Ideas

Vanna: “It’s hard to believe that something which is neither seen nor felt can do so much harm.”

Kirk: “That’s true. But an idea can’t be seen or felt. And that’s what kept the Troglytes in the mines all these centuries. A mistaken idea.”
Star Trek, “The Cloud Minders” (s3ep21), stardate 5819.0

I’ve talked about this episode before, but I thought this quote was worthy of its own post.

Because all sentient beings who come into this world must struggle to piece together an understanding of things based on limited information, it’s easy to pick up ideas that are wrong or mistaken but make logical sense. Or, alternatively these ideas are foisted upon them by those they trust, such as parents or your society without the tools necessary to discern the truth.

Thus two rational people can have radically different views of things. One or both of these people can have very harmful negative views, and yet from their own perspective, they may sincerely believe they’re doing the right thing, and assume everyone else around them is stupid or insane..

But then how does one discern what is true or not?

The Buddha taught, on the one hand, that all viewpoints are just a form of conceit (lit. “I-making”) and diverge from reality. They’re based on limited information, logic and so on, and so none of them quite hit the mark. The Parable of the Blind Men and the Elephant is often cited as an example of how people form opinions based on limited facts and are willing to fight over this. In fact, the Buddha himself cited this story in an old, obscure sutra called the Tittha Sutta (Ud 6.4 of the Pali Canon):

…”Saying ‘An elephant is like this, an elephant is not like that! An elephant is not like this, an elephant is like that!’ they fought each other with their fists. And the king was delighted (with the spectacle).

“Even so, bhikkhus, are those wanderers of various sects blind, unseeing… saying, “Dhamma is like this!… Dhamma is like that!'”
Translation by John D. Ireland

The Buddha then recites a verse like so:

Some recluses and brahmans, so called, Are deeply attached to their own views; People who only see one side of things Engage in quarrels and disputes.
Translation by John D. Ireland

So, the Buddha warned against becoming attached to one’s own views because it just feeds the ego, and leads to conflict.

On the other hand, he taught the importance of using the Dharma as an objective benchmark (e.g. a “yardstick”) for how to judge one’s own conduct and views, and especially to see what the results are: do they lead to beneficial results, or harmful results? For example in the classic text, the Kalama Sutta (AN 3.65 in the Pali Canon), we see the Buddha explaining how to properly discern a teaching:

10. “Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias toward a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another’s seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, ‘The monk is our teacher.’ Kalamas, when you yourselves know: ‘These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,’ enter on and abide in them.
Translation by Soma Thera

We can see that just because something seems logical doesn’t mean it necessary leads to wholesome results (praised by the wise, leading to wellbeing, etc). One’s intuition isn’t always a reliable guide. Teachings and ideas that lead to wholesome outcomes are in accord with the Dharma, and because they are in accord with the Dharma, they lead to wellbeing, peace of mind, liberation, etc.

Of course, in Buddhist history, there’s examples of eminent monks going off the rails, too. So, just. because one is a Buddhist, doesn’t mean one automatically does it right. It takes time, reflection, and a willingness to keep trying.

Namu Shakamuni Butsu

Battlefields

Spock: To expect sense from two mentalities of such extreme viewpoints is not logical.
Star Trek, “Let That Be Your Last Battlefield” (s3ep15), Stardate: 5730.2

In the infamous episode of Star Trek, season three, Let That Be Your Last Battlefield, we see two aliens who have been chasing and attempting to defeat one another for “50,000 standard years” because the patterns on their faces are different.

“Bele” (L), played by Frank Gorshin, and “Lokai” (R), played by Lou Antonio

In the big climax at the end, they commandeer the Enterprise and return to their home world which is now a dead, lifeless world: their people have annihilated one another in Bele and Lokai’s absence. Rather than giving up, Bele and Lokai beam down to the surface (after an awkward running scene through the hallways) and continue their battle for all eternity.

This scene included stock footage from the Second World War, iirc. Because the war was only a generation earlier, the message was not lost on viewers.

The final dialogue of the episode between the crew is:

SULU: But their planet’s dead. Does it matter now which one’s right?

SPOCK: Not to Lokai and Bele. All that matters to them is their hate.

UHURA: Do you suppose that’s all they ever had, sir?

KIRK: No, but that’s all they have left.

While the episode exaggerates the topic, it does beg the question: how can people get into such a death spiral of conflict and hatred?

The single most important thing in Buddhism is the mind. Not a god or deity, but the mind. We see the world through our mind, we shape our view of the world through our mind, etc, etc. In a sense, even the gods are a product of the mind.¹

The implications of this are really profound, but on a practical level it also helps explain why two seemingly rational adults can have such profoundly different views, to the point of being entirely hostile to one another.

When the Buddha spoke to a wandering ascetic named Vaccha, the Buddha called this need to assert a view-point “I-Making”. In the Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta (MN 72 of the Pali Canon), Vaccha is trying to pin down the Buddha’s stance on this philosophical debate or that. But the Buddha is having none of that:

“A ‘position,’ Vaccha, is something that a Tathāgata [a Buddha] has done away with. What a Tathāgata sees is this: ‘Such is form, such its origination, such its disappearance….Because of this, I say, a Tathāgata—with the ending, fading away, cessation, renunciation, & relinquishment of all suppositions, all excogitations, all I-making & mine-making & obsessions with conceit—is, through lack of clinging/sustenance, released.”
Translation by Ven. Thanissaro Bhikkhu

In modern English, the Buddha is saying that holding onto views and beliefs just “feeds the ego”. By feeding the ego, it also imprisons us.

It’s hard to see this, because we naturally piece together the world around us through our experiences, but no matter who we are, the picture is incomplete and we fill in the rest based on conjecture, belief and hearsay. Nonetheless, if someone attacks our beliefs, it is an attack on our deepest sense of self too. This leads to the death spiral I alluded to earlier: the stronger we try to assert our beliefs (even if they are logical and sound), the more we stir conflict, forcing us to push even harder against perceived resistance.

But, like the honey badger, the Buddha don’t care. And because he has stopped clinging, he has no ego to bruise. Without an ego to bruise, he no longer suffers and is fully liberated.

This sounds far easier than it is, but that’s the gist. Sometimes it’s just better to shut up, don’t assume you know the answer, and just pay attention to the world around you. Imagine a blade of grass bending in the wind.

Afterall, what is the alternative?

P.S. as with the previous post, I started this months ago, and just now catching up.

¹ put another way: we create our god by projecting our own ego.

Instinct and Restraint

Another post in my backlog that I wanted to share. I really didn’t intend this to relate to any recent events or anything, I just think it’s an evergreen quote by Captain Kirk.

[War] is instinctive. But the instinct can be fought. We’re human beings with the blood of a million savage years on our hands! But we can stop it. We can admit that we’re killers… but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! Knowing that we’re not going to kill – today!
Kirk, “A Taste of Armageddon”, stardate 3192.1

The Buddha was also very clear about the need for disciples to give up violence. This is not always easy, but the cost of war is rarely small.

Namu Amida Butsu

Saints Into Savages

Author’s note: I wrote this a couple months ago, but have been so backed up, I am finally posting it now. It was not intended to relate to current events. Just Star Trek nerdism, and me philosophizing.

The third-season episode of Star Trek titled Plato’s Children is often criticized as one of the worst episodes of the series. It actually has a really interesting premise, but suffers from poor execution.¹

The Enterprise comes to planet populated by a self-styled republic,² modeled after ancient Greek poleis, comprised of aliens who each have tremendous psychic powers. They live in great comfort, and spend their days pursuing whatever they want, but members of this republic have become so lazy, and have atrophied so much that they can’t manage even basic first-aid. When the leader suffers from a cut, he fails to do anything about it until it becomes seriously infected.

Further, one member of the community suffers from dwarfism, and no psychokinetic powers, and the other members of the republic bully him for entertainment and menial tasks. Michael Dunn’s performance as the “dwarf” character was excellent by the way. The same members also torment the Enterprise crew for an extended period of time to get what they want.³

By the end of the episode, it’s clear that the members of this republic are perpetually bored, and half-mad from having terrific power, but nothing constructive to use it for.

Without any struggle in life, or a way to stay grounded, I think the tendency is for one to gradually go mad. People’s minds, even when satisfied with basic needs, have a tendency to create more and more subtle problems for themselves. These problems nest fractally, there is no bottom.

Further, the other major point of the episode is said by the villain Patronius when he is defeated by Kirk:

Patronius: “Uncontrolled, power will turn even saints into savages. And we can all be counted on to live down to our lowest impulses.”
Star Trek, “Plato’s Stepchildren” (s3ep10), Stardate 5784.2

This is a very unintentionally Buddhist thing to say too. The mind is capable of the heights of sainthood (or bodhisattva-hood in Buddhism), as well as the depths of depravity, and everything in between. Under the right conditions any person can become a tyrant, or a ~~saint~~ bodhisattva. It’s not so much a question of personal will-power, environment matters more than one might think.

Under the right circumstances, you might even wear a toga….

It is always important to stay just a little vigilant toward one’s own mind. Perfectly rational people can easily go off the rails under the right circumstances. Further, you can’t control what others think and do (nor should you), but you can control how you react to them, or how you choose to conduct yourself. A mind unrestrained will inevitably run into disaster.

Namu Shaka Nyorai

¹ Like many season 3 episodes.

² The use of “republic” as modern people think it, is pretty different than the “res publica” as understood by Romans. It was more closer to a commonwealth, than a particular political structure, so even after Octavian took over as the princeps (the first “Emperor” in all but name), the res publica kept going well into the Easter Roman Byzantine era and beyond. By then, the Latin term was gradually replaced with the Greek equivalent: Politeia (πολιτεία).

³ This is why this episode is so unpopular. The script is pretty thin, so i guess the idea was to stretch out the time by adding more of these torment scenes.

Human Evolution

McCoy: Well, that’s the second time man’s been thrown out of paradise.

Kirk: No, no, Bones, this time we walked out on our own. Maybe we weren’t meant for paradise. Maybe we were meant to fight our way through, struggle, claw our way up, scratch for every inch of the way. Maybe we can’t stroll to the music of the lute. We must march to the sound of drums.

— Star Trek, “This Side of Paradise”, stardate 3417.7

Been thinking about this one all weekend. With all the upcoming chaos on Tuesday, and the continued struggles in society, I guess this one really hit home.

How often mankind has wished for a world as peaceful and secure as the one Landru provided.
Spock, “Return of the Archons” (s1ep21), stardate 3192.1

Of course, every generation everywhere faces its own crises, and somehow the Human race keeps going. We stumble, we fall back, but somehow we inevitably pick ourselves up, and move forward again.

The Beast Within

Another post for the Fall Ohigan week. I was watching some classic Star Trek and wanted to share this quote:

Captain Kirk: Yes, well, those pressures are everywhere in everyone, urging him to what you call savagery. The private hells, the inner needs and mysteries, the beast of instinct. As human beings, that is the way it is. To be human is to be complex.…
Star Trek, “Requiem for Methuselah” (s3ep19), Stardate 5843.7

Being the homo sapiens that we are, we are indeed complex creatures. We are gifted with the capacity for logic and reason, and yet we are still savage in many ways. We still pattern ourselves in many ways our ancestors did, even if they are seemingly more modern and complex.

But also, from a Buddhist standpoint, we are capable of a great many things, both good and bad.

In Tendai Buddhism is a concept, later popularized in Nichiren Buddhism, called “3000 worlds in a single thought”, or ichinen-sanzen (一念三千). Broadly speaking, the idea is that with any moment in time, our thoughts and actions are capable of manifesting the highest levels of buddha-hood, or the very lowest, foul levels of a demon, and everything within that spectrum. There is certainly more to this, but that’s a brief summary.

Another way to look at it: we have within each of us that which is capable of being a bodhisattva or even a buddha, and yet we also have that within us that is capable of great evil. It comes down to things like environment, training, awareness and so on. We like to think other people as crazy and evil, but under the right circumstances we could just as easily slip down that path. In the same way, we see ourselves as hopeless, and yet with the right support and training, we can go on to do great things.

So, it helps to be a little vigilant of one’s own mind, especially when stressed, fatigued, or insulted. When times are good, it’s easy to behave kind and enlightened. The real test comes when under pressure, and given enough pressure anyone can crack and their brutal nature comes out.

On the other hand, when one does inevitably falter, it’s important to reflect and not flog oneself. Goodwill towards oneself is just as important as goodwill towards others. We are, afterall, human. It’s also why, especially in the Pure Land traditions, we acknowledge those faults and give thanks to the Buddha Amida for his goodwill towards us regardless.

P.S. More on the power of goodwill and the nembutsu.

War? No Thank You: Wise Words from the Buddha

With all the talk lately about the US and Iran, I thought about this quote from a Buddhist text called the Dhammapada. The Buddha, said in the Dhammapada, verses 129-132:

All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.

All tremble at violence; life is dear to all. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.

One who, while himself seeking happiness, oppresses with violence other beings who also desire happiness, will not attain happiness hereafter

One who, while himself seeking happiness, does not oppress with violence other beings who also desire happiness, will find happiness hereafter.
Translation by Acharya Buddharakkhita

Or as Star Trek so eloquently put it:

Death. Destruction. Disease. Horror. That’s what war is all about. That’s what makes it a thing to be avoided.
Kirk, “A Taste of Armageddon” (s1ep23), stardate 3193.0

and:

If some day we are defeated, well, war has its fortunes, good and bad.
Commander Kor, “Errand of Mercy” (s1ep26), stardate 3201.7

Indeed, the only good WAR is this one:

Goodwill towards others is the cornerstone of Buddhism, and something we can all foster in the world starting with ourselves.

Namo Tassa Bhagavato Arahato Sammasambuddhasa
(“Praise to the Blessed One, the Noble One, the fully Awakened One.”)

Edit: since this post was written in 2020, there has been more war since then, both in eastern Europe, and in the Middle East. Once again, I quote Star Trek:

The face of war has never changed. Surely it is more logical to heal than to kill.
Surak of Vulcan, “The Savage Curtain” (s3ep22), stardate 5906.5

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: