not all billboard message is junk

This picture is taken from <<http://i528.photobucket.com/albums/dd330/TotoKatt/Billboard4_edited.jpg>> from the blog of http://jewishatheist.blogspot.com/2008/11/atheist-advertising-coming-to.html. “Don’t believe in God? You are not alone”. Will this advert ever appear in Malaysia landscape? The parliament will have to vote to take out the first line in our rukun negara first.

Elephant’s wing

This is reposted from: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/05/elephants_wings.php

Once upon a time, four blind men were walking in the forest, and they bumped into an elephant.

Moe was in front, and found himself holding the trunk. “It has a tentacle,” he said. “I think we have found a giant squid!”

Larry bumped into the side of the elephant. “It’s a wall,” he said, “A big, bristly wall.”

Curly, at the back, touched the tail. “It’s nothing to worry about, nothing but a piece of rope dangling in the trail.”

Eagletosh saw the interruption as an opportunity to sit in the shade beneath a tree and relax. “It is my considered opinion,” he said, “that whatever it is has feathers. Beautiful iridescent feathers of many hues.”

The first three, being of a scientifical bent, quickly collaborated and changed places, and confirmed each other’s observations; they agreed that each had been correct in the results of their investigations, except that there wasn’t a hint of feathers anywhere about, but clearly their interpretations required correction and more data. So they explored further, reporting to each other what they were finding, in order to establish a more complete picture of the obstacle in the path.

“Tracing the tentacle back, I find that it is attached to a large head with eyes, fan-shaped ears, and a mouth bearing tusks. It is not a squid, alas, but seems to be a large mammal of some sort,” said Moe.

“Quite right, Moe — I have found four thick limbs. Definitely a large tetrapod,” said Larry.

Curly seems distressed. “It’s a bit complicated and delicate back here, guys, but I have probed an interesting orifice. Since this is a children’s story, I will defer on reporting the details.”

Eagletosh yawns and stretches in the shade of a tree. “It has wings, large wings, that it may ascend into the heavens and inspire humanity. There could be no purpose to such an animal without an ability to loft a metaphor and give us something to which we might aspire.”

The other three ignore the idling philosopher, because exciting things are happening with their elephant!

“I can feel its trunk grasping the vegetation, uprooting it, and stuffing it into its mouth! It’s prehensile! Amazing!”, said Moe.

Larry presses his ear against the animal’s flank. “I can hear rumbling noises as its digestive system processes the food! It’s very loud and large.”

There is a squishy plop from the back end. “Oh, no,” says Curly, “I can smell that, and I think I should go take a bath.”

“You are all completely missing the beauty of its unfurled wings,” sneers Eagletosh, “While you tinker with pedestrian trivialities and muck about in earthy debasement, I contemplate the transcendant qualities of this noble creature. ‘Tis an angel made manifest, a symbol of the deeper meaning of life.”

“No wings, knucklehead, and no feathers, either,” says Moe.

“Philistine,” says Eagletosh. “Perhaps they are invisible, or tucked inside clever hidden pockets on the flank of the elephant, or better yet, I suspect they are quantum. You can’t prove they aren’t quantum.”

The investigations continue, in meticulous detail by the three, and in ever broader strokes of metaphorical speculation by the one. Many years later, they have accomplished much.

Moe has studied the elephant and its behavior for years, figuring out how to communicate with it and other members of the herd, working out their diet, their diseases and health, and how to get them to work alongside people. He has profited, using elephants as heavy labor in construction work, and he has also used them, unfortunately, in war. He has not figured out how to use them as an air force, however…but he is a master of elephant biology and industry.

Larry studied the elephant, but has also used his knowledge of the animal to study the other beasts in the region: giraffes and hippos and lions and even people. He is an expert in comparative anatomy and physiology, and also has come up with an interesting theory to explain the similarities and differences between these animals. He is a famous scholar of the living world.

Curly’s experiences lead him to explore the environment of the elephant, from the dung beetles that scurry after them to the leafy branches they strip from the trees. He learns how the elephant is dependent on its surroundings, and how its actions change the forest and the plains. He becomes an ecologist and conservationist, and works to protect the herds and the other elements of the biome.

Eagletosh writes books. Very influential books. Soon, many of the people who have never encountered an elephant are convinced that they all have wings. Those who have seen photos are at least persuaded that elephants have quantum wings, which just happened to be vibrating invisibly when the picture was snapped. He convinces many people that the true virtue of the elephant lies in its splendid wings — to the point that anyone who disagrees and claims that they are only terrestrial animals is betraying the beauty of the elephant.

Exasperated, Larry takes a break from writing technical treatises about mammalian anatomy, and writes a book for the lay public, The Elephant Has No Wings. While quite popular, the Eagletoshians are outraged. How dare he denigrate the volant proboscidian? Does he think it a mere mechanical mammal, mired in mud, never soaring among the stars? Has he no appreciation for the scholarship of the experts in elephant wings? Doesn’t he realize that he can’t possibly disprove the existence of wings on elephants, especially when they can be tucked so neatly into the quantum? (The question of how the original prophets of wingedness came by their information never seems to come up, or is never considered very deeply.) It was offensive to cripple the poor elephants, rendering them earthbound.

When that book was quickly followed by Moe’s The Elephant Walks and Curly’s Land of the Elephant, the elephant wing scholars were in a panic — they were being attacked by experts in elephants, who seemed to know far more about elephants than they did! Fortunately, the scientists knew little about elephant’s wings — surprising, that — and the public was steeped in favorable certainty that elephants, far away, were flapping gallantly through the sky. They also had the benefit of vast sums of money. Wealth was rarely associated with competence in matters elephantine, and tycoons were pouring cash into efforts to reconcile the virtuous wingedness of elephants with the uncomfortable reality of anatomy. Even a few scientists who ought to know better were swayed over to the side of the winged; to their credit, it was rarely because of profit, but more because they were sentimentally attached to the idea of wings. They couldn’t deny the evidence, however, and were usually observed to squirm as they invoked the mystic power of the quantum, or of fleeting, invisible wings that only appeared when no one was looking.

And there the battle stands, an ongoing argument between the blind who struggle to explore the world as it is around them, and the blind who prefer to conjure phantoms in the spaces within their skulls. I have to disappoint you, because I have no ending and no resolution, only a question.

Where do you find meaning and joy and richness and beauty, O Reader? In elephants, or elephants’ wings?

Obama on reason

I’m not much of a fan of Obama. In fact, I enjoy Bush very much. He’s supplied so many materials for comedians and TV comedies in the US that I think we should really thank him for making us so happy. Anyway, here’s a video of Obama giving a speech somewhere. I want to share this because it is so rare that politicians from US have ever said something like this out in the open before. Although he acted and claimed that he’s still very much religious but it is impossible to tell what a politician believes nowadays. Everything in the public could just be another campaign strategies. Anyway, his speech in this video wasn’t very convincing. He constantly has to refer back to his notes and reading it out right. And he even mumbled some of the parts like they are not very important to be heard. Anyhow, I transcribed part of the speech here. I don’t really like the way he called atheists as “those with no faith at all”, which, to me, sounded very demeaning. Almost like atheists are those who have no reason to live and have no objective in life. The good thing is that he can believe in whatever god he wants, at least he’s rational enough to think about the non-christians. As for Malaysia, you have only the you-know-what religion and the non-’you-know-what’ religions. There is no place for non-believers. I would love to hear some local politician actually saying what Obama said in public here in malaysia. That would probably be quite a show.

“I may be opposed to abortion for religious reason for example. But if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I can’t simply point to the teaching of my church or evoke god’s will.I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths including those with no faith at all…. in a pluralisty society we have no choice. Politic depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aim based on a common reality. It involves compromise…religion doesn’t allow for compromise. If god’s spoken then the followers are supposed to live up to god’s edict regardless of the consequences. Now, to base one’s own life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing.“

Friend and religion…

I went to meet up with an old university mate who has been practicing as a monk for many years in Sabah. I can never know how exactly to react to an old friend whom I haven’t seen for many years. So much can change to a person in just a few years time. The way we look, the choice we make, the things we like and dislike could be totally different. Somehow, she feels exactly like the old coursemate I knew many years ago. Just like she has never left. The way she laugh, the way she talks, her habitual hand gesture. Nothing much has changed. May be i just don’t know her well enough to notice the difference. The only thing perhaps is that we all get a little older. She is now practicing at a monastery called Santavana Forest Hermitage near Kota Kinabalu in Sabah. 禅戒师父is her name now. We talked about things like what she has been doing and why she decided to become a monk. I’m sure she has told the story like a thousand times since everybody she knows would be asking the same questions. It still puzzles me how we choose what we want to do in life. Then I realised that she never really did answer that question of why. I suppose there is never really a definite explanable answer for why we belief(except the scientific way).

Even during university days, there is always something about her that just feels unfathomable. Always calm and collected. She’s like a sieve that can filter out all the inappropriate things before being presented to world outside. I don’t know why I find that strange. May be i’m much happier knowing that I’m just human. Free to feel sad, angry, and make mistakes. I find it difficult to say what I want to say and ask what I want to ask in front of her. Rituals and tradition always prevent us from saying what we really want to say in our heart. There is always the protocal of what is right and what is wrong. For sure, I would like humanity to decide what is right and what is wrong. Rather than some scripture written some 2000 years ago. Then, I can only realise that she’s living in a totally different world now. Everyone have their own roles in shaping the future of this world. I felt a bit hypocritical not expressing my personal view about religion. Then again, I do respect her choice. And I’m always happy to see a friend doing well. As for me, I’m just glad that I’m living in the age where we have more than just religion to look forward to in life.

Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy. – Carl Sagan

George Carlin on religion

Watch and laugh. Love it.

Science is not suitable for children

I steal this from the onion magazine. This is one of the more powerful ones that I like very much. Yes, think about it. Science and rational thinking can do irreparable harm to your children’s faith in religion. If you believe that the only truth can only be found in religion, save your children from the hegemony of science teaching…

2500 years of Buddhism

Buddhism history is as interesting to read as the Greek mythology or the history of Christianity. It was the major influence in the way of life in Southeast Asia together with Hinduism before the coming of Islam. I also realise that when we referred to Buddhism in general, we cannot be referring to one particular school of thought anymore. Although there are common beliefs among the sects but there are also as many disagreements. And obviously no one sect has managed to convince the other of their authority and authenticity. So I suppose when we say Buddhism, we refer to a particular school of thought that originates from the historical Buddha’s teaching. The interesting thing is that if you are in India, Buddhism can probably be categorised as an offshoot religion of classical hindu beliefs. Jainism, although not as popular worldwide as Buddhism, were founded at the same time as Buddhism and holds similar beliefs. So, Buddhism is just part of a larger system of beliefs in India.

By the time of King Asoka during 3rd century BCE, there were as many as 18 sects of Buddhist teachings in India. There was a clear division of 2 schools of Buddhis teaching 100 years after Buddha’s death which are the Sthaviravadins and Mahasanghikas. The former are those who accepted the first council meeting and the conclusion of the accepted Buddha’s teachings and the vinayas. The latter, however, did not agree with what was accepted in the meeting and compiled their own scriptures. That perhaps is the shortcoming of having an oral tradition instead of a written one.

Yuan Chwang made a record of that in his travel to India. In case you don’t know, he’s the monk whose life story was adapted to become the famous “journey to the west（西游记）” fiction. He noted that the Mahasanghikas canon were divided into five parts: the Sutra, the Vinaya, the Abhidharma, the Dharanis and Miscellaneous. He carried all of them back to China and translated them from Sanskrit to Chinese.

Mahasanghikas rapidly subdivided into multiple schools in the following years into sects we generally referred to as the Mahayanas. Perhaps the general consensus provided by the subsequent council meetings especially the fourth meeting in Sri Langka where the tipitaka were written down, helped to keep the Theravada school in one piece. But not for long, there are always agreement and disagreement among the teachers. Each claiming to have the true wisdom of the Buddha. Gautama Buddha would be turning over in his grave if he knew what had happened to his teaching.

Ikeda’s critique on Theravada

“Theravada School of Buddhism was, [。。。] essentially a monastic order whose members deliberately removed themselves from ordinary society so that they could practice their rigorous discipline. This type of religious organisation is by its very nature lacking in the proselytizing spirit and is difficult for the ordinary members of society to participate in.“

- Daisaku Ikeda. “Buddhism, the First Millinnium”.

More than a handshake

I had a disturbing experience today when I was introduced to an Arab young man and his girlfriend. As I shook hand with the man and later offered my hand to his girlfriend, I noticed she flinched apologetically and hesitant to shake my hand. Though I managed to get a hand shake out of her. I must plead ignorance here because the Muslim prohibition of the shaking of hands between male and female who are not mahrams didn’t cross my mind at the time. And moreover, she was not wearing a traditional hijab which would really keep me away from her. The immediate reaction of course is for me to feel apologetic about it. Then, later it dawned on me that why should I feel bad about the handshake? I am not living in an Islamic country. I am living in Malaysia, a secular country. Shouldn’t she respect my culture and give me a firm and confident handshake to prove her friendship rather then flinched from my cultural offering of friendship? The least that she could do is to apologise for not accepting my offering and explain to me why she cannot accept my handshake. I don’t really know where handshake originated and why we have this culture. Obviously it is a universal and recognisable symbol for offering a genuine greeting and friendship. At least that’s the only way I know how to greet people.

My curiosity led me to this website with an articles on Shaking hands with Women with an excellent explanation of the prohibition. I may not agree with all the things being preached by the faith but all humans do have the choice to choose their own fate (not faith). Respect comes from communication and mutual understanding, and not by isolation and blind faith. I just think that secular culture should demand some respect from religion as well.

Guan Yin and Avalokitesvara

Buddhist religion as I know it as a child is about going t o Guan Yin （观音) temple and swiveled a few joss sticks around in the air in front of a statue. I have never heard of Prajnaparamita sutras or the tathagatagarbha or the lotus sutras. I suspect that most people who visit the temple don’t know that either. Or who is Avalokitesvara for that matter. Most Mahayana followers in Malaysia are no longer connected to the Mahayana buddhists that occupies the Bujang Valley and Kinta Valley during the early 6-7th century. The history that we remembered started in the 15th century. Even our National Museum I visited recently discounted the history before the 15th century as part of Malaysia’s history. While the Bujang and Kinta Valley mahayana tradition may have originated from the ancient kingdom of SriVijaya in Sumatra, the Guan Yin phenomena is from China.

Avalokitesvara was the original celestial bodhisatva mentioned in mahayana sutras. It was transformed into Guan Yin in China after some ‘evolution’. but physical appearance aside, it still serves similar function as the original Avalokitesvara. It is still the compassionate and merciful being that can grand wishes and help the suffering. Avalokitesvara was mentioned both in the Lotus Sutras and the Karandavyuha sutra. Unlike the Theravada tradition which was first written down in Pali language in Sri Langka, the early mahayana sutras are only found in Sanskrit.

The interesting thing about the name is the literal translation. Depending on how you split the word ‘Avalokitesvara’, we see different meaning. The word in Sanskrit means “the Lord who look down”. ‘Swara’ would mean “Lord”. However, ‘Iswara’ in sanskrit means ‘sound’ as perhaps some scholars believed how it was translated to “yin” in chinese which also means ‘sound’. ‘Guan’ in chinese means seeing or looking.

To date, there has been so many mahayana sutras written and added to the list after the death of Sakyamuni that only scholars doing religious studies would know all of them. For most mahayana followers in malaysia, I believe that they have only inherited the form and not the content of the real teaching. We just have to realise that going to visit Guan Yin temple regularly will not make you a buddhist. I stop calling myself a buddhist a long time ago. I still enjoy going to buddhist temples some times, not to burn joss stick of course. There is just this connectiveness about chinese and Buddhist temples that I can’t get rid of.