Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows

Just so I have it, I'm posting my comment to a blog entry at:
http://cosmicvariance.com/2007/07/22/deathly-hallows/
The blog and the comments are very good reading too.

# NeoLotus on Jul 31st, 2007 at 11:31 am

Since everyone else has done a great job of commenting I only have a few things to add from a non-Western cultural point of view.

The scene when Harry goes to meet Voldemort in the forest to allow himself to be killed reminded me of the scene in “Shogun” when Blackthorn is about to commit seppuku but is then reprieved. It is also, to some extent, reminiscent of the scene in “The Last Samurai” when Katsumoto is dying and says of the cherry blossoms that “they are all perfect.” Charles Taylor’s review of “The Sorcerer’s Stone” is spot on in regards to these stories being deeply rooted in the here and now. Just the act of breathing is a miracle that is thrown away in our daily lives until we know how few breaths are left. Harry’s recognition of this, whether Rowling knew it or not, is very Buddhist in its syncretism with East Asia.

For those who keep insisting that something “otherworldly” or “sublime” must somehow be part of this story, well, people see what they want to see unless they have learned to see what is. I truly believe that Rowling is showing how none of that is necessary in order for good and evil to exist in the world. As Dumbledore says at the end of Chamber that it is our choices that determine who we are when Harry so desperately wanted to be in house Gryffindor rather than house Slytherin. Voldemort exemplified all that is evil by killing Harry’s parents. For what?

And in the explanation of Voldemort’s life in Half-Blood Prince, we see that it was the events and circumstances of his life that created the monster he eventually became. And in Buddhist (karmic) fashion the hallmarks of house Slytherin were of a propensity to cruelty and indifference born from a wizard who thought himself superior to others. As the recipient of that legacy born from the most egregiously authoritarian circumstances of Tom Riddle’s mother and the abuse she suffered at the hands of her father…..well, one does not need Satan to explain the stupidity that humans are capable of. All that is needed, as Mencius says, is for there to be a lack of empathy and commiseration for a human to not be a human. Dr. Gilbert during the Nuremburg trials bears this out when he realizes that evil is the absence of empathy. The creature under the chair at the end of The Deathly Hallows shows precisely what a life born without the benefit of and without the capacity for love and empathy looks like.

If there is indeed a God, what people need to understand about it is that it is not the name or the book or the words that matters. What matters is whether we follow what God (if there is one) etched in our hearts about liking kindness over cruelty. The Malfoys, Narcissa particularly, makes that point very deeply at the beginning of The Half-Blood Prince when she begs Snape to save her child’s life. Bellatrix provides the counter-point to emphasize those who do not know what to truly value in the time we have been given between birth and death. The curt nod of Draco on the platform in the epilogue is the recognition that his own son would not exist had it not been for the defeat of Voldemort.

In the end, this story is in fact a morality tale stripped of unprovable dogmatic belief systems in favor or the more practical realities of living in the here and now and what we do with the time we are given. It will provide the surest method of critical judgement for a whole generation of children (and perhaps some adults) to know whether a doctrine is worthy of following or not.

Think about that the next time you vote. (My apologies. I just had to throw that in there.)

Zen Politics, part one

The thing about Japanese Zen is its minimalism. The whole business of Buddhism generally is to clear away the junk and gunk in our minds so that we can see more clearly what actually is. The effect of Zen is to reduce clutter and achieve focus. In the movie "The Last Samurai" is the observation of "too many minds" when the American was learning to use the sword. In other words, the mind was scattered being focused on too many things that had nothing do with being effective with the sword.

American government and governance has "too many minds." It is neither coherent nor focused on issues the average person cares about. The government's raison d'etre to serve the people has been subverted to serve very narrow and selfish interests all in hot pursuit of the almighty dollar. In this regard, the greedy are extremely well focused and have indeed achieved their end of creating a government that serves them.

Unfortunately, the current political system is, for all intents and purposes, not on the side of people. They spend all their time playing a shell game with the public pretending to listen and then going back to the business of catering to money.

I find the calls for non-partisanship rather disingenuous as if Democrats and Republicans really do have differing views on anything.

The real line for partisanship has nothing to do with political parties. Rather, is has to do with which side of the people/money equation they are on. In other words, does money serve people or do people serve money? At a tax forum with three state senators yesterday I got as much right-wing whitewash as I would get from any GOPer. There was no concern about the human cost of tax policy even though many in the audience tried to make that point.

More importantly, there was no effort by the senators to partner with the people in the audience to help drive policy in a better direction. We were told instead that Gov. Pawlenty holds all the cards and that the legislators have their hands tied because of an insufficient number of them to override a veto--along partisan lines--and gave a litany of apologetics for the GOPers in not voting against a GOP governor.

I find something fundamentally wrong with people who adhere so much to a label that they are willing to check their brain into the delusion world at the cost of real lives.

So, back to Zen politics and a redefinition of partisanship.

I think it is time to do away with the labels that allow wolves in sheep's clothing to fleece the American population. Third parties don't have much a chance, and they'd just be another label anyway. Still, we need something. What exactly it could or should be, I don't know.

There was at one time a Populist Party. There are still all manner of parties listed. The problem is developing enough of a critical mass of popular support to dislodge the ticks bloating themselves on the body politic who call themselves "representatives."

It could also be very possible that there is no way to change or reform what we have now. Those things will have to wait for the catastrophic failure of the entire system before anything new can arise from its ashes.

Our forefathers tried their best to create a system that could endure. But the culture and the prejudices they brought with them from England were too great to be overcome. The aristocracy and demagogues have done their best to ensure that the true American dream of equality, liberty, and consent of the governed would never be made real. Now, we face a coup d'etat where the sovereignty of the people is vested in a single person under a dictatorship as made explicit in NSPD-51.

I don't know how to teach people to be better judges of character. What I do know is that we need a LOT more neighbor to neighbor on-the-ground discussions about policy and who those policies will benefit.

For my part, and for as much as I have called myself a Democrat for most of my voting age years, it is clear that times we live in now are a lot less about which party a person identities with and a lot more about whether they are in fact feeling and thinking human beings.

We don't need an ownership society, we need a give a shit society.

The origin of the principles of humane government

The origin of humane government begins with the human heart. It is the human heart that determines the nature of our experiences in life. It is these experiences which determine everything else.

According to Mencius, without the feeling of commiseration one is not a human.

Therefore:

• The feeling of commiseration is the beginning of humanity or benevolence.
• The feeling of right and wrong is the beginning of wisdom.
• The feeling of deference and accommodation is the beginning of propriety.
• The feeling of shame and dislike of the shameless is the beginning of righteousness.

The truth of this is found in a work as far in time and distance as one can get from ancient China. That work is Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol.

Although modern western civilization has little in common with ancient China in terms of taste in food, music, or beauty, there is little doubt that we share much in common with the human feelings of kindness versus cruelty.

It is on this basis of common feeling that Mencius says:

"All men have the mind which cannot bear to see the suffering of others. The ancient kings had this mind and therefore they had a government that could not bear to see the suffering of the people. When a government that cannot bear to see the suffering of the people is conducted from a mind that cannot bear to see the suffering of others, the government of the empire will be as easy as making something go round in the palm." (Chan, 1963)

This is not say that lesser men in positions of power will not abuse that power for their own ends. It is for this reason that Confucius clarified the principles of humane government based on the record of exemplary rulership of the ancients, particularly Shun and Yu. Philosophically, the principles of humane government are rooted in commiseration being the beginning of humanity. Without this foundation there is no manner of interpersonal relations whether in a family, among friends, or in government that will bring peace to the land and enable people to enjoy any happiness. It is therefore important to understand that the ultimate basis of all our relations are moral and not merely legal. Even the Declaration of Independence makes this point that all people are created equal and are inviolably morally worthy beings and thus the purpose of government is to ensure that this is so.

Both the Declaration of Independence and the Chinese Mandate of Heaven are clear that when any government is in violation of not only its own principles but of the greater moral basis of all our relations then the people have not only a right, but a duty, to change or abolish it and institute a new government.

Commiseration, therefore, is indeed the basis of humane government.

Why Speak of Profit? I give you benevolence and righteousness.

Mencius: 1A:1

1. Mencius went to see king Hûi of Liang.

2. The king said, 'Venerable sir, since you have not thought it far to come from such a long distance, you must have some good advice to profit my kingdom.'

3. Mencius replied, 'Why must your Majesty use that word "profit?" My advice has only to do with benevolence and righteousness.'

4. 'If your Majesty say, "What will profit my kingdom?"
the ministers will say, "What will profit our families?"
and the people will say, "What will profit me?"
In such a case, from top to bottom, everyone will try to snatch this profit from each other, and the kingdom will be endangered.

In a kingdom of ten thousand chariots, the murderer of his sovereign shall be the family of a thousand chariots. In a kingdom of a thousand chariots, the murderer of his prince shall be the family of a hundred chariots. To have a thousand in ten thousand, and a hundred in a thousand, is still a large allotment, but if righteousness be put last, and profit be put first, people will not be satisfied without snatching all for themselves.

5. 'There never has been a benevolent man who abandoned his parents. There never has been a righteous man who made his sovereign an after thought.

6. 'Let your Majesty say, "Benevolence and righteousness are what matter most." Why must you use that word -- "profit?"'

Commentary:
When the emphasis is profit, people will be selfish and greedy and only think of themselves--Scrooge. When the emphasis is benevolence and righteousness, people will be caring and generous and work for the well-being of all--Mr. Fezziwig.

Shifting gears

This past election has shifted the gears of our country. A whole lot of people woke up, got up, and got active this last cycle. However, there are parts of the country, mostly the rural parts, that need a serious infusion of young people. What passes for young right now in my corner are people aged 40 something. We need people half that age to start getting involved.

Along with this shift in the electorate is another that needs to take place in the American consciousness, and with it, a change in its culture and objects of worship. The purpose of this blog is to begin highlighting what those changes are. These changes are already on the move as this last election shows with a hard turn toward sanity, humanity, and a genuine caring for people. It was a turn away from labels, divisiveness, and ideological demagoguery. The people asserted their sovereignty and took back control. I don't think they are likely to be so easily pushed around anymore. At least not for a very long while.

The source of moral truth

There is something deep within the human heart that yearns for kindness and justice to prevail over cruelty and callousness. Why is this?

To answer, it must first be understood that this is not something that can be approached from an objective or abstract intellectual perspective. This can only be understood through one's own feelings. The nature of human experience is necessarily subjective, it is not possible for it to be otherwise. This does not mean, however, that people are so different from one another that there is no basis for common understanding. The feelings and emotions of joy, grief, delight, anger, sadness, pride, etc., are universal among humankind regardless of time or place. If they were not then we should have no frame of reference to communicate among ourselves let alone appreciate the works of art, literature, or music passed down through the ages around the globe.

At the same time, there are of course differences which must be recognized for no two people will have exactly the same experiences in life, not even identical twins raised together. These experiences necessarily shape our views and perspectives. But let's not confuse the particulars with the general. This is where the post-modern notion of absolute relativism becomes confused.

Post-modern relativism takes the particulars of experience--whether individual or cultural--that lead to differing perspectives, attitudes, and practices, and makes that the basis of its argument. Then assert a generalization and asks for others to agree with it. How can anyone agree if all views and experiences are absolutely relative? What could possibly form the basis of agreement if there are no common frames of reference for it?

The problem is that absolute relativism fails to recognize that cultural differences require commonality within the culture for it to exist at all. Then it ignores any similarities between individuals in their feelings and emotions such as love, grief, sadness, anger, happiness, fear, laughter, etc. It is the universality of human feelings and emotions brought forth by life experiences that form the basis of common understanding and allows for communication.

To illustrate, in Li Fu Chen's The Confucian Way (1986) Mencius says,

"There now is barely--Let it be sown and covered up; the ground being the same, and the time of sowing likewise the same, it grows rapidly up, and when the full time is come it is all found to be ripe. Although there may be inequalities of produce, that is owing to the difference of the soil, as rich or poor, to the unequal nourishment afforded by the rains and dews and to the different ways in which man has performed his labor.

Thus all things which are the same in kind are like to one another. Why should we doubt solely in regard to man? The sage and we are the same in kind.

So, the scholar Lung said, 'Even if a man makes hempen sandals without knowing the size of people's feet, yet I know thathe will not make them like baskets.' Sandals are all alike one to another, because men's feet are like one another.

Therefore I say, men's mouths agree in having the same relishes; their ears agree in enjoying the same sounds; their eyes agree in recognizing the same beauty: shall their minds alone have nothing in common? What is it that they have in common?

It is, I say, reason and righteousness. The sage only apprehended before me that which my mind has in common with other men. Therefore reason and righteousness are agreeable to my mind, just as the meat of grass- and grain-fed animals is agreeable to my mouth" (77-8).

So while there are differences among people owing to their individual circumstances and experiences, still, humans are enough alike to one another to be considered the same in kind. Our biology, physiology, and psychology are alike enough for humans to make basic generalizations such that a person making hempen sandals will not make them like baskets and that reason and righteousness are indeed a common property of our minds. This is what forms the basis of a common understanding between human beings across time and across cultures.

Benevolence

The foundation of all Confucian thought is based on the premise that humans are irreducibly communal. In the Chinese written language, the ideographic character for humanity is the same as for benevolence. The ideograph itself is the conjoining of the pictographs of a person and the number two meaning that humanity is found in the relationship between two people. The degree of empathy is what governs the nature of the relationship. As Mencius says:

"When I say that all men have the mind which cannot bear to see the suffering of others, my meaning may be illustrated thus: Now, when men suddenly see a child about to fall into a well, they all have a feeling of alarm and distress, not to gain friendship with the child's parents, nor to seek the praise of neighbors and friends, nor because they dislike the reputation [of lack of humanity if they did not rescue the child]" (sic) (Chan, 64).

The above example of the child about to fall into the well and the attendant feeling of alarm and distress establish the mark of humanity. Again quoting Mencius,

"Benevolence is the tranquil habitation of man, and righteousness is his straight path.
The feeling of commiseration is the beginning of benevolence.
The feeling of shame and dislike is the beginning of righteousness.
The feeling of reverence and respect is the beginning of propriety.
The feeling of right and wrong is the beginning of wisdom" (Chen, 73).

Benevolence, righteousness, propriety and knowledge are not infused into us from without. We are inherently furnished with them, but only we do not think about them. Hence it is said, 'Seek and you will find them. Neglect and you will lose them'" (76).

To understand how these are considered inherent, Chen states,

"Why are benevolence and righteousness a part of man's instinct? A man cannot be isolated from his fellow beings. In his first years of life, he lives with parents and relies upon them. As he matures, again he is constantly with people, in fact, it is essential that he associate with others for he is in need of mutual love and aid. Therefore, benevolence--love which comes from the heart--and righteousness--love which is expressed in action--should be an essential part of man's instinct" (72).

Mencius also says,

"Children carried in the arms all know to love their parents, and when they are grown a little, they all know to respect their elder brothers [siblings].

Filial affection for parents is the working of benevolence. Respect for elders is the working of righteousness. There is no other reason for those feelings:--they extent to all under Heaven" (72).

The social nature of humans and the need to be with others is so strong that babies die without it as in the case of Russian orphans dying from being left alone too much. And the most extreme punishments humans have short of the death penalty are out-casting, banishment, or solitary confinement. To be cast out of group life and left to fend for oneself by oneself is tantamount to a death penalty in some societies. For others, it is to be cut off from one's family, one's friends, one's heritage, one's history, and one's place in the world. It is no wonder then, that in today's America with so many feeling so lonely and so cut off from others that social and psychological pathology should be so rampant. It is for this reason that the Great Learning teaches that the affairs of state and the condition of society rest on healthy families which in turn rests on the cultivation of a benevolent heart.

The feeling of commiseration is the beginning of benevolence because commiseration is the capacity to empathize with and feel sympathy for another. Without this capacity to commiserate, there can be no basis for understanding each other and no basis for knowing what is right and wrong or how one should behave toward others. The principle of benevolence is to understand and act kindly toward others, in short, to be humane. Therefore, benevolence is the hallmark of humanity. As the Golden Rule of the Bible states, "do unto others as you would have others do unto to you." The perspective is necessarily subjective, but because humans are alike one to another, the universality of feelings takes on the force of an objective or abstract truth. Thus, the yearning for kindness and justice to prevail over cruelty and callousness resides deep within each human heart and is the final arbiter of moral truth.