Wednesday 31 December 2003

Pic of the day: Fighting for a just cause, or fighting on just 'cause? Life is like that sometimes. (But mostly it's a lot more trivial.) Screenshot from Dark Age of Camelot.

Fight or surrender?

There is supposed to be a difference between oriental and occidental culture: We in the west try to change everything, while the easterners try to accept everything. Asian cultures are supposed to be introverted and conservative, while European culture is active, creative and experimental.

There may be something to this, but it is not quite that simple. For instance, China was more technologically advanced than Europe as late as the High Middle Ages. Admittedly this was hardly the height of Europe's entrepreneurship and engagement with worldly things; but even so, I think it proves that we are not looking at some fundamental difference caused by geography or even race. It is even doubtful that it can be an original difference in culture that goes back to the dawn of civilization. Rather it may be temporary differences caused by temporary conditions ... or temporary choices by the people and their leaders.

***

The choice between accepting fate or trying to change it, is a fundamental part of being human. No matter where we live, it is a choice each of us must make. And not only once, but again and again through our daily life. There is a popular prayer that goes approximately like this: "Give me the strength to change what I can change, the patience to accept what I cannot change, and the wisdom to see the difference." This is nice as far as it goes, but it is not obvious that we should always change what we can.

There are some things that are unacceptable. If you see a loved one in danger, you will rush to the rescue, without sitting down to consider. But if you can earn a little more money by working overtime, there is every reason to consider. Sure, if the kids are starving. But if it's just about getting more luxuries, it may not be worth it. Even if the kids really really want more luxuries, and you can be sure they do. Then again, the kids may want you too. Kids believe in magic.

If you are alone, as I am, things become simpler at once. This is probably why celibacy is so popular among monks. With celibacy, no kids to drag home stuff for. (Well, unless you fail your resistance rolls, but let's not go there today.) Basically, you have no excuse for overextending yourself into the world, and thus have plenty of excuse to sit down and meditate on spiritual matters. (Or have fun with a good computer game, but that's not something you want to bring into such a deep and solemn debate.)

***

There are various theoretical frameworks for accepting fate, philosophical and religious. (In some cases, like Buddhism or Taoism, it is really hard to say whether we're looking at philosophy or religion.) The so-called "karma law" is probably the most well known such framework here in the West at least. According to the simplest form of it, we get what we deserve. If bad things happen, we probably did something in a past life that qualified us for this. Conversely, when good things happen, they also come from earlier actions. This attitude has the benefit that it lets you accept what happens to you now, but at the same time encourage you to activity for a better future.

Actually, to the true Hindu or Buddhist, there is no such thing as "good karma". Certainly the fruits of good actions are more pleasant than the fruits of evil ones; but they all have the same basic effect: They keep the soul engaged in the world, and thus bound to the Wheel. Round and round you go: Birth, growing up, working, growing old, dying, being born again. Thousands of years pass by, as you repeat the same basic pattern. Some times you are rich, sometimes poor. Sometimes you are healthy, sometimes sick. By striving constantly to do good, you can eventually live life after life as a rich, well-loved, healthy intellectual. Perhaps you can advance to demigod if you really put your heart into it. But then what? You have to keep struggling to stay on top. Even the most privileged is haunted by temptation, always risking a fall back down. And even the most subtle pleasures fade when you know that you will spend millions of years chained in this state. This is why Eastern religions don't really teach acceptance of this state: They tend to promote some way to get out of the whole thing.

The Abrahamic religions are simpler: There is just one life, and then you go to Heaven or Hell. Heaven is supposed to be a very nice place, and boredom is magically removed. (A closer look will show that the Kingdom of Heaven in Christianity at least is supposed to be on a new Earth, or possibly a severely improved old one. Like real life debugged.) Hell or Gehenna seems to have been a method of annihilation rather than an eternal suffering, but the idea of eternal torture turned out to bring in more business so has prevailed. (I may be wrong on this, but I have so far not seen anyone argue this convincingly.)

It is fascinating to see that western religion puts Oblivion as the ultimate horror, while Eastern religion paints it as the ultimate release. Meanwhile, western atheism sees it as the only alternative. But while atheists generally agree that there is no afterlife and no intrinsic meaning to the universe, you don't see them commit mass suicide over the lack of meaning in it all. Since they are just the same chemicals dead as alive, you might think it would not matter much to them which of these states they are in. But they seem no more likely to act on their theories than the religious people are. Experienced reality beats theoretical reality any day.

To accept our fate, then, or improve on it: These are not truly matters of religion or philosophy. They are the sum of the small choices we make through the day. More about those days next year, I hope.