreading the religion by force or other means throughout the
world.”
“Islam has another soul and another destiny which it seeks to spread, by its own proven means,” he says.
War is a virtue
Let us now discuss Shall’s views on the necessity of war.
He is a Machiavellian. In his latest article - When War Must Be the Answer - in the Policy Review magazine, he strong supports war as a virtue. Citing Machiavelli’s advice that a prince should spend most of his time preparing for war, he says: A common, oft-heard theory about war today, by contrast, is that we have “grown” or progressed out of it. The assertion that war may still be necessary is looked upon as “anti-progressive,” a sin against “history.” No “reasonable” person can hold the view that war may be necessary.
Schall rejects this notion and cites Herbert Deane’s summation of Augustine’s view of war: “Wars are inevitable as long as men and their societies are moved by avarice, greed, and lust for power, the permanent drives of sinful men. It is, therefore, self-delusion and folly to expect that a time will ever come in this world when wars will cease and ‘men will beat their swords into ploughshares.”
He is mindful of the destruction and killing of innocent civilians in the war, which is now termed as collateral damage. Though much carnage and chaos happen in any historic war, and on every side, still we cannot conclude from this that “war is not the answer,” he says. In this regard he quotes C.S. Lewis, who wrote in his essay “Why I Am Not a Pacifist:” The doctrine that war is always a greater evil seems to imply a materialist ethic, a belief that death and pain are the greatest evils. But I do not think they are. I think the suppression of a higher religion by a lower, of even a higher secular culture by a lower, a much greater evil.
The worst modern tyranny in the twenty-first century will not come from armies but from their lack, from the lack of capacity and courage to use them wherever they are needed to protect justice, freedom, and truth, Schall argues by adding: “If war is not the “answer,” what is? How do we rid ourselves of tyrants or protect ourselves from ideologies or fanatics who attack us with their own principles and weapons, not ours?”
After establishing his case for war, Schall points out that the worst modern tyranny in the twenty-first century will not come from armies but from the lack of capacity and courage to use them wherever they are needed to protect justice, freedom, and truth. “If war is not the “answer,” what is? How do we rid ourselves of tyrants or protect ourselves from ideologies or fanatics who attack us with their own principles and weapons, not ours?”
In short, Schall is a Machiavellian like the neocon, Michael Ledeen, who seeks to apply Machiavellian principles to the modern world when he says – in his book “The War Against the Terror Masters” - that as “we wage this war (against terrorism), we must constantly remind ourselves of five basic rules of successful political and military leadership, as defined half a millennium ago by Machiavelli.” He stresses that these Machiavellian principles are as true today as they were during the Renaissance, at the beginning of the modern era:
1. Man is more inclined to do evil than to do good.
Good people are rare, and are constantly threatened by the evil-minded. Peace is not the normal condition of mankind, and moments of peace are invariably the result of war. Since we want peace, we must win the war. Since our enemies are inclined to do evil, we must win decisively and then impose virtue, until the people learn the rules of civil society.
2. The only important thing is wining.
Machiavelli tells us that if we win, everyone will judge our methods to have been appropriate. If we lose, they will despise us.
3. If we have to do unpleasant things, it is best to do them all at once.
Strike decisively, get it over with quickly. The diplomats will always say that we can achieve our goals with a little bit of nastiness and a whole lot of talking, but they are wrong.
4. It is better to be feared than loved.
We can lead by the force of high moral example. It has been done. But it’s risky, because people are fickle, and they will abandon us at the first sign of failure. Fear is much more reliable and lasts longer. Once we show that we are capable of defeating our enemies, our power will be far
greater.
5. Luck can wreck the finest plans.
Machiavelli played cards whenever he had the chance, and he knew that a bad run can ruin the finest player. Machiavelli ruefully admitted that the best one could hope for was to have good luck about half the time. But that should be enough for us. We’re a lost stronger than the terror masters.
One may ask, do we see implementation of these principles in the disproportionate use of force and indiscriminate bombings and killings in Afghanistan and Iraq because the neocons and their supporters believe that they are "fighting evil?"
Going back to Schall’s argument on clash of civilizations, one may also ask if the current “war against terror” was not to stop the expansion of Islam, but for oil and also for hegemony that is the main thrust of Huntington’s theory.
###
Wednesday, January 26, 2005
Wednesday, December 15, 2004
What would Jesus buy this Christmas?
.
If you want to have some small economic impact for the good this Christmas, then please at least boycott J.C. Penney, Kmart, Kohl's, May's, Sears, Target, and Wal-Mart.
There are two interesting lists regarding the retail giants. One is the Sweatshop Scorecard of retailers by Co-op America and is available at http://www.sweatshops.org/scorecard.html
The other is a Buy Blue.Org which is highlighting the large companies that donated to Republican or Democratic campaigns. http://www.buyblue.org/bluexmas.html
Do you see any relationship here?
Sweatshop Scorecard:Federated = C; J.C. Penney = D-; Kmart = D; Kohl's = D+; May's = C; Sears = D-; Target = D; Wal-Mart = F.
Retailers with large percentages of Republican contributions: J.C. Penney = 81%; Kmart = 86%; Kohl's = ; May's = 90%; Sears = 76%; Target = 72%; Wal-Mart = 80%.
Conclusion: Please boycott those stores.
Our consumer brand of American fascism is maintained by our unconscious consumerism. The TV ads we watch in the "privacy" of our homes create the self-illusion of individualism and freedom, but they are really the Madison Ave. version of the great Nuremberg rallies of Nazi Germany. Hitler and Goebbels would be envious of our slick consumer fascism which puts corporations in control of the government in order to make government profitable to corporations.
If these giant retailers didn't fund the Republican politicians do you honestly believe that we would still not have laws preventing sweatshop exploitation.
Check out the many good organizations supporting fairtrade, greentrade, and opposing sweatshops. You can start with these:
Co-op America
http://www.coopamerica.org/
Global Exchange
http://www.globalexchange.org/
Rainforest Action Network
http://www.ran.org/
Greenpeace
http://www.greenpeaceusa.org/
Watch out for "greenwash" masquerading as green.
http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/97/summit/greenwash.html
GreenSeal
http://www.greenseal.org/index.html
Buy Green
http://www.buygreen.com/index.htm
[I've only just learned about Green Seal and Buy Green. If you know something about them that I should know please let me know. Also if you have a favorite fairtrade, greentrade, or anti sweatshop website please let me know of it and I'll it to the list.]
Gregory
If you want to have some small economic impact for the good this Christmas, then please at least boycott J.C. Penney, Kmart, Kohl's, May's, Sears, Target, and Wal-Mart.
There are two interesting lists regarding the retail giants. One is the Sweatshop Scorecard of retailers by Co-op America and is available at http://www.sweatshops.org/scorecard.html
The other is a Buy Blue.Org which is highlighting the large companies that donated to Republican or Democratic campaigns. http://www.buyblue.org/bluexmas.html
Do you see any relationship here?
Sweatshop Scorecard:Federated = C; J.C. Penney = D-; Kmart = D; Kohl's = D+; May's = C; Sears = D-; Target = D; Wal-Mart = F.
Retailers with large percentages of Republican contributions: J.C. Penney = 81%; Kmart = 86%; Kohl's = ; May's = 90%; Sears = 76%; Target = 72%; Wal-Mart = 80%.
Conclusion: Please boycott those stores.
Our consumer brand of American fascism is maintained by our unconscious consumerism. The TV ads we watch in the "privacy" of our homes create the self-illusion of individualism and freedom, but they are really the Madison Ave. version of the great Nuremberg rallies of Nazi Germany. Hitler and Goebbels would be envious of our slick consumer fascism which puts corporations in control of the government in order to make government profitable to corporations.
If these giant retailers didn't fund the Republican politicians do you honestly believe that we would still not have laws preventing sweatshop exploitation.
Check out the many good organizations supporting fairtrade, greentrade, and opposing sweatshops. You can start with these:
Co-op America
http://www.coopamerica.org/
Global Exchange
http://www.globalexchange.org/
Rainforest Action Network
http://www.ran.org/
Greenpeace
http://www.greenpeaceusa.org/
Watch out for "greenwash" masquerading as green.
http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/97/summit/greenwash.html
GreenSeal
http://www.greenseal.org/index.html
Buy Green
http://www.buygreen.com/index.htm
[I've only just learned about Green Seal and Buy Green. If you know something about them that I should know please let me know. Also if you have a favorite fairtrade, greentrade, or anti sweatshop website please let me know of it and I'll it to the list.]
Gregory
Friday, December 03, 2004
Time for elections to be back in the public's hands.
.
There has been surfacing very credible evidence of computer scamming with the ballot counting of the 2004 election. Scamming seems to be going on with both the new touch screen computers and with the computer counting of the optical scan and punch card ballots.
So far the questions about the legitimacy of the 2004 election focus on several main areas: (1) intervention with voters at the polls by manipulating the access to ballot machines so that Democratic Party precincts had few voting booths and long waiting lines while Republican precincts and plenty of voting booths and very short or no waiting lines; (2) in multi-precinct areas some Democratic voters in the long lines were told to use the voting booths with no lines for the other precinct thus making their punch card holes not register correctly on the ballot; (3) use of provisional ballots not consistent and prejudicing Democratic precincts, and (4) computer irregularities in adding votes never cast or miscounting votes cast.
While there are more old-fashioned ways of election fraud being used, it is the computer fraud that adds up the fastest to the highest number of wrong votes.
To me the whole computer scam boils down to one issue: would we ever allow a private group of people to physically take our paper ballots into a closed room without public scrutiny and emerge a few hours later to declare the results? If not, then why would we ever let a private company accomplish the same thing by using a computer? It is time that the people reclaim our public elections and demand that no computer program -- for either optical scan, punch card, or touch screen balloting -- may be used unless it is open source code that may be viewed by anyone.
Today the computer companies have privatized our public elections and take our ballots into the closed door interiors of their computers and count the votes without public scrutiny of how the counting is being conducted.
Why is this allowed? It is the consumer culture that permeates our society that takes it for granted that a computer code is some kind of proprietary holy cow. That may be the case for open market consumerism, but that most definitely should not be the case for public elections. We the people need to recapture our own elections from the computer companies that are now holding us hostage in the name of convenience. It is fine for the hardware to be subject to proprietary controls by private companies, but the software for counting the votes must be open source.
A computer company should not be allowed to count public elections unless its counting software is open for the public to see how it is doing the counting. Anything less is simply allowing the private company to take our ballots behind closed doors and then to merely announce the results afterwards.
Gregory Wonderwheel
There has been surfacing very credible evidence of computer scamming with the ballot counting of the 2004 election. Scamming seems to be going on with both the new touch screen computers and with the computer counting of the optical scan and punch card ballots.
So far the questions about the legitimacy of the 2004 election focus on several main areas: (1) intervention with voters at the polls by manipulating the access to ballot machines so that Democratic Party precincts had few voting booths and long waiting lines while Republican precincts and plenty of voting booths and very short or no waiting lines; (2) in multi-precinct areas some Democratic voters in the long lines were told to use the voting booths with no lines for the other precinct thus making their punch card holes not register correctly on the ballot; (3) use of provisional ballots not consistent and prejudicing Democratic precincts, and (4) computer irregularities in adding votes never cast or miscounting votes cast.
While there are more old-fashioned ways of election fraud being used, it is the computer fraud that adds up the fastest to the highest number of wrong votes.
To me the whole computer scam boils down to one issue: would we ever allow a private group of people to physically take our paper ballots into a closed room without public scrutiny and emerge a few hours later to declare the results? If not, then why would we ever let a private company accomplish the same thing by using a computer? It is time that the people reclaim our public elections and demand that no computer program -- for either optical scan, punch card, or touch screen balloting -- may be used unless it is open source code that may be viewed by anyone.
Today the computer companies have privatized our public elections and take our ballots into the closed door interiors of their computers and count the votes without public scrutiny of how the counting is being conducted.
Why is this allowed? It is the consumer culture that permeates our society that takes it for granted that a computer code is some kind of proprietary holy cow. That may be the case for open market consumerism, but that most definitely should not be the case for public elections. We the people need to recapture our own elections from the computer companies that are now holding us hostage in the name of convenience. It is fine for the hardware to be subject to proprietary controls by private companies, but the software for counting the votes must be open source.
A computer company should not be allowed to count public elections unless its counting software is open for the public to see how it is doing the counting. Anything less is simply allowing the private company to take our ballots behind closed doors and then to merely announce the results afterwards.
Gregory Wonderwheel
Wednesday, November 24, 2004
The Five Aggregates of Personality
The Five Grasping Aggregates are sometimes called The Five Bundles of Personality.
Buddhism teaches that our personality or selfhood is a psycho-physical phenomenon made of a mosaic of many pieces of awareness. The "pieces" of our personality are cataloged into five broad categories which in Sanskrit (Skt.) are called "skandas" and may be translated as "aggregates," "collections," or "bundles." Like sorting the many tiles of a mosaic of many hues, shades, tints, and patterns into five boxes based on their primary colors, the five aggregates group the many and varied elements of personality into the five basic bundles that result in our consciousness of who we are.
The categories of the five aggregates are (1) Forms (Skt. rupa), (2) Feelings (Skt. vedana), (3) Perceptions (Skt. sanjna), (4) Complexes (Skt. samskara ), and (5) Consciousnesses (Skt. vijnana). These categories are not literally distinct, rather they are intimately connected in the composition of our personality so should be thought of as distinct in the manner that our body's physiological systems (e.g., circulatory, nervous, muscular, skeletal, etc.) are identifiably distinct but interdependently and inextricably connected.
Modern science is mapping the brain's bio-electrical functioning and is confirming this classical Buddhist analysis derived from direct experiential studies in the practice of Buddhist meditation. The language of Buddhist devotion is religious and faith-based, but the language of Buddhist analysis is essentially and primarily psychological or phenomenological. It is an analysis of human experience and awareness itself, not an analysis of the physical world. As such the mapping of the mind by ancient Buddhism is the experiential equivalent of the mapping of the brain by modern neuroscience.
The five aggregates can be studied in sequence as they develop into or result in consciousness, but such a linear developmental sequence should be considered only for conventional purposes in relating to the physicality or physiology of brain functioning. Consciousness is a multidimensional feedback process so in actual functioning one's unconscious awareness (like the firings of the synapses) is moving between all the five aggregates and their specific elements at all levels and in very complex and complicated patterns.
The first aggregate of FORMS refers to the six sense organs or receptors along with the six sense objects or stimuli as well as the four physical elements. These are the five sense organs of the eye, ear, nose, lounge, and body plus the sixth sense organ the mind. The six sense objects are five physical sensations of our mind that are projected into the world and taken as literal objects, i.e., sights, sounds, smells, tastes, and touchings, plus the mental sensations of intuitions. These twelve taken together are called the entrances (Skt. ayapana) as they are the entrances to consciousness. In brain physiology Forms relates to the sensory receptors of the nervous system as well as to the sensory areas of the brain such as the visual cortex and the auditory system.
The second aggregate of FEELINGS refers to the feelings that are evoked by the Forms. The feelings are either positive, negative, or neutral. For example, when the form of fire is experienced when it is a certain distance it is neutral, when it provides comforting warmth it is pleasant, but when it comes into contact with the skin and burns it is painful. Feelings are thus attractive, aversive, or indifferent. The complexity of Feelings can exist in degrees such as a simple attraction of curiosity to complex desires such as love. Similarly the negative Feelings can range from simple rejection, to distaste to disgust and hate.
The third aggregate of PERCEPTIONS are the mental images that arise when the Forms and Feelings become combined in the mind by association. Forms plus Feelings equal Perceptions. Cognition-cognates, identification-identity, conception-concepts, etc. are all within the aggregate of Perceptions. Pattern development and recognition (represented in the temporal lobes) is central to the Perceptions as is spacial representation of the world (represented in the parietal lobes). When we sense the features of a face and experience the feelings associated with the face we can then image or perceive the identity of the face. For example, the features of a certain woman's face (color and shapes of the eyes, mouth, nose, hair, etc.) plus the feelings of dependence, love, gratitude, etc. for her combine and result in our recognition of her as mom. In the brain disorder called the Capgras Delusion certain Forms are physiologically disconnected to their associated Feelings and as a result the person loses the normal Perception function. Instead of recognizing the image of "mother," the person sees mom's features but does not experience the feelings of love associated with those features, and so arrives at the "perception" that the woman looks like mom but is in fact an imposter.
The fourth aggregate is the COMPLEXES and refers to the actions or functionality of the mind. The Sanskrit term samskara can be literally translated as "with-do," "co-act," or "com-motion." This bundle is not easily labeled because it includes a very broad range of mental functioning which are virtually all psychic actions. It is sometimes labeled impulses or reactions but this loses the other sense of functioning which is the will or volition. Also there are the habits or habitual formations and the automatic reflexes. All motivations and emotions which have arisen through combination of the Forms, Feelings, and Perceptions are also part of this aggravate. The psychological complexes are the structural correlates of the this aggregate. The commotions of the mind can be experienced as chaotic insurrections of impulses or as sublime emotions. As reactions to Perceptions enfolding Forms and Feelings, the Complexes can be habitual and fixed in beneficial or detrimental complexes, patterned but flexible, or spontaneous.
The fifth aggregate of CONSCIOUSNESSES is the fruit of awareness in which all the aggregates become knowable. The Consciousnesses are the comprehension and understanding resulting from the interplay and reflection of the aggregates. Discernment and discrimination are hallmarks of the Consciousnesses. The eight Consciousnesses are the five arising from the five senses, the sixth arising from thought, the seventh arising from fundamental discrimination, and the eighth which is the non-arising Consciousness which Western psychology calls the Unconscious.
The five aggregates are also called the five grasping aggregates because with the fifth aggregate of Consciousnesses the grasping of attachment to various elements of all of the aggregates arises and creates a total conglomeration which in Buddhism is called the suffering of selfhood. The five aggregates together create the whole comprehension of oneself including a body image, an identity, hopes, dreams, fears, aspirations, etc.
The phantom limb phenomenon of is an example of how the Forms and Feelings equal a Perception of a limb leading to the Complexes of developed habits, motivations, and emotions associated with the limb and a resulting Consciousness of the limb. When the limb is removed, the Consciousness of the limb is not necessarily removed due to the mental attachments (i.e., synaptic mapping in memory) of the limb which then create Perceptions of physical sensations where none exist. The phantom limb phenomenon is actually only one example of the complete modeling overlay of the aggregates that is going on continuously within our body-mind but "underneath" our conscious awareness because of the physical body acting as the formal screen upon which the modeling is projected.
When Buddhism says there is no objective world, it is saying that there is nothing that is external to this modeling/mapping functionality of consciousness of which we can be aware as data. It is saying that the "objective" world is identical with the "subjective" world and the polarity of the two is actually wholly unified whether we know it or not. When Buddhism says there is no self, it is saying are complete unity whether we know it or not, that there is no inherent individual identity or entity separate from the mapping/modeling functionality of consciousness which attempts to compartmentalize awareness but can't, except in a karmic dream.
But that nothing is not nothing. The non-objective world is also a way of saying that Buddha Essence is universally all living beings and therefore no map is capable of charting the total reality: that complete existence beyond concepts of origination or annihilation of existence which can't be grasped by such concepts as subject, object, self, other, etc. The essence of nothing means the presence of living beings. If living beings had some constant, material, or uniform basis for their being then they could not be. Without nothingness there would only be dead beings playing with maps and getting lost on the dark roads.
Meditation is the way the mind handles and releases its attachments to the aggregates and to the dualities which are the cement binding the aggregated attachments. Mental liberation from suffering, i.e., the freedom from passion (in the sense of the original Latin), is realized by releasing the mind from the attachments related to the five aggregates and living with the aggregates as selfless expressions of impermanence. This release is called the realization of Emptiness or the Void.
As the Heart Sutra says:
"Form is Emptiness; Emptiness is Form.
Form is not different from Emptiness; Emptiness is not different from Form.
Form is identically Emptiness; Emptiness is identically Form.
Feelings, Perceptions, Complexes, and Conscousinesses are also like this."
Buddhism teaches that our personality or selfhood is a psycho-physical phenomenon made of a mosaic of many pieces of awareness. The "pieces" of our personality are cataloged into five broad categories which in Sanskrit (Skt.) are called "skandas" and may be translated as "aggregates," "collections," or "bundles." Like sorting the many tiles of a mosaic of many hues, shades, tints, and patterns into five boxes based on their primary colors, the five aggregates group the many and varied elements of personality into the five basic bundles that result in our consciousness of who we are.
The categories of the five aggregates are (1) Forms (Skt. rupa), (2) Feelings (Skt. vedana), (3) Perceptions (Skt. sanjna), (4) Complexes (Skt. samskara ), and (5) Consciousnesses (Skt. vijnana). These categories are not literally distinct, rather they are intimately connected in the composition of our personality so should be thought of as distinct in the manner that our body's physiological systems (e.g., circulatory, nervous, muscular, skeletal, etc.) are identifiably distinct but interdependently and inextricably connected.
Modern science is mapping the brain's bio-electrical functioning and is confirming this classical Buddhist analysis derived from direct experiential studies in the practice of Buddhist meditation. The language of Buddhist devotion is religious and faith-based, but the language of Buddhist analysis is essentially and primarily psychological or phenomenological. It is an analysis of human experience and awareness itself, not an analysis of the physical world. As such the mapping of the mind by ancient Buddhism is the experiential equivalent of the mapping of the brain by modern neuroscience.
The five aggregates can be studied in sequence as they develop into or result in consciousness, but such a linear developmental sequence should be considered only for conventional purposes in relating to the physicality or physiology of brain functioning. Consciousness is a multidimensional feedback process so in actual functioning one's unconscious awareness (like the firings of the synapses) is moving between all the five aggregates and their specific elements at all levels and in very complex and complicated patterns.
The first aggregate of FORMS refers to the six sense organs or receptors along with the six sense objects or stimuli as well as the four physical elements. These are the five sense organs of the eye, ear, nose, lounge, and body plus the sixth sense organ the mind. The six sense objects are five physical sensations of our mind that are projected into the world and taken as literal objects, i.e., sights, sounds, smells, tastes, and touchings, plus the mental sensations of intuitions. These twelve taken together are called the entrances (Skt. ayapana) as they are the entrances to consciousness. In brain physiology Forms relates to the sensory receptors of the nervous system as well as to the sensory areas of the brain such as the visual cortex and the auditory system.
The second aggregate of FEELINGS refers to the feelings that are evoked by the Forms. The feelings are either positive, negative, or neutral. For example, when the form of fire is experienced when it is a certain distance it is neutral, when it provides comforting warmth it is pleasant, but when it comes into contact with the skin and burns it is painful. Feelings are thus attractive, aversive, or indifferent. The complexity of Feelings can exist in degrees such as a simple attraction of curiosity to complex desires such as love. Similarly the negative Feelings can range from simple rejection, to distaste to disgust and hate.
The third aggregate of PERCEPTIONS are the mental images that arise when the Forms and Feelings become combined in the mind by association. Forms plus Feelings equal Perceptions. Cognition-cognates, identification-identity, conception-concepts, etc. are all within the aggregate of Perceptions. Pattern development and recognition (represented in the temporal lobes) is central to the Perceptions as is spacial representation of the world (represented in the parietal lobes). When we sense the features of a face and experience the feelings associated with the face we can then image or perceive the identity of the face. For example, the features of a certain woman's face (color and shapes of the eyes, mouth, nose, hair, etc.) plus the feelings of dependence, love, gratitude, etc. for her combine and result in our recognition of her as mom. In the brain disorder called the Capgras Delusion certain Forms are physiologically disconnected to their associated Feelings and as a result the person loses the normal Perception function. Instead of recognizing the image of "mother," the person sees mom's features but does not experience the feelings of love associated with those features, and so arrives at the "perception" that the woman looks like mom but is in fact an imposter.
The fourth aggregate is the COMPLEXES and refers to the actions or functionality of the mind. The Sanskrit term samskara can be literally translated as "with-do," "co-act," or "com-motion." This bundle is not easily labeled because it includes a very broad range of mental functioning which are virtually all psychic actions. It is sometimes labeled impulses or reactions but this loses the other sense of functioning which is the will or volition. Also there are the habits or habitual formations and the automatic reflexes. All motivations and emotions which have arisen through combination of the Forms, Feelings, and Perceptions are also part of this aggravate. The psychological complexes are the structural correlates of the this aggregate. The commotions of the mind can be experienced as chaotic insurrections of impulses or as sublime emotions. As reactions to Perceptions enfolding Forms and Feelings, the Complexes can be habitual and fixed in beneficial or detrimental complexes, patterned but flexible, or spontaneous.
The fifth aggregate of CONSCIOUSNESSES is the fruit of awareness in which all the aggregates become knowable. The Consciousnesses are the comprehension and understanding resulting from the interplay and reflection of the aggregates. Discernment and discrimination are hallmarks of the Consciousnesses. The eight Consciousnesses are the five arising from the five senses, the sixth arising from thought, the seventh arising from fundamental discrimination, and the eighth which is the non-arising Consciousness which Western psychology calls the Unconscious.
The five aggregates are also called the five grasping aggregates because with the fifth aggregate of Consciousnesses the grasping of attachment to various elements of all of the aggregates arises and creates a total conglomeration which in Buddhism is called the suffering of selfhood. The five aggregates together create the whole comprehension of oneself including a body image, an identity, hopes, dreams, fears, aspirations, etc.
The phantom limb phenomenon of is an example of how the Forms and Feelings equal a Perception of a limb leading to the Complexes of developed habits, motivations, and emotions associated with the limb and a resulting Consciousness of the limb. When the limb is removed, the Consciousness of the limb is not necessarily removed due to the mental attachments (i.e., synaptic mapping in memory) of the limb which then create Perceptions of physical sensations where none exist. The phantom limb phenomenon is actually only one example of the complete modeling overlay of the aggregates that is going on continuously within our body-mind but "underneath" our conscious awareness because of the physical body acting as the formal screen upon which the modeling is projected.
When Buddhism says there is no objective world, it is saying that there is nothing that is external to this modeling/mapping functionality of consciousness of which we can be aware as data. It is saying that the "objective" world is identical with the "subjective" world and the polarity of the two is actually wholly unified whether we know it or not. When Buddhism says there is no self, it is saying are complete unity whether we know it or not, that there is no inherent individual identity or entity separate from the mapping/modeling functionality of consciousness which attempts to compartmentalize awareness but can't, except in a karmic dream.
But that nothing is not nothing. The non-objective world is also a way of saying that Buddha Essence is universally all living beings and therefore no map is capable of charting the total reality: that complete existence beyond concepts of origination or annihilation of existence which can't be grasped by such concepts as subject, object, self, other, etc. The essence of nothing means the presence of living beings. If living beings had some constant, material, or uniform basis for their being then they could not be. Without nothingness there would only be dead beings playing with maps and getting lost on the dark roads.
Meditation is the way the mind handles and releases its attachments to the aggregates and to the dualities which are the cement binding the aggregated attachments. Mental liberation from suffering, i.e., the freedom from passion (in the sense of the original Latin), is realized by releasing the mind from the attachments related to the five aggregates and living with the aggregates as selfless expressions of impermanence. This release is called the realization of Emptiness or the Void.
As the Heart Sutra says:
"Form is Emptiness; Emptiness is Form.
Form is not different from Emptiness; Emptiness is not different from Form.
Form is identically Emptiness; Emptiness is identically Form.
Feelings, Perceptions, Complexes, and Conscousinesses are also like this."
A Populist's View of Abortion
By Alan Gregory Wonderwheel
A mother's choice to terminate her pregnancy is between herself, her conscience, and her God. A mother has the absolute right to end her pregnancy at the early stage for any reason whatever, and she keeps that right into the later stages when she reasonably believes that the risk to her own health and life is too unreasonably large. No busybody religious snob, no dictatorial fundamentalist, no self-serving politician feathering a career, no fancy-pants quacking doctor, no law making judicial activist, no elitist editor, no snake-oil selling talk show host, and not even a tyrannical majority have any right to step between a mother-to-be and her God in making the moral decision to terminate her pregnancy.
Anti-abortionists like to soothe their blistering sanctimonious self-image with false images and idols of themselves as modern day abolitionists, but it is they who are the modern day slave masters wielding the lash of verbal abuse, the whip of pharisaic self-righteousness guilt, and the chains of legislation against the freedom of a mother to make a moral decision with her God. It is the anti-abortionists who chase down and hound a mother who, like the escaped slave, has escaped their bonds and is attempting to seek her freedom in the country of God given rights to make the most intimate and important decision a person could make with her body and her soul.
We must never forget when anti-abortionists today say that they are the friend of the pregnant mother that the slave masters yesterday said "The intelligent, Christian slave-holder at the South is the best friend of the negro." (The Spectator, December 6, 1859, p. 2, c. 1.) When anti-abortionists claim that their cause is sanctioned by God we must remember the likes of Raymond Harris writing in his Scriptural Researches on the Licitness of the Slave-Trade, that slavery had "the positive sanction of God in its support."
These false prophets of "pro-life" who abandon the child as soon as it is born, who sanction the death-penalty, who support forced military abortions by the killing of pregnant mothers in war, who only live vicariously through their preacher's charismatic power, they have no true understanding what life is or means. They would enslave the soul of a mother on the pretense of saving her soul. They would chain the mother to the birthing bed while claiming to set her free. In the name of their class warfare and for the benefit of the wealthy and power elites, they would demean the humanity of mothers and force mothers to be breeding stock.
There is no more fundamental freedom today than the right of a mother to end her pregnancy. In every country in the world today the right to make the moral decision with her God to choose abortion is the single best indicator of a free people. Where the right to choose, the right to make the moral decision, is prohibited, there the enslavement of women by caste patriarchy and the plutocratic rule by wealthy elites will be found. If you want to free your society, to free your mind, and to free your soul, there is only one choice you can make: free the mother to make her own moral decisions with herself, her conscience, and her God about whether to terminate her pregnancy.
A mother's choice to terminate her pregnancy is between herself, her conscience, and her God. A mother has the absolute right to end her pregnancy at the early stage for any reason whatever, and she keeps that right into the later stages when she reasonably believes that the risk to her own health and life is too unreasonably large. No busybody religious snob, no dictatorial fundamentalist, no self-serving politician feathering a career, no fancy-pants quacking doctor, no law making judicial activist, no elitist editor, no snake-oil selling talk show host, and not even a tyrannical majority have any right to step between a mother-to-be and her God in making the moral decision to terminate her pregnancy.
Anti-abortionists like to soothe their blistering sanctimonious self-image with false images and idols of themselves as modern day abolitionists, but it is they who are the modern day slave masters wielding the lash of verbal abuse, the whip of pharisaic self-righteousness guilt, and the chains of legislation against the freedom of a mother to make a moral decision with her God. It is the anti-abortionists who chase down and hound a mother who, like the escaped slave, has escaped their bonds and is attempting to seek her freedom in the country of God given rights to make the most intimate and important decision a person could make with her body and her soul.
We must never forget when anti-abortionists today say that they are the friend of the pregnant mother that the slave masters yesterday said "The intelligent, Christian slave-holder at the South is the best friend of the negro." (The Spectator, December 6, 1859, p. 2, c. 1.) When anti-abortionists claim that their cause is sanctioned by God we must remember the likes of Raymond Harris writing in his Scriptural Researches on the Licitness of the Slave-Trade, that slavery had "the positive sanction of God in its support."
These false prophets of "pro-life" who abandon the child as soon as it is born, who sanction the death-penalty, who support forced military abortions by the killing of pregnant mothers in war, who only live vicariously through their preacher's charismatic power, they have no true understanding what life is or means. They would enslave the soul of a mother on the pretense of saving her soul. They would chain the mother to the birthing bed while claiming to set her free. In the name of their class warfare and for the benefit of the wealthy and power elites, they would demean the humanity of mothers and force mothers to be breeding stock.
There is no more fundamental freedom today than the right of a mother to end her pregnancy. In every country in the world today the right to make the moral decision with her God to choose abortion is the single best indicator of a free people. Where the right to choose, the right to make the moral decision, is prohibited, there the enslavement of women by caste patriarchy and the plutocratic rule by wealthy elites will be found. If you want to free your society, to free your mind, and to free your soul, there is only one choice you can make: free the mother to make her own moral decisions with herself, her conscience, and her God about whether to terminate her pregnancy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)