Author: Warren Tang

I write about linguistics and philosophy. I also write poetry and take photographs.

Mara’s Dictionary

Warren Tang5 Comments

Note: This is a dictionary of humour, not of actual accepted definitions in use, though some of it might have some truth in them.

Key: [s] = sustainability, [t] = theory, [b] = buddhism

biodiversity [s] – (n) a tertiary education institution divided into two distinct levels for the animal kingdom and humankind, with the former being higher.

decadance [s] – (n) [pronounced: dead can dance] 1. to live as though the ‘dead can dance’. 2. Title of I M Wallstreet’s 1985 bestseller, Decadance: Ten Ways to Waltz from Rags to (the) Riches.

differance [t] – (n) [pronounced: the France] The desconstruction term used to put France on the map (orig. late 20c. see also Derrida).

government [s] – (n) a hinderance to the well-being of its people. (see also politics)

internet security – (n. phr.) the warm fuzzy feeling one gets when one connects to their internet service provider and finds is not down due to server failure or maintenance.

no-soul [b] – (n) 1. what some people don’t have. 2. what some people don’t have.

park ranger [s] – (n) the electronic device on the back of modern cars that warn you before you reverse into an endangered tree.

politics [s] – (n) a hinderance to the well-being of the people of other nations. (see also government)

post-modern [t] – (v. ph.) [or post… modern] what most bloggers are doing when they write junk.

Shakyamuni [b] – (prop. n) the name used to denote the period in the Buddha’s life after he left his teachers to search for enlightenment alone. He is the distant relative of 1980s pop singer, Chaka Khan.

sustainable economics [s] – (n) what economists think is possible, but environmentalists do not.

sustainable politics [s] – (n) 1. a politician’s ability to continue to deceive the voters long after he has left office. 2. there is no such thing.

theory [t] – (n) what everybody believes their own to be right, but nobody can prove.

What is Mara’s Dictionary
I have always wanted to write my own dictionary. And now I have. It is called Mara’s Dictionary. Its style was inspired by “Wiley’s Dictionary” that regularly features in Johnny Hart’s very funny, very cynical BC comic strip. And the title is a tongue-in-cheek take on Ambrose Bierce’s The Devil’s Dictionary.

Mara is the embodiment of death (and temptation) in Buddhism, which can be loosely equated to the Christian concept of the Devil. And all the words in the dictionary are related to the blog’s main theme – sustainability, the Buddha and theory – in some way.

I will continue to add new “definitions” as I go. Right now, I am aiming for a list of 50 words before the blog’s first anniversary (mid-February, 2007).

What Is Sustainability?

Warren Tang9 Comments

This is the first in a series of main articles relating to sustainability. A new article on either sustainability, the buddha or theory will be posted fortnightly.

The idea of sustainable development – or sustainability – was first given prominence in the 1987 United Nations report, Our Common Future. Also called the Brundtland Report (named in honour of the Norwegian Prime Minister, Gro Harlem Brundtland, who was the leading spokesperson for the report) it puts forward the idea that the current level of natural resource consumption by the industrialized world and the growing economies of developing nations (together with a rapidly increasing population) is unsustainable. In pragmatic terms sustainability is “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”.

Weak and strong sustainability

Sustainability is sometimes described as either being weak or strong. Weak sustainability does not differentiate between human-made capital and natural capital, while strong sustainability makes that distinction. In weak sustainability, the measure of natural capital as profit loss – or gain – is seen to be sufficient in defining the problems of sustainability. But strong sustainability contends that this is too human-centred – from the perspective of human interests only – and is insufficient in tackling the problem of our unsustainable practices. Furthermore, strong sustainability sees discussion of sustainability from within economic jargon or terminology as problematic. In other words, it keeps the agenda wholly within economic defining boundaries.

In strong sustainability the present value system of human-based structures are seen as working against the values of nature-based mechanism or biosystem. In short, present human discourse ignores and suppresses (oppresses) nature, seeing only a binary opposition between humankind and nature with the former on top.

Case against sustainability

There is also the extreme view that the sustainability discourse is simply untrue – that it is possible to continue our present pattern of consumption indefinitely. The argument goes like this: through our ingenuity and technology we will create new and alternative ways to sustain (or even increase) our present levels of consumption.

But such an argument often ignores the fact that 1) it is the very same science and technology they are putting their faith in that is the cause of current environment environmental problems, and 2) resources are finite. It is with this kind of cultural logic and wishful thinking that Western culture has driven humankind toward ecological collapse “taking with them to their graves” other life forms along the way. There is no doubt the ecological system can and will recover from such a collapse but it is unlikely to include humankind in its picture.

Brundtland report revisited

If one had to say whether the Brundtland Report is of the weak or strong sustainability variety, one would have to say it is of the weak kind. Because human needs are given priority over those of other life forms that we share this planet (…meeting human needs… , etc). This kind of thinking can also be called anthropocentric where little or no consideration is given to the larger picture that is the environment. It ignores the systems that govern life-giving interaction.

The anthropocentric binary (though not really its opposite) is the biocentric view, which takes in account all life forms and resources within the system in which humankind is a part. Thus in the biocentric view we are neither the only life form, nor the better one (due to our uncanny ability to manipulate or alter the environment). In fact, the ability of radical manipulation should be seen as a weakness, not as a strength.

I say this because as intelligent as we are we have lost the ability to adapt to the environment. And by adapting the environment to suit us – instead of adapting to the environment – we may someday lose all ability to survive in the less habitable world of the future that we are creating for ourselves this very moment.

30 Days of Sustainability

Warren Tang4 Comments

Does anyone know anything about the 30 Days of Sustainability event in Vancouver, Canada? It has this great looking website but I have heard little about it. A great idea that perhaps can be mimicked elsewhere.

Micro-generation

Warren Tang5 Comments

“Planning obstacles for small-scale [example: micro-generation] renewable energy schemes would be reduced – and to meet targets, it’s been suggested local authorities could provide financial incentives for using renewable energy.” (From the BBC)

It is truly sad to live in a society where incentives are needed (for the government and citizens) to get us to use more environmentally friendly energy sources like micro-generation.

In a blialogue (a blog-dialogue) recent I was made to think about why it was necessary to work so hard when the rest of the world was going against your grain. The other party in the conversation suggested that all the hard work of pushing for sustainability is nullified by the actions of politics and business, so, to him, it seemed a waste of time. But I say without the effort and successes at smaller levels we will have no example of workable solutions. To show that it is viable is what we should be aiming for as the little people. The big people do not see (or refuse to see) the long-term value of this, because it goes against the current dominant society and culture’s philosophy of immediate gain.

Information Superhighway I

Warren Tang7 Comments

Sometimes you have be careful… be very careful.

This site is an example of how the internet can be misused for whatever purpose.

A blogger I know had confidently given this site as authoritative. Albeit he might have been a victim. The sutra references were completely fabricated. And the books he referenced in his post on Buddhism came directly from the site’s page, which also gave PDF files of extended passages from the books. I seem to vaguely recall this breaks certain copyright laws in most countries around the world (plus they have probably altered the text to suit their purpose).

While I do not know the exact reason why the creators of this site wanted to deceive, all I need to know is that it is there, and to be always weary of the possibility of deception. The Buddha said:

“Don’t go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, ‘This contemplative is our teacher.’ When you know for yourselves that, ‘These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted and carried out, lead to welfare and to happiness’ – then you should enter and remain in them.” Kalama Sutta, Anguttara Nikaya III.65

I can assure you this quote is there. But do not take my word for it. Look it up. Recall these words and remember scrutiny and rigour are of utmost importance in an information-rich world. Because in this age of the information superhighway ease in obtaining information also means ease in distributing disinformation.

“Not Necessary”…

Warren Tang8 Comments

… was what my Zen teacher, Harada Tangen Roshi, used to say. And he used to say it to me a lot. I don’t remember exactly what I did, but I must have done and said some pretty moronic things. Oh, how short, my memory!

So figuring out what exactly is not necessary in life has been a kind of hobby (read: obsession) of mine since. I first took this “knife” to the very thing that fed me – Buddhism. To me, the Noble Eightfold Path is pretty much about what is necessary and what is not – like when to speak and when to refrain, etc. But what is interesting about this Path is the last one, that of right concentration. Without this concentration, or meditation, what the Buddha taught would have been no different to a philosophy. It is the necessary component that makes it different to philosophy.

But as I have said elsewhere what the Buddha taught cannot be seen as a religion either, at least not in the conventional sense. Note that I make a sharp distinction between the Buddha (what he taught) and Buddhism. To me, they are not the same. While Buddhism shows signs of religion (organization, structure, etc) the same could not be said about what he taught. The “community” or sangha, I believe, had a much wider meaning to the Buddha. Also the monasteries were not a place to dwell or meet, except only for convenience sake that it was necessary for it to be so. And his teaching was not a set formula but an open and varied practice (it included right livelihood showing the Path was also for the lay person).

So if the Buddha’s teaching can neither be seen as religion nor philosophy, then what can it be seen as? Let me ask another question: does it really need a label? Labels are such a human affair. For the fastidious perhaps, labels are necessary but not for this writer. There is nothing wrong saying it in the long-hand. So I will leave it at that, for I feel no more needs to be said.

But it is necessary to mention sustainability here, and take the knife of necessity to present humankind, because this is what my blog is about. And the entire blog is about how it is necessary to think about sustainability today, and how it is not necessary to consume as much as we do. It is decadance. And its root lie in his (I will blame man because he didn’t listen to woman more) fortuitous affluence and complacency. It is the if-you-have-it-flaunt-it or use-it-or-lose-it kinds of attitudes of our society that has amplifiied the sustainability problem unnecessarily.

Environmentalism Is Not Religion

Warren Tang10 Comments

Martin Livermore – an independent consultant with a background in industry, covering a range of science, communication and policy issues – might have been talking about people like me when he wrote this essay for the BBC’s Green Room.

In it, he asks the question, should we not think about humankind first before trying to save other species? So he thinks we are worrying too much about nature and other lifeforms and not worried about our own. He believes we have become too zealous in treading the green path.

He argues that:

“Admittedly, a few key evolutionary advantages make us [humankind] remarkably adaptable and, currently, the ultimate generalist; but it still makes us part of Nature, and our use of human ingenuity is every bit as natural as a spider’s web or a swallow’s migratory pattern.”

This is a point which many use to argue the anthropocentric viewpoint, one that I think is flawed. Let me be postmodernist and argue from within his article.

Mr Livermore gave the example of the conservation efforts for the bison population in Yellowstone by culling wolves. He calls this effort misguided because it led to a bison overpopulation crisis which then caused even more problems. In the end, the wolf culling was stopped in order to bring back a balance to the system. And he is right. The conservationists were going about problem the wrong way.

But has he not here argued a case for nonintervention, rather than one that says conservation is bad? And is it not ironic that it is through human intervention that the human population is where it is today? We are “culling our wolves” to get the human population at its level, through medicine, technology and other means. In other words, we are as foolish as those bison conservationists just mentioned when it comes to human conservation.

And as Mr Livermore has shown we do need the wolves to bring back a balance. The difference is whereas bisons have their wolves to keep them in check the humankind does not – not yet. Like a pendulum the environment will eventually bring things back into balance. It is just that “our predator” has not yet come.

And as for value judgments, yes, who is to say a dormouse is better than a rat… or that a man is better than a dormouse. At the risk of sounding postmodern Mr Livermore has actually sounded modern, in all its negative sense. He has mistakenly understood postmodernism to mean we can no longer hold on to values, when actually postmodern means we must hold on to many values, but none can be the absolutely correct one.

Yes, we are part of nature, as he pointed out, and so may human ingenuity. But so is human shortsightedness and arrogance. And ironically, so is our ability to see beyond tomorrow or this generation. It is possible to view nature in a different way. People, like Mr Livermore, just need to realize that there is not only one pair of rose tinted glasses, but many.

A Short Introduction to the Buddha

Warren Tang7 Comments

The Buddha, who is said to have inspired the “religion” of Buddhism, has been a major influence on my life and thinking since I was sixteen. And today I continue to practice as a non-monk.

There are plenty of Buddhists and plenty of environmentalists out there, but very few are consciously “ecoBuddhists” or “Buddho-environmentalists”. And although I do not think I am one I have chosen to write about sustainability and Buddhism, and how they relate to me. Most people who find this page have probably reached it via the sustainability aspect of my blog rather than through the Buddha aspect. So I feel I owe it to my readers that I explain the Buddha and Buddhism in order not to be misunderstood. And to my Buddhists readers I need to explain why I feel sustainability is an important issue for them as well.

The Buddha
The Buddha lived about 2,500 years ago around the area now can be loosely referred as the Indo-Nepalese border. He claimed neither to be a god, nor to be a son of a god, nor to be a prophet. He claimed to be just an ordinary man. Although he was born a prince (and I do not know of any princes who can claim to have special powers) it is said he renounced his noble life in order to find true happiness.

In being an ordinary man then it is difficult to say what he taught could be called “religion”. While I am aware that the Buddhisms of today may have become religion-like some time in the past it doesn’t necessarily follow that what he taught was religion. And this is a point I hold as truly important.

As I wrote, the Buddha was born a prince. And until he left home to find happiness, he had lived a life of luxury and beauty, sheilded from the truth of the world by his father. He was about 29 when he made this decision.

After studying under the two most renowned teachers of the time he left them to search for an even greater truth. And at the age of 35 he came to a great realization and from then on he called “the Buddha” or the enlightened one.

His teaching
1.
Being an ordinary man claiming no divinity it is only logical that what he taught would be nothing but mundane (not extraordinary). And that was the way it was – there were no gods, no supreme power, nothing there that is greater the physical world in his scheme of things.

His taught that all things are marked by impermanence. And it is interesting to note that even Buddhism did not stand outside of this truth according to him. No other religion, teaching or philosophy has stated this.

So man’s folly had been to think there could be anything permanent to hold onto. This mistake the Buddha called suffering. If one accepted that nothing is permanent then one will come to see that our actions are suffering ridden and will lead to more suffering as such.

The last main logical idea that follows from impermanence and suffering is that there is no soul or no-self. It is simply the greatest hinderance to us for finding “true happiness”. The idea of no-self too has no equivalent in any other religion.

So with the understanding of these three characteristics of existence he taught that it was possible to end suffering, the “true happiness” he had been seeking. Today we know this basic teaching as the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path.

The Four Noble Truths are statements which proclaim the idea of suffering, its cause, its cure and the curing procedure. And the curing procedure here is the Noble Eightfold Path, which covers every aspect of how we should live and practice in order reach the goal of true happiness or enlightenment.

2.
Before I wrap up this short introduction to the Buddha and his teaching there are two more concepts in Buddhism which I feel need clarification. They are 1) reincarnation and karma, and 2) the Buddha’s view of the mind.

Reincarnation is neither an idea unique nor original to Buddhism. It was a concept borrowed from Hinduism, the dominant religion in the Buddha’s culture during his lifetime. And the idea of karma likewise was also borrowed from Hinduism. However they differ to Hindu concepts.

Hinduism espouses that one need to seek to be reborn in higher and higher planes to finally unite with an ultimate being. But since the Buddha rejected the notion of an ultimate power or being ,the goal of reincarnation has to be necessarily different. The Buddha’s concept is one where one must try to end reincarnation (the cycle of rebirth) which is the true happiness.

Again karma in Hinduism is about producing good karma and avoiding bad karma in order to be reborn in higher and higher planes, again, until one unites with the ultimate being. Thus the Buddha did not see the production of karma – good or bad – as something that is desirable but rather something to be avoided all together. Moreover, the effects of karma only operated on the original producer of the karma. So what we do has no real effect on people, place and things around us, and to think so is incorrect. This is a sticking point for many Western non-Buddhists (and some Buddhists as well) but it really only has to be worked through in order to be grasped.

And the second concept – the mind – is another sticking point for many Westerners. In the Buddha’s teaching the mind is thought of as a sense organ, like the eye, ear, tongue, nose or skin. Its primary function is to comprehend the information from the other senses, as well as, to create new information. In other words, it is not a place of the soul or the seat of a personality. With the West’s emphasis on a soul and personality it becomes hard to accept that the mind can be a mere sensory organ.

I have given here an explanation of my personal understanding of the Buddha. It may not be how most Buddhists would explain it but I have no apologies for this. If you think I am wrong in something please comment about it.

Also I have yet to write about Buddhism. I will try follow up with a new post in the near future.

Sadly, Towards Urbanization

Warren Tang2 Comments

Our modern lifestyle seems so boundless. If the food in your refrigerator runs out just get more from the supermarket. And it seems just like that – the supermarket is like some kind of miracle place. But this is just an illusion, just like a magic show. We have come to believe that if we have money food will appear.

That food in your supermarket must come from somewhere. And it can run out like all else in the world. And I don’t mean run out on the shelves but actually disappear from existence. It is by equating everything with money that we lose sight of these facts.

Whereas once we would farm with our bare hands and hunt with our own prowess, we would know what exactly is available. But today we place that burden on someone else and expect miracles from them. If there isn’t enough petrol one just needs to complain to the government. If the block of cheese you want isn’t there on the shelf just ask a store clerk.

Just remember: sometime this year more people will be living in the city than off the land for the first time in human history (if it hasn’t already happened). For whatever reason people are motivated to move into the city it means more of us will make invisible the logistics of sustainability.

Are We to Blame for Climate Change?

Warren Tang4 Comments

“The global scientific body on climate change is expected to report soon that emissions from humankind are the only explanation for major changes on Earth.”

Why is it that every time someone puts out one of these reports it falls on deaf ears? You really don’t have to be reading the newpaper to notice the changes in the climate. By the late 1990s the winters in the city of Sydney (where I used to live) seemed almost like the autumns of ten years earlier.

“It’s amazing how much we can learn from history – and how little we have.” anon.

Have we not learnt by now that our governments are not looking out for our interests? Have we not learnt that they are doing too little too late?

If we are shocked now by the changes occurring from thirty-percent greenhouse gas emission levels what will it be like with forty-percent? No. I am scared. I am scared that it is too late. I am scared that my child will instead of working in a normal job he will be a some kind of global warming refugee. I am scared that all life on this Earth will come to near mass extinction because of humankind’s way of living.

Right now, I can only think of humankind as a cancer to this planet, the very kind that we have tried fighting so hard but have lost to in so many battles for life. No, I don’t want to be cynical but it is turning that way.

But, you know, the Earth will recover. It will one day recover without “us” around. Because it seems this is the only way to stop global warming.