What the Bible says...

Deuteronomy 21:18-21:21

If a man has a stubborn and unruly son who will not listen to his father or mother, and will not obey them…all his fellow citizens shall stone him (the son) to death.

Exodus 21:7

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go free as male slaves do.

Exodus 35:2

On six days work may be done, but the seventh day shall be sacred to you as the sabbath of complete rest to the LORD. Anyone who does work on that day shall be put to death.

1 Corinthians 11:14

Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears his hair long it is a disgrace to him.

4.1 MET: Religious Reformers

When Pharaoh Amenhotep IV and his feminist Great Royal Wife Nefertiti systematically destroyed the centuries-old worship of Amun and other deities in ancient Egypt, they might have done so to consolidate power in the New Kingdom, or to legally rob the priesthood of its immense wealth, or simply to proclaim their preference for an obscure god called Aten. Whatever their motivations, they seemed to do so for their personal benefits. With resistance from almost everyone plus a devastating pandemic, their reformation and royal reign was short-lived.

Amenhotep IV, aka Akhenaten, might find his plaque in the Hall of Fame, but the Michael Jordon of religious reformers has to be Martin Luther. The lowly monk’s detest of papal sanctioned indulgences and renascent emphasis on a personal relationship with the divinity might have won some minds and hearts, but his IPO was far from spectacular. He was declared an outlaw of the state and excommunicated from the church. Protestant Inc. was de-listed. Yet, the ruling Germanic princes saw the real economical implication: less participation in the church meant more disposable and taxable income to the principalities. The financial gain was so great that the princes went to war for it, and for 30 years. Thus the ultimate rivalry of Coke and Pepsi was created.

Since almost all religion founders are, in a sense, reformers, and vice versa, the success of a religion or a religious reformation hinges on its alignment with the interest of the ruling class, not necessarily of the actual ruler. King Henry VIII promoted the English reformation so that he could marry the woman he shacked up with, yet his successor disagreed so strongly that we named a cocktail after her commemorating her brutality. Although Constantine adopted Christianity after a few rapid eye moments, JC’s peaceful and Buddhistic preaching, a drastic departure from the violent and vengeful Judaic fables, actually worked well in helping stabilize the vast and heterogeneous empire of Rome. It should come with no surprise that it went on and became the most successful enterprise in the history of mankind.

Free Will & The Soup Nazi

A typical Christian apologia to the question “Why evil exists” is to allow free will. People are free to choose good or evil, God or the devil. However, the verdict is already in. If you choose not to believe in God or follow Him, you will burn in hell for eternity. Is that really free will?

Isn’t there another similar strict code of behaviors somewhere? It goes something like this:

Thou shall not be loud or annoying in His shop
Thou shall not take forever on the order
Thou shall not make small talk with Him
Thou shall not stand around idly (rather, place the order and step to the left to receive)
Thou shall not embellish on the order
Thou shall not make any extraneous comments
Thou shall not ask any questions
Thou shall not make any compliments

Otherwise: “NO SOUP FOR YOU”!

Meaning of life (Part One)

It can be paraphrased by two questions: “why do we exist” and “how should we exist”. Call them the strong and weak anthropic questions, if you will.

First, the strong anthropic question: Why do we exist?

Science may have set out to find the answer, but the scientific method is never designed to reveal the motivation behind any physical phenomenon. While most cosmologists are confident in describing the universe a few seconds after the Big Bang and thereafter, no Friedmann models try to answer why there was even a Big Bang. When we successfully establish the unified theory of physics in the near future, it probably won’t tell us what “breathes fire” into those equations, as commented by the impressive Stephen Hawking. Science is designed to answer “how we exist” but not “why we exist”.

Wherever science fails to respond, religion thrives. Explaining the purpose of life has always been the first and last frontier of any religion.

The Abrahamic God is said to be perfect. Yet humans were created in order to serve Elohim or Yahweh, to love the Lord, and to worship Allah. The fact that human actions are required upon Him means that He needs something and is not complete. The definition of “perfect” is “lacking nothing essential to the whole; complete of its nature or kind”. If we take the Scriptures literally, the motivation for Creation is confusing at best.

The Vedic and Puranic cosmology of Hinduism is probably the most scientifically comparable in all ancient civilizations. While the Hebrew universe lasts 6000 years, and the Chinese cosmos, a few tens of thousands more, the Hindu scriptures revealed a stunning scale of 4 billion years. Its creation-destruction cycle of Yuga corresponds to the theory of Big Bang, Expansion-Contraction and Big Crunch. The ultimate goal in a Hindu’s life is to achieve moksha from samsāra so that the ātmā, could unite itself with Brahman. Some Hindus believe that ātmā and Brahman are indistinguishable, and the detachment is caused by māyā. The existence of humans and its purpose is nothing more than a cosmic game of the divine. The forward path to overcome māyā and samsāra resembles that of a pawn in chess to reach the end zone so that it can be promoted.

Inheriting the tradition of kárma and samsāra, the dharmic protégé Buddha didn’t offer anything new to explain the meaning of life. In fact, Buddha refused to answer the question to the origin of the universe and life, because he thought it was irrelevant to a Buddhist’s quest: nirvana, a slight different form of moksha.

In Taoism, Tao, like Om, neither being nor non-being, gives birth to everything. Its indescribable mysticism in creation eludes its purpose. Although it stands out from the rest childish creation stories in ancient China, it offers no real insight as why there was even one.

So far, no single theory can satisfy the strong anthropic question. Therefore, I seek comfort in three working theories about the purpose of our existence:

1) There is no purpose. Life on this remote corner of the universe is a pure accident explainable by the Uncertainty Principle. God does play dices after all.

2) Humans were created to fulfill some unrevealed purpose, but the watchmaker walked away. Gott ist tot. The physical laws may still function, but the absolute morality no longer applies.

3) “God is a mean kid over an anthill with a magnifying glass”. The concept of cosmic game could potentially explain everything. Yet it renders the meaning of life meaningless. We are nothing but puppets to satisfy some sadistic perversion.

Religious Fundamentalists

People always associate religious fundamentalists with terrorists and fanatics. However, if you really think about it, any devout religious person must be a fundamentalist.

When reading the scripture, the devoted must take it literally and accept its totality. One can’t interpret it according to his own likings. Nor can he pick and choose whichever suits him well. Otherwise, he is a religious opportunist. When one denies one part of the scriptures, it’s corollary that one can deny any part thereof. That’s the beginning of the end of his faith.

So there is no such term called religious fundamentalism. If you are truly religious, you have to be a fundamentalist.

An Uncomplicated Analogy

I am invited to visit this house. The owner is away, but the caretaker is very hospitable. It’s on a big lot with a few other similar houses around it, but it is indeed the most grandiose and decorated.

It’s pouring outside. I get in quickly. As I am about to fold my umbrella, I find, to my great surprise, that it’s also raining hard inside. The caretaker, wearing a raincoat, welcomes me and leads me towards the main hall. Still holding my umbrella, I want to ask but feel shy. I am sure an explanation will be volunteered, but the caretaker is busy pointing out different rooms in the house, showing no sign of offering any explanation.

As I follow him, I tilt the umbrella and look up. I notice that the entire roof is leaking. The damage is so extensive that wind gushes in, rain pours down, and it feels just like standing outside. Walking ahead of me, the affable caretaker still talks about the history and stories of the house, totally oblivious of buckets of water hitting on his body.

The layout is nice, albeit a little dated. Soon we reach the great hall. There is a tent set up in the middle. I can see a bonfire inside and shadows of other guests. The caretaker lifts the front door for me.

I lower myself, get in, and sit among the guests. It’s considerably warmer inside. I am greeted with warmth and enthusiasm. I can’t help but notice the loud pounding rain on the paper-thin polyester and the howling storm outside. Yet the guests are chitchatting happily unmindful of the noise.

The caretaker enters bringing wine and bread which we start to share. Taking my share from him, I whisper a question to him: “Why don’t you fix the roof?” Handing over the a piece of bread, he answers calmly: “What roof? The house is fine.”

God On Trial

Job wanted to put God on trial: “Oh! that I knew where I might find him! that I might come even to his seat! I would order my cause before him, and fill my mouth with arguments. I would know the words which he would answer me, and understand what he would say unto me. Will he plead against me with his great power? No; but he would put strength in me. There the righteous might dispute with him; so should I be delivered for ever from my judge” (Job 23:3-7)

When Job confronted God, the all-loving Almighty babbled some mumbo jumbo which conveniently concealed his childish bet with his loyal Attorney General Ha-Satan (the wrongfully accused Satan). Job gave up, was blessed, and lived happily ever after.

The profound meaning of human suffering is thus fatally compromised, forever, for a cheap Hollywood ending whose target market mostly composes of mental teenagers.

Thousands of years later, a group of Jewish inmates in Auschwitz, on Rosh Hashanah, before their death, convened a beth din, a Jewish court of law, to put God on trial.

And they found God guilty.

Human Sacrifice

When an innocent person meets his untimely death, it’s His Will for His Plan. Isn’t it human sacrifice?

An argument from the apologia is that no one is truly innocent because of the Original Sin committed some 6,000 years ago.

Forgive me, but calling an unborn or newly born child Sinful and sentencing it to death is just bloody cruel.

Is there still room for forgiveness, compassion, and kindness?

Residual Morality and Critical Thinking

A mom’s immunity protests her new-born for six months, after which the baby gets regular vaccinations.

On the other hand, the influence of parents’ morality on the child wears off much later, if ever. The residual morality hangs on sometimes for the life span of the new host. As the child continues to get moral vaccines from school, his peers, and the society, he also picks up unwelcome viruses and bacteria. It’s his own immune system, i.e. his critical thinking, that will choose what to take in as helpful vaccines and what to ward off as harmful foreign agents. Sometimes, the residual immunity is still capable of fighting new strands of viruses, but certainly not always.

Is this analogy applicable for a child of faith? Unless spiritual healing cures all diseases, an analogy in modern medicine is always relevant.

Basic Human Feelings

Can we safely say “I feel, therefore I am”? The clichés are still around: “trust your gut feeling”, “follow your instinct”, “listen to your heart, not your brain”, and so on.

Many people do follow their feelings in their dealings, but are often labeled “being too emotional”. More rational ones often pat on their own backs for having earned the black belt of suppressing their feelings and doing the logical things. In either case, the feeling, or the conscious subjective experience of emotion, is real. The neurons have fired.

Take “sadness”. When a good friend is killed in a car accident, many people would feel sad. When a good mother dies of breast cancer, her loving daughter would feel sad.

Should they feel sad?

The emotion of “happiness” is deceivingly simpler. When Dr. House cures the dying but still caring teacher of a trifactor of autoimmune, carcinoid, and hypothyroidism, her previously hopeless middle school students would jump up in hysterical ecstasy.

Should we go round them up and quiet them down, because we shouldn’t feel “happy”?

We have support groups for every possible supposed human tragedy in the world, but there is no support group for “joyous and grateful teenagers whose teacher just recovered from ungodly diseases”. Why not?

An answer from a Hindus or a Buddhist is quite simple and consistent. Basic human feelings are false reactions to the illusion of realty. The neurotic firing is preconditioned. One needs to liberate himself from the maya of duality. If someone is telling you his parents survived a 20 car pile up without a scratch, you may respond “what’s for lunch”?

When a good Christian is terminally ill, his brothers and sisters would diligently pray for the invalid. Their motive is pure yet confusing. If the patient recovers, it’s Lord’s work. The happy and praising neurons are firing. If the patient doesn’t make it, it’s also Lord’s work. Since He is omni-benevolent, the passing of the patient shouldn’t be a tragedy, but a part of His Grand Plan. The death of the sick just served Lord’s Purpose. Lord got what He wanted (not surprisingly). Therefore, death is not just good but great. The happy and praising neurons should reload for action again. So if someone is telling you about a dying Christian, you don’t have to wait for the end. Just jump right in with “Good for him” or “Good for her”, with both of your thumbs up opposing each other. (Note: you should wait at least until you know the gender of the patient).

So an oversimplified note to support group organizers on all subjects. For Hindus and Buddhists, teach them to learn how to feel nothing. For Christians, teach them how to feel joy and gratitude in all cases.

Life made easy? Maybe.

Last words on God

"It is very important not to mistaken hemlock for parsley; but not at all so to believe or not in God."

- Denis Diderot in response to Voltaire

Don’t get me wrong. Not that I don’t care. It just seems that we don’t have any direct evidence for or against the existence of God.

(A little disclaimer is hereby warranted by now.

"The figure “God” discussed here is not associated with any earthly religion, especially not with Judaeo-Christianity. Any similarity to any person living or dead is merely coincidental.")

However, many circumstantial ones do exist. If you watch as much Law & Order as I do, you should know by now that circumstantial evidences hardly make a case.

Here is my logic that the existence of God is possible and cannot be disproved by mere common senses or primitive observations. Following is a list of things that seem intuitive and appear to agree with casual perceptions.

- The earth is flat
- The earth is stationary
- The sun moves around the earth
- Things are made of fundamentally different elements.
- The space has three dimensions
- The universe is static

And so on. Most of us now agree that the things listed above are false. Imagine 6-dimensional creatures live among us but we can’t see them, or you can get the shortest distance between two points by warping the space, or the universe is mostly composed of dark matter. Many times, things we cannot perceive or even possibly fathom do exist.

That the earth is moving and circling the sun was as ridiculous to the Europeans in the 1500’s as the existence of God to the atheists.

Nevertheless, Buddha once cautioned that we shouldn’t believe something just because it’s possible. It’s possible that God exists, but it doesn’t mean that it does.

If God does exist, it should be nothing like the one depicted in the Bible, in either volumes.

A popular Chinese fable goes like this:

『An armor peddler claims to make the best spears and shields.
He says: My shields are so strong they cannot be penetrated by any weapon. He then points to his spears and says: My spears are so sharp they can pierce any shield. A bystander asks: What happens if you throw your spear at your shield?』


If we take the Bible literally, we should believe the universe is only a few thousand years old. If we argue that the biblical definition of time is different from our common understanding, we then have no way to understand the biblical definitions of “good” or “evil”.

Therefore, if a Christian God exists, He will be restrained to the Judaeo-Christian logic and face such paradox as: Can God create a rock so heavy that He himself can’t lift?

However, I do hope there is a God in the universe. Life would be so simple. All the questions can be answered easily or have the potential to be answered easily. But He sure knows how to run and hide. So far we can't find him. He is like the ultimate Mr. bin Laden.

C’est bon. Genug gesagt.

You are a Chinese if...

A list of old stereotypes, but some are still funny and true. =)

The purpose of logic faculty in us

One comedian once said: "I really tried to have the faith (that the earth was created in 7 days), but...I have thoughts, which can really xxxx up the faith thing".

If we are created, why would we be given the capability to reason well enough to deny our origin? If the design is perfect, every bodily part has its own function and purpose. Our eyes enable us to see, ears to hear, and a brain to know, learn, and reason. Sometimes things are not obvious to our sensory organs, like air molecules or microwave. But over the course of human civilization, we learned through the logic faculty in our brain to use tools to detect things invisible to our eyes or inaudible to our ears. Therefore the purposes of eyes and ears are once again fulfilled.

Overlooking all major world religions, there are still a few questions that demands better answers. For example, the purpose of existence. Why was the universe created? Some people would say: "Oh, I don't attempt to second guess His purpose". But can we even if we try? We are created because our creator is bored? Or is He/She lonely? Can we reach a reasonable conclusion? At least I haven't thus far.

Some other people would say: "Oh, you don't have to think too hard, just take a leap of faith". But why should we give up something which is given by our creator and which is perfectly purposeful and functional in order to take on faith about our creator? I think there is something wrong there.

God In Perspective

Q1 of 2: Why would god care about us?

He's been busy. As far as we know, the universe is huge. There are millions upon millions of galaxies. All his labor's fruits. We are on a tiny dust bit called Earth. Imagining god is having fun putting his right hand toward a black hole to get a thrill of sucking feeling, or moving a bunch of galaxies away to create a reddish coloration so his neon disco party decoration is really brightened up. To him, human beings are maybe like tiny, albeit very cute, amoebas. Imagine coming home from a great day with your golden retriever in the park, you put on your bifocals and set up the microscope. "They are so cute, swimming away with their pseudopods...Oh My Self, I killed them with my bread crumbs."

Q2 of 2: How in the universe would we be able to understand god?

If you play a recording of K550 to a petri dish, imagine one amoeba says to another: "I really appreciate the distinct quality of the submediant E flat major, in the overall G minor key". The other one says "Who cares. Look, there is a piece of fibrous crap, let's swim there as fast as we can, okay?"

God In Our Genes

There is just one basic human instinct: self preservation.

To preserve ourselves in this life, we defend ourselves against wild beasts, natural disasters, sickness and other uncertainty and unknowns in our realty. Scared, desperate, disillusioned, we need something who is bigger than us, who cares about us, and who has all the power in the world to keep us off the harm's way. The concept of god, an absolute certainty, gives us comfort, hope and courage to carry on our lives. We need god just as we need the next breath of air.

To preserve ourselves beyond this life, we need to have a soul to survive our flesh and enjoy eternal bliss. To make sense of the good and evil in this world, we need someone to hand out carrots and sticks on the last day. Who else would be a better candidate?

If there is no god, it's necessary to invent one.

Top 10 Things Not To Do From Mr. G (aka the Buddha)

1) Don't believe anything simply because you've been listening to it for a long time;
2) Don't accept traditions simply because generations of people have been doing that way;
3) Don't believe gossips easily;
4) Don't affirm anything simply because it goes well with your beliefs or thoughts;
5) Don't rely on theoretical inference alone;
6) Don't affirm anything simply based on what you see or hear;
7) Don't simply look at things as they appear;
8) Don't insist on any of your favorite opinions or thinking;
9) Don't believe anything simply because it's possible;
10) Don't accept any ideas of your master simply out of your admiration or reverence for him/her.

from 南传<<增支部>>之<<迦摩罗经>>

The Definition of Karma

A kid grows up and old. Within there is an evolving continuity, and the force that sustains such change is called karma.

Blind Faith vs. Intellectual Conviction

Buddhism isn't a religion but a philosophy.

Mr. Siddhartha Gautama himself discouraged blind faith or idol worship. Instead he encouraged his followers to observe his own behaviors, investigate his own words, experience and practice his own dharma. In short, Mr. G was promoting an intellectual conviction.

Mind and Matter

According to Dalai Lama, mind and matter are indivisible at the basic level, much like the dualism between particles and waves at quantum level. That should explain why karma transcends the physical world and no supreme being is required for karmic causality to be fulfilled.

Very interesting.

Yet His Holiness provides pretty much no more insights beyond that. Nevertheless, I admire his effort to promote science among Buddhists and vice versa. It's like proposing a unified theory reconciling science and religion, at least Buddhism. As a high monk or even, allegedly, a living saint, his open-mindedness is truly laudable.

On a separate note, for a high monk in Buddhism, His Holiness is a bit too insistent on politics, especially on the issue of Tibet's independence. Since there exist no permanent or distinct ego in anything, how could any Buddhist be so persistent on something being somebody's own? Borders may exist on maps, but not in the mind. It's like Mr. JC, able to walk on water, does trip over rocks from time to time.

First Cause

The establishment of First Cause is critical to judaeo-christian concepts and Hinduism. However, according to Buddhism, the time and space is limitless. So first cause seems unnecessary.

In time, there is no beginning or end. In space, there is no limits or boundaries.

The universe is, some would say, finite yet expanding. If it is, what's outside the candy wraps? What's "nothingness"? To me, we are like holding a flashlight in an infinitely large dark room. The area where the light reaches is defined as the known universe or the knowable universe. However, and the universe expands, there is no qualitative difference between the unknowable "nothingness" and the barely knowable edge of the universe. The "nothingness" is simply the potentially knowable universe. Together, the space, which includes the knowable and unknowable universe, is infinite.

Time will go on. There is no "end of the time". Although infinity is a concept difficult for a human mind to fathom or visualize, we accept its existence, as in math where there is no the biggest or the smallest number. So it's reasonable to accept that there is no beginning of the time or space.

Hence, the first cause is irrelevant. In other words, God is irrelevant.