Wednesday, February 11, 2015

Nothing virtual about alternative reality

(Ok folks, this is applicable to all, including myself)

Imagine this: 1.5 billion actors in a staged drama, based on a hybrid of forum theatre and device theatre. Each with a role to play and most, if not all, believing themselves to be in the lead. Each setting themselves up for a part that has been formulated and scripted individually but created to fit into a generalized norm of the entire drama. Changing their scripts and their roles according to external stimuli from other actors who switch incessantly and unpredictably between being part of a play, part of an audience and part of an indifferent group of people with other things to do. Each carefully engaging in specific parts of the action that they feel they are most suited to play given the scripts that they have written for themselves. Depending on their mood at each given moment, constantly cheering, heckling, ignoring and, responding to the creative efforts of the rest of the actors.  Imagine also that they do this day-in day-out, year-in year-out with little or no desire to second guess their dramatic activities let alone give themselves some respite. Regularly, these actors die and for each that dies, a dozen line up to take their place.

I am describing the great drama of the world according to life on a continent of 1.5 billion people right? Wrong.

You see, in life, one can rarely be a complete actor. One is generally incapable of scripting an entire life and one’s persona is generally a crock whose content is part confusing, part difficult to describe, part jewel, part junk and part gunk – all of which is out there in the public domain for everyone else to critique. In life, one cannot easily choose one’s engagements nor is one allowed to enter into engagements on the strength of mere whim or fancy. Nor does one have much time to consider one’s position before responding to calls to action. In life, one’s entire take on it is quickly and utterly known to others whether one likes it or not.

So, it should be apparent that this is the world according to social networking that I am talking about.  That wonderful, easy, convenient virtual geography where there is apparently a near total exchange and sharing of everything with everyone. Or…is it?

I am not so sure. You see, few realize that on those networks, they are subconsciously engaged in a frantic battle to bring themselves, their lives and their ideas into relevance and acceptance for the people that they engage. Trying to give as convincing a performance as they possibly can, each time they step up on that stage. Good or bad, that which is publicized is geared towards the overarching desire for external relevance. In so doing, they create, knowingly or unknowingly, consciously or unconsciously, a hybridized persona for themselves that is a highly selective extraction from their completely incomplete, fully compromised, massively encumbered real life one.  

In many instances, this persona can be invasive and dangerous for themselves and for others for it doesn’t remain static but transforms itself into a larger than life fairytale that one starts to believe in and promote despite evidence to the contrary.


This doesn’t happen on day one of engagement of social networks. Most start by bringing their whole selves to this place but then something happens. Their initial forays into social engagement on a medium where stimulus-response is near instantaneous tells them quickly what flies and what dies on the relevance scale and, unconsciously for most, there is an automatic sifting out of the later. Then the changeling arrives, quietly, creepily, slinking in, unnoticed, through the backdoor leading into that darkened alley behind this virtual stage.

Living solely for itself, it cuts away those parts of its host that are contra-indicated for its continued existence and expands and blows up those parts which feed it. Not all of it is going to be true to the reality of the host. In fact, to strengthen its persona, a changeling will absorb and call its own, increasingly large swaths of “personality” that have very little to do with its living, breathing seed persona and in many cases is actually diametrically opposite to it. Unlike real reality, where it is not possible to click oneself out with “unavailable”, check oneself in to friendship with a button, like things without a clue as to what one is liking, comment on things unasked or stalk a friend’s friend’s friend’s friend without getting extra appendages on one’s anatomy permanently unfriended, this is very easy to do in a cosmos where everything can be colored or changed or manipulated or altered without much effort. Quicker than most would imagine, it takes over, much like a parasite, most of its host’s mind, leaving behind only enough of it for the pesky but necessary purpose of acquiring sustenance to keep it physically alive.
.
And those changelings, by their texts, responses,  photos, videos, likes and shares, are telling others to view them through a lens that they have carefully ground for the purpose well in advance. Much like actors, they characterize that persona to the hilt. On the part of a single individual, such drama and such play acting is no great crime but what happens when every single member of that community is doing the same?

Then, the drama becomes reality.

So much so that people hypnotize themselves into believing that this selective reality is in fact, their complete reality. This too is no great crime except for the fact that there is, undeniably, another reality kicking around. One which they must live in, not type in or post in. That reality becomes increasingly inconvenient to a lot of people for it is mostly uncontrollable and mostly flawed. Therefore, the nouveau changeling naturally starts to engage more and more on the virtual version of it until it completely takes over its waking living relevance. Virtual reality then goes through two specific stages of transmogrification. First it becomes sort of an alternate reality and then completes the change into real reality. This is as it should be. The changeling can only exist in a changed, re-engineered reality you see. It cannot exist in the cosmos from which its host came.

Now, as long as it exists in this alternatively re-engineered reality, all is quiet. However, the host, however debilitated, does exist. Therefore, it, and its actions in the living, breathing world are still relevant to that world. But these are hidden from the other actors in the alternative cosmos. In extreme cases which are more common than assumed, a changeling diplomat could be a bully in reality, a teetotaler and alcoholic, a feminist a wife beater, a Bible basher a serial rapist. Most are not going to be that extreme, only selectively altering their actual personas to fit their assumed ones but even that relatively mild distortion towards a perceived “better self or more collectively relevant and recognized self” could act as a drug so strong that the habit of living exclusively with it is impossible to quit. Worse, there is no cause to quit because everyone else is equally hooked on it. Why battle the husband to keep a marriage going when they can fly into the arms of their adoring social community? Why stay with one wife when they can have 200 of the virtual variety who present themselves to one in their best possible light? In a world of cause and effect, the positive effect of created realities far outweighs that of actual ones. Why give up on something so satisfying? Why reject something that keeps one from engaging in the tough task of real social engagement? This drug is cheap, intoxicating, impossibly addictive and incessantly joyous.

1.5 billion pretenders worth of joyous. 

Thursday, February 5, 2015

The Gitassara Sutra and the insanity of chanting

Say there was a devotee of physics. Say also that he was engaged in trying to understand quantum mechanics. If he were to keep a small photograph of Max Planck in his study and touch it often, one might pass that off with an indulgent smile as a sign of adulation of a great quantum physicist.

If he decorated his walls from top to bottom with pictures of Max Planck, Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Louis de Broglie, Arthur Compton, Albert Einstein, Erwin Schrödinger, Max Born, John von Neumann, Paul Dirac, Enrico Fermi, Wolfgang Pauli, Max von Laue, Freeman Dyson, David Hilbert, Wilhelm Wien, Satyendra Nath Bose and Arnold Sommerfeld, one might sit up, slightly pop eyed and consider the man eccentric. 

If he also lit joss-sticks and oil-lamps under each of the pictures one will not be too much at fault to think he is a crank. 

If he then proceeds to keep piles of scientific tomes in there and worships them five times a day believing that the action would somehow impart their contents to his mind, one will definitely think he has lost quite a few of his marbles. 

If he is then heard intoning the various theories, theorems and formulae of quantum mechanics in a long drawn out, sing-song in the fond hope that singing some facets of quantum truth will ward off evil counter arguments and attacks from inimical meta-physicists, then Planck, Einstein and you will be right in calling him a raving lunatic. 

So far, thankfully, I know not any practitioner or devotee of science who has done that.  None who are so full-out bonkers that they will lament with sonorous gravity that “the change in mass…is equal to…the inertial mass….as a ratio of…the square root of…one minus…the ratio of…the square of… the velocity of… the moving mass… to the square of…the speed of…. Light(amen) and somehow, by some trick, hope to extricate the equation E= mC2 from that. Rather, they would soberly contemplate the equation describing the mass of an object in motion as δm=m0 /(SQRT(1-v2/C2)) and mathematically derive the famous equation from that, fully cognitive of  the process, Lorentz transformations and the application of the integral calculus. Oh, in case you are wondering, that textual gibberish that I typed are the lyrics of that second equation there - δm=m0 /(SQRT(1-v2/C2)) .  *chuckles*

Why do I bring this up? Because there is a group of people who do this on a daily basis. Not scientists but Buddhists… or rather so-called Buddhists.

A hundred thousand of them are right now chanting away to glory, stanzas and sutras in a language they have no clue about, fondly hoping for  protection from evil and an eventual enlightenment. Will they be protected from evil by this incessant singing? No. Will they achieve enlightenment by this continuous dirge? No. Will such singing have a retro-effect? Yes. Who says so? The Buddha himself.
 
First, the Buddha says “Dhamma rakkanthu have dhamma chari” - those who live by the truth are protected by the truth. Nowhere in the canon does he or any other arahant state that either speaking it or singing it will protect someone. So, regardless of what the current crop of robe wearers say, there is no protection in voicing it. The only way to protection is by contemplating the truth, and, fully cognizant of the process and discipline (patipada, vinaya), living according to it and arriving at nirvana. So, just as much as there is no understanding of quantum physics by virtue of chanting the ganitha sutras associated with it, there is no sampling of enlightenment by virtue of chanting the dhamma sutras associated with the Buddha's teaching.

Second, the Buddha warns of the danger and expressly forbids the chanting of the dhamma in a long drawn sing-song voice (àyatakena gitassarena). He states this in the Gitassara Sutra (Anguttara fives, Kimbilavagga, 9) outlining five dangers. Subsequently there is an episode in the Vinaya where six monks who chant the dhamma in a long drawn sing-song are said to have irritated the people and the Buddha upon hearing this, lays down a disciplinary rule sanctioning such singing, naming it a Dukatta offence.

Third, the Buddha issues a blanket sanction on dancing and singing (nacca, geetha) in the 10 precepts and in the Runnamdana Sutra (Anguttara threes, Sambodhivaggo, 5) he states “Bhikkhus, singing is crying in this discipline of the noble ones and dancing is insanity. Bhikkhus, it is childish to laugh too long showing your teeth. Therefore give up singing, dancing and it is suitable that you, delighting in the Teaching, should laugh to a certain extent only”.

Well, that’s it folks. “Svakkatho Bhagavatha Dhammo” (The Buddha’s Dhamma is unambiguous and requires no external analysis, treatise, discussion or qualification to clarify). It is simple, easy, clear, succinct and near impossible for the deluded masses of so-called Buddhists to understand. These poor people are doing themselves immense harm, blindly believing that there is some unknown good in their singing, songing, lamenting and chanting. 

Additionally, and very importantly, one of the five dangers outlined in the Gitassara Suttra is that future generations will copy this chanting. Clearly the Buddha saw this eventuality and despite the strong canonical sanction, this schism has entered into the mainstream of the external trappings, culture, and social madness that arose out of the Buddha's teaching in direct violation of that teaching itself, yielding for every single monk who indulges in it an anantariya karma (heinous crime). This practice, with its dark results has now even trickled down to the laity who are also gaily singing their way to their own doom as a result of heeding and copying the robe wearers. 

Just as much as one would brand a man singing the theory of relativity a mad fool, so too, every single person who sings the dhamma is equally well suited for that qualification.
  


 
If you are interested, here are the details of the canonical proofs:

Namo Thassa, Bhagavatho, Arahatho, Samma Sambuddhassa.
 


The Gitassara Sutra (Anguttara Nikaya, Pancakanipata, Kimbilavagga, IX):
pañc’ime bhikkhave àdínavà àyatakena gitassarena dhammam bhaņaņtassa. katame pañca?

 
Bhikkhus, these five are the dangers for reciting the dhamma in a long drawn sing-song  (àyatakena gitassarena) voice. What five?

 
1. Attanàpi tasmiü sare sàrajjati,
 

One’s own self gets attached to the tone,
 
2. parepi tasmiü sare sàrajjanti,
 

others too get attached to the tone,
 
3. gahapatikàpi ujjhàyanti: yath’eva mayam gàyàma, evam ev’ ime samanà sakkiyaputtiyà gàyantà' ti,
 

householders laugh at it: In the manner that we sing, the renunciate sons of the recluse Gotama sing in a drawn out voice,
 
4. sarakuttimpi nikàmayamànassa samàdhissa bhaïgo hoti,

 the concentration of those who do not like musical notes gets destroyed,
 
5. pacchimà janatà diññhànugatiü àpajjati. 

later generations copy it.
 
Vinaya II, 108,5 

Again, this advice against reciting the dhamma in the style of non-monastic singing corresponds to an episode in the Vinaya where the Buddha censured the dhamma being sung in a drawn-out voice.

“tena kho pana samayena chabbaggiya bhikkhu àyatakena gitassarena dhammam gàyanti.  manussà ujjhàyanti khiyanti vipàcenti: yath’eva mayam gàyàma, evam ev’ ime samanà sakkiyaputtiyà gàyantã' ti”
“At that time, six bhikkhus were singing the dhamma in a drawn out voice. People were offended, vexed [and] annoyed [saying]: Just as we sing, so do these ascetic followers of the Sakyan sing the dhamma, in a drawn out voice”.

 
Vinaya II, 108,21 

Therefore, the Buddha goes on to sanction such singing by defining it as a Dukkata Offense.
(Vinaya II, 108.21: na bhikkhave àyatakena gitassarena dhammo gàyitabbo. yo gàyeyya, apatti dukkatàssa ti).

Namo Buddhàya! 

For those of you who want to know...