Intelligent Design or Deceptive Intelligence?

Peace,

Recently, I've been following the discussion regarding Intelligent Design(ID). For those of you who don't know, ID is the new psuedo-scientific theory pushed by conserative christians that states that there is a scientific way to prove the existence of a astral being. The reason that this is important is that the theology is being advocated in school districts across the country. Many people have many perspectives, b.u.t. we have to deal with what is empirical in order to truly be universal. The biggest problem with ID is that it asserts no scientific proof for the existence of a mystery god. See how you see it, b.u.t. let's be universal.


At a recent scientific conference at City College of New York, a student in the audience rose to ask the panelists an unexpected question: "Can you be a good scientist and believe in God?"
Reaction from one of the panelists, all Nobel laureates, was quick and sharp. "No!" declared Herbert A. Hauptman, who shared the chemistry prize in 1985 for his work on the structure of crystals.
Belief in the supernatural, especially belief in God, is not only incompatible with good science, Dr. Hauptman declared, "this kind of belief is damaging to the well-being of the human race."
But disdain for religion is far from universal among scientists. And today, as religious groups challenge scientists in arenas as various as evolution in the classroom, AIDS prevention and stem cell research, scientists who embrace religion are beginning to speak out about their faith.
"It should not be a taboo subject, but frankly it often is in scientific circles," said Francis S. Collins, who directs the National Human Genome Research Institute and who speaks freely about his Christian faith.
Although they embrace religious faith, these scientists also embrace science as it has been defined for centuries. That is, they look to the natural world for explanations of what happens in the natural world and they recognize that scientific ideas must be provisional - capable of being overturned by evidence from experimentation and observation. This belief in science sets them apart from those who endorse creationism or its doctrinal cousin, intelligent design, both of which depend on the existence of a supernatural force.
Their belief in God challenges scientists who regard religious belief as little more than magical thinking, as some do. Their faith also challenges believers who denounce science as a godless enterprise and scientists as secular elitists contemptuous of God-fearing people.
Some scientists say simply that science and religion are two separate realms, "nonoverlapping magisteria," as the late evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould put it in his book "Rocks of Ages" (Ballantine, 1999). In Dr. Gould's view, science speaks with authority in the realm of "what the universe is made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory)" and religion holds sway over "questions of ultimate meaning and moral value."
When the American Association for the Advancement of Science devoted a session to this idea of separation at its annual meeting this year, scores of scientists crowded into a room to hear it.
Some of them said they were unsatisfied with the idea, because they believe scientists' moral values must inevitably affect their work, others because so much of science has so many ethical implications in the real world.
One panelist, Dr. Noah Efron of Bar-Ilan University in Israel, said scientists, like other people, were guided by their own human purposes, meaning and values. The idea that fact can be separated from values and meaning "jibes poorly with what we know of the history of science," Dr. Efron said.
Dr. Collins, who is working on a book about his religious faith, also believes that people should not have to keep religious beliefs and scientific theories strictly separate. "I don't find it very satisfactory and I don't find it very necessary," he said in an interview. He noted that until relatively recently, most scientists were believers. "Isaac Newton wrote a lot more about the Bible than the laws of nature," he said.
But he acknowledged that as head of the American government's efforts to decipher the human genetic code, he had a leading role in work that many say definitively demonstrates the strength of evolutionary theory to explain the complexity and abundance of life.
As scientists compare human genes with those of other mammals, tiny worms, even bacteria, the similarities "are absolutely compelling," Dr. Collins said. "If Darwin had tried to imagine a way to prove his theory, he could not have come up with something better, except maybe a time machine. Asking somebody to reject all of that in order to prove that they really do love God - what a horrible choice."
Dr. Collins was a nonbeliever until he was 27 - "more and more into the mode of being not only agnostic but being an atheist," as he put it. All that changed after he completed his doctorate in physics and was at work on his medical degree, when he was among those treating a woman dying of heart disease. "She was very clear about her faith and she looked me square in the eye and she said, 'what do you believe?' " he recalled. "I sort of stammered out, 'I am not sure.' "
He said he realized then that he had never considered the matter seriously, the way a scientist should. He began reading about various religious beliefs, which only confused him. Finally, a Methodist minister gave him a book, "Mere Christianity," by C. S. Lewis. In the book Lewis, an atheist until he was a grown man, argues that the idea of right and wrong is universal among people, a moral law they "did not make, and cannot quite forget even when they try." This universal feeling, he said, is evidence for the plausibility of God.
When he read the book, Dr. Collins said, "I thought, my gosh, this guy is me."
Today, Dr. Collins said, he does not embrace any particular denomination, but he is a Christian. Colleagues sometimes express surprise at his faith, he said. "They'll say, 'how can you believe that? Did you check your brain at the door?" But he said he had discovered in talking to students and colleagues that "there is a great deal of interest in this topic."

Polling Scientists on Beliefs

According to a much-discussed survey reported in the journal Nature in 1997, 40 percent of biologists, physicists and mathematicians said they believed in God - and not just a nonspecific transcendental presence but, as the survey put it, a God to whom one may pray "in expectation of receiving an answer."
The survey, by Edward J. Larson of the University of Georgia, was intended to replicate one conducted in 1914, and the results were virtually unchanged. In both cases, participants were drawn from a directory of American scientists.
Others play down those results. They note that when Dr. Larson put part of the same survey to "leading scientists" - in this case, members of the National Academy of Sciences, perhaps the nation's most eminent scientific organization - fewer than 10 percent professed belief in a personal God or human immortality.
This response is not surprising to researchers like Steven Weinberg, a physicist at the University of Texas, a member of the academy and a winner of the Nobel Prize in 1979 for his work in particle physics. He said he could understand why religious people would believe that anything that eroded belief was destructive. But he added: "I think one of the great historical contributions of science is to weaken the hold of religion. That's a good thing."

No God, No Moral Compass?

He rejects the idea that scientists who reject religion are arrogant. "We know how many mistakes we've made," Dr. Weinberg said. And he is angered by assertions that people without religious faith are without a moral compass.
In any event, he added, "the experience of being a scientist makes religion seem fairly irrelevant," he said. "Most scientists I know simply don't think about it very much. They don't think about religion enough to qualify as practicing atheists."
Most scientists he knows who do believe in God, he added, believe in "a God who is behind the laws of nature but who is not intervening."
Kenneth R. Miller, a biology professor at Brown, said his students were often surprised to find that he was religious, especially when they realized that his faith was not some sort of vague theism but observant Roman Catholicism.
Dr. Miller, whose book, "Finding Darwin's God," explains his reconciliation of the theory of evolution with his religious faith, said he was usually challenged in his biology classes by one or two students whose religions did not accept evolution, who asked how important the theory would be in the course.
"What they are really asking me is "do I have to believe in this stuff to get an A?,' " he said. He says he tells them that "belief is never an issue in science."
"I don't care if you believe in the Krebs cycle," he said, referring to the process by which energy is utilized in the cell. "I just want you to know what it is and how it works. My feeling about evolution is the same thing."
For Dr. Miller and other scientists, research is not about belief. "Faith is one thing, what you believe from the heart," said Joseph E. Murray, who won the Nobel Prize in medicine in 1990 for his work in organ transplantation. But in scientific research, he said, "it's the results that count."
Dr. Murray, who describes himself as "a cradle Catholic" who has rarely missed weekly Mass and who prays every morning, said that when he was preparing for the first ever human organ transplant, a kidney that a young man had donated to his identical twin, he and his colleagues consulted a number of religious leaders about whether they were doing the right thing. "It seemed natural," he said.

Using Every Tool

"When you are searching for truth you should use every possible avenue, including revelation," said Dr. Murray, who is a member of the Pontifical Academy, which advises the Vatican on scientific issues, and who described the influence of his faith on his work in his memoir, "Surgery of the Soul" (Science History Publications, 2002).
Since his appearance at the City College panel, when he was dismayed by the tepid reception received by his remarks on the incompatibility of good science and religious belief, Dr. Hauptman said he had been discussing the issue with colleagues in Buffalo, where he is president of the Hauptman-Woodward Medical Research Institute.
"I think almost without exception the people I have spoken to are scientists and they do believe in the existence of a supreme being," he said. "If you ask me to explain it - I cannot explain it at all."
But Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary theorist at Oxford, said that even scientists who were believers did not claim evidence for that belief. "The most they will claim is that there is no evidence against," Dr. Dawkins said, "which is pathetically weak. There is no evidence against all sorts of things, but we don't waste our time believing in them."
Dr. Collins said he believed that some scientists were unwilling to profess faith in public "because the assumption is if you are a scientist you don't have any need of action of the supernatural sort," or because of pride in the idea that science is the ultimate source of intellectual meaning.
But he said he believed that some scientists were simply unwilling to confront the big questions religion tried to answer. "You will never understand what it means to be a human being through naturalistic observation," he said. "You won't understand why you are here and what the meaning is. Science has no power to address these questions - and are they not the most important questions we ask ourselves?"

True Confessions

Theme Music:"I Call Your Name" by Switch

Peace,

Last night, I watched an "All eyes on me" special on Kayne West. Now many people have many different things to say on Kayne and his rise within the past few years.These days, he's being presented For myself, I think that he embodies the subtle tension between different mentalities within Hip Hop and weaves them together in a engaging way. He's one of the few artists that can do a video for "Workout Plan" (Which I thought was pretty corny) and then turn around and do the video for "Two Words" (Which I thought was the best video in the last 3-4 years). In a art form where everyone's lying and posturing, his honesty was refreshing. Here are some of my reflections after watching:

- When Sway asked him if he felt disloyal to Dame Dash based on the breakup, he was stumped and was silent for almost 30 seconds. West actually stated that he was and regretted that he couldn't do what was best for him and Dash. For those who don't know, it was Dash that gave him a chance as a rapper. For him to be honest about that was powerful and telling because for some reason, the whole Roc breakup has been played as business as usual vs. the breakup of some of the most powerful black men in the business. There's a very political component to this that's being kept under wraps

- On the program, West also spoke about the role his mother played in his life and being accused of homosexuality as a young man. He went on to appeal to Hip Hop to curtail homophobic behavior. One of the main reasons that many young men are homophobic is their uncomfortability with what it means to be a black man in America. Another reason is the lack of positive male role models around that can provide a balanced picture of manhood beyond tv and hood crime. While I'm not into the destruction of gender roles (far from it actually), youth have to see manhood outside the parameters of what you can do to someone

- Also discussed was West's perceived cockiness and brash personality. On a larger level, I see it as a discussion as on Black Manhood in America. Point blank, Black men are not allowed to be outspoken about where they stand about how they see the world. Granted, some brothers that do speak out say dumb things, however there's still a double standard a far as how Black Men conduct themselves. As men, we should make no apologies for protecting our interests and the interests of those who we represent. Many big stars in Hip Hop have no problem speaking out against each other, b.u.t. are noticeably silent when it comes to speaking out against cultural & structural inequities. Because of the fact that these brothers serve as role models for many of our youth, we have to intervene in our communities and change that dynamic

A Different look

Theme Music - "Angel" by Anita Baker

Peace,

I've been traveling like crazy over the last few weeks, so I have lots to post, b.u.t. for now, I like to post a essay that I found on www.BlackElectorate.com (Shouts out to Brother Cedric Muhammad).
While you know by now that we are our own culture and have our own values, I think that this essay brings up some very good points regarding the existence of a astral being.


Theology Thursdays: The Buddhist Attitude to God By Dr V. A. Gunasekara

The standpoint adopted here is primarily that of Theravada Buddhism. But most of what is said will be applicable to most other Buddhist traditions. The Theravada tradition, also called the Southern school of Buddhism, is based on texts maintained in the Pali language, which are the oldest of the existing Canons of Buddhism and reputed to be the closest to the teaching of the Buddha himself.There is no place for God in the Mahayana traditions of Buddhism as well, and indeed some of the early Indian Mahayana philosophers have denounced god-worship in terms which are even stronger than those expressed in the Theravada literature. Some later Mahayana schools, which flourished outside India, ascribed some degree of divinity to a transcendent Buddha, considering living Buddhas to be a manifestation of this âdhi-buddha. But even here it cannot be said that the Buddha was converted into a Divinity comparable to the God of the monotheistic religions.

Buddhism as a Non-Theistic Religion

Buddhism is unique amongst the religions of the world because it does not have any place for God in its soteriology. Indeed most Asian religions (with the possible exception of some extremely devotional forms of Hinduism) are essentially non-theistic, in that God does not occupy the central place that is accorded to him in monotheistic religious traditions. But Buddhism goes beyond most of these other religions in that it is positively anti-theistic because the very notion of God conflicts with some principles which are fundamental to the Buddhist view of the world and the role of humans in it (see section "The God-Concept and Buddhist Principles" below).However Buddhism is not atheistic in the sense that modern secularism, rationalism, humanism, etc. could be regarded to be atheistic (although it has much in common with them). Buddhism is not concerned primarily with refuting the notion of God (as some atheistic writers have done). It is principally concerned with developing a method of escape from the worldly ills. This involves undertaking a method of mental discipline and a code of conduct, which is sufficient to satisfy the most demanding of spiritual requirements. Indeed only very little of the Buddha's voluminous discourses deal directly with the question of God. He was more interested in expounding a way to personal salvation, and to improve the weal of mankind both in this world and in the worlds to come. It is this task that informs most of the discourses of the Buddha which later came to be compiled into the various Canons of Buddhism.

The Buddha did not take an ambiguous or agnostic position on the question of God as he is sometimes represented as having taken by theistically inclined writers. The Buddha has stated his position on God in clear and unequivocal terms.

The Notion of God

It is first of all necessary to establish what is meant by the term "God". This term is used to designate a Supreme Being endowed with the qualities of omnipotence and omniscience, who is the creator of the universe with all its contents, and the chief law-giver for humans. God is generally considered as being concerned with the welfare of his human creatures, and the ultimate salvation of those who follow his dictates. God is therefore a person of some kind, and the question whether such an entity exists or not is fundamental to all theistic systems.In contrast to this notion of a personal God some modern theologians have interpreted the term "God" as representing some kind of abstract principle of good (or "ground of being"). This view was first developed in the ancient Indian Upanishads where God is equated with an abstract principle (Brahman). The ancient Indian philosophers could entertain such a view because they also had a theory of karma, which really does away with the need for a personal God. Buddhists too have a theory of karma, which is different from that of the Hindus, and which even more unequivocally dispenses with the need for a Deity. The use of the term "God' to denote an abstract reality by monotheistic theologians who have no theory of karma is difficult to justify; one suspects that this is merely a device to explain away the contradictions that arise from the notion of a personal God. In fact the actual practice of theistic religion proceeds as if God is a real person of some kind or other.Just as Buddhism rejects the notion of a Supreme God it also rejects the notion of an abstract God-principle operating in the universe. The notion of Brahman (in the neuter) is not discussed at all in the Buddhist texts, and even in India it may well be a post-Buddhist development resulting from the attempt to reconcile the belief in God(s) with the powerful critique of the Buddha. It is therefore the attitude of Buddhism to the notion of a supreme personal God animating the Universe that we must consider.Buddhism speaks of the existence of category of beings called devas. This term is generally translated as "gods" (with a simple `g' and in the plural). The term deva literally means a shining or radiant being, and describes their physical appearance rather than their supernatural powers (as the translation "gods" seems to imply). To prevent confusion with the notion of a supreme personal God we shall refer to these beings of Buddhist cosmology as devas. Many other religions also postulate the existence of non-human beings who are referred to as `gods' or `angels' if they are considered to be in a better position than humans (with respect to their material conditions of existence). Buddhist cosmology recognizes thirty-two planes of existence some of the higher planes being either states of meditative abstraction or actual domains for the devas. Generally we have direct experience of only two of these 32 planes (those of humans and animals). Planes of existence below these two realms are also said to exist and are characterized by greater degrees of suffering and discomfort. The actual physical location of these planes need not concern us here because the dimensions of the Buddhist universe are even greater than those envisaged by modern astronomy and will contain enough places to accommodate all these planes of existence.We can easily dispose of the devas in the context of the Buddhist attitude to God because the devas are essentially irrelevant to the human situation. Beings are born in the deva-worlds because of particular karmic factors they have accumulated, and after these karmic factors are exhausted they could revert to any of the other planes of existence depending on their unexpended karma. The devas are not particularly endowed with special powers to influence others, and far from saving anyone else they themselves are not "saved". Salvation in Buddhism comes only from full enlightenment, which could be best accomplished from the human plane of existence.

The Vedic and Brahmanical religion of the Buddha's day postulated a large number of gods, many of them personifications of natural forces. However Brahmanical theology had advanced to the point that one of these gods was considered to be superior to all others, and was even considered to be the creator-god (Ishvara). This supreme god could then be considered as the equivalent to the single God of the monotheistic religions which emerged in the Middle East.Different names have been given to the supreme god in the Brahmanical and later Hindu literature, but in Buddhist texts the supreme god is referred to as Mahâ-Brahmâ (or simply Brahmâ) who was the chief of a class of gods called the Brahmâs. Brahmâ of the Buddhist texts may be considered to be the equivalent of the God of the three monotheistic religions that was to emerge in the Middle East. The first of these was Judaism, which promoted one its gods Yahweh as the one God sometime about the 6th century BCE. Next Christianity adopted the same god under the name of Jehovah who is represented as the "Father" of Jesus. Finally Islam adopted the name of Allah for their only God. To get the Buddha's views on God we must therefore consider his views on Brahmâ.One popular misconception of Buddhism must be dismissed at this point. This is view that the Buddha is some kind of God figure. In the Theravada tradition the Buddha is regarded as a supremely enlightened human teacher who has come to his last birth in samsára (the Buddhist cycle of existence). Even Mahayana traditions, which tend to think in terms of transcendental Buddhas, do not directly make a claim for Buddha as God. Thus the Buddha cannot be considered as playing a God-like role in Buddhism.

The Buddhist View of God

In the Buddhist texts Mahâ Brahmâ is represented as claiming the following attributes for himself:"I am Brahmâ, the Great Brahmâ, the Supreme One, the Mighty, the All-seeing, the Ruler, the Lord of all, the Maker, the Creator, the Chief of all appointing to each his place, the Ancient of days, the Father of all that is and will be." (Dîgha Nikáya, II, 263).The Buddha dismisses all these claims of Mahâ Brahmâ as being due to his own delusions brought about by ignorance. He argues that Mahâ-Brahmâ is simply another deva, perhaps with greater karmic force than the other gods, but nonetheless a deva and therefore unenlightened and subject to the samsâric process as determined by his karma. In such Suttas as the Brahmajâla sutta and the Agga¤¤a Sutta the Buddha refutes the claims of Maha Brahmâ and shows him to be subject to karmic law (i.e. cosmic law). Even though long-lived Mahâ Brahmâ will be eliminated in each cycle of inevitable world dissolution and re-evolution. In the Khevadda Sutta Mahâ Brahmâ is forced to admit to an inquiring monk that he is unable to answer a question that is posed to him, and advises the monk to consult the Buddha. This clearly shows the Brahmâ acknowledges the superiority of the Buddha.The Buddhist view is that gods may lead more comfortable lives and be addicted to all the sense pleasures, but in terms of wisdom might be inferior to humans. They are even represented as coming to receive instruction from monks and even lay persons. Later on with the Hindu revival and proliferation of God-cults the Buddhists were increasingly vocal against the pretensions of God and his retinue of lesser gods. Nargarjuna the Indian Buddhist philosopher of the 2nd century CE expressed a commonly shared Buddhist view when he wrote:

The gods are all eternal scoundrelsIncapable of dissolving the suffering of impermanence.Those who serve them and venerate themMay even in this world sink into a sea of sorrow.We know the gods are false and have no concrete being;Therefore the wise man believes them notThe fate of the world depends on causes and conditionsTherefore the wise man may not rely on gods.[Lamotte trans. I, p.141]

In the West a number of "arguments" have been adduced to prove or disprove the existence of God. Some of these were anticipated by the Buddha. One of the most popular is the "first cause" argument according to which everything must have a cause, and God is considered the first cause of the Universe. The Buddhist theory of causation says that every thing must have preconditions for its existence, and this law must also extend to "God" should such an entity exist. But while the "first cause" claims that God creates everything, it exempts God from the ambit of this law. However if exemptions are made with respect to God such exemptions could be made with respect to other things also hereby contradicting the principle of the first cause.But the argument which the Buddha most frequently uses is what is now called the "argument from evil" which in the Buddhist sense could be stated as the argument from dukkha (suffering or un-satisfactoriness). This states that the empirical fact of the existence of dukkha cannot be reconciled with the existence of an omnipotent and omniscient being who is also all good. The following verses from the Bhûridatta Jataka bring this out clearly:

If the creator of the world entireThey call God, of every being be the LordWhy does he order such misfortuneAnd not create concord? If the creator of the world entireThey call God, of every being be the LordWhy prevail deceit, lies and ignorance And he such inequity and injustice create? If the creator of the world entireThey call God, of every being be the Lord Then an evil master is he, (O Aritta) Knowing what's right did let wrong prevail!(Translated by the Author)

The Buddha argues that the three most commonly given attributes of God, viz. omnipotence, omniscience and benevolence towards humanity cannot all be mutually compatible with the existential fact of dukkha.From the Buddhist standpoint the classic theistic statement that "God created man in his (i.e. God's) image" has actually to be reversed. It is man who has created God in his (i.e. man's) image! And as man's own image changes so does that of his God. Thus in the present time with the rise of feminism there is an attempt to change the gender of God from a man to a woman (or perhaps even to a neuter). To liberate himself mankind has to shed his delusions, and one of these is the existence of God.

The God-Concept and Buddhist Principles

Quite apart from explicit statements refuting the God-idea there is a fundamental incompatibility between the notion of God and basic Buddhist principles. We have already mentioned that God cannot be reconciled with the Buddhist notion of causality, which is contained in the theory of "dependent origination" which is one of the discoveries of the Buddha during his enlightenment. Certainly nothing like this theory has been propounded prior to the Buddha.A fundamental Buddhist belief is that all phenomena without exemption (including all animate beings) have three essential characteristics. These are dukkha (explained above), anicca (impermanence), and anattá (insubstantiality, "no-soul"). The attributes of God are not consistent with these universal marks of existence. Thus God must be free from dukkha; he must be eternal (and hence not subject to anicca); finally he must have a distinct unchanging identity (and therefore lack the characteristic of anattá).Another concomitant of the God-idea that is fundamentally incompatible with Buddhism is the belief that God acts as the final judge and could determine if individuals go to heaven or hell. According to Buddhism the destination of individuals is determined by the karmic law, which cannot be interfered by any external process. Only individuals can effect their karmic destinies; even a Buddha cannot "pardon" or otherwise interfere with the karmic process. In Buddhism there is simply no place for a God even if one were to exist.There is also no place for the notion of vicarious salvation, or atonement for human sins by a "suffering" God. The Buddha affirms that "by oneself is kamma done and by oneself is kamma undone". According to Buddhism no one (and this includes gods or God) can save another. This is a cardinal principle of the Buddha, which cannot be reconciled with the declared attributes and actions of God.The Buddhist path to salvation is based on deeds (including mental culture through "meditation") not prayer. God appears to Buddhists to be a vain being expecting all others to pray to him and worship him. Indeed such prayer seems to be the most decisive factor in a person's salvation, not necessarily any good or bad deeds by him. But as mentioned above in Buddhism it is volitional action with determines the karma of an individual.There is no doubt some similarities in the moral codes of Buddhism and some theistic religions. Things like compassion are inculcated in all religions. But in Buddhism this does not arise from a heavenly dictate and there is no limitation in the exercise of these virtues as occurs in some theistic religion. The Persistence of the God-IdeaThe Buddha's refutation of the God-concept was formulated some 2500 years ago, perhaps at the very time that the idea of a single supreme God was mooted in India and in the Middle East. With the rise of modern science, and the discovery of natural causes for phenomena, which were formerly ascribed to the action of God, some philosophers have restated the basic fallacies of the God-hypothesis using modern science and logic (and not the Buddha's Dhamma) as their point of departure. Yet many people in the world formally subscribe to the notion of God. What is the Buddhist explanation for this phenomenon?There are many causes for the persistence of the God-idea. Some of these are induced by social and other factors. These include the institutionalization of theistic religion, the use of vast economic resources to propagate it including the mass media, and the legal right given to parents to impose their religions on their children. There is also the attractiveness of vicarious salvation, or salvation through prayer or forgiveness which permits the committing of many moral crimes for which the doer does not "pay". We shall not consider these here. From the Buddhist point of view the root causes are ignorance and fear, with fear itself ultimately the product of ignorance. Atheistic materialism has failed to dislodge the God-idea not because of any deficiency of its arguments when compared to those put forward by the theists, but because it too has not been able to eliminate ignorance.The ignorance (avijjâ) that is meant here cannot be eliminated by formal education and the propagation of scientific knowledge. After all some leading scientists are themselves completely deluded by theistic suppositions. The progress of science has resulted only in a minor diminution in the power of theistic religion, and in any case theologians have become adept at "reinterpreting" dogma while the general followers continue to do what they have always done.

The Buddha himself grasped the over-pervading nature of ignorance because of his titanic struggle to liberate himself. He even initially displayed some reluctance to propagate his knowledge because of the formidable nature of the task. Nonetheless he proclaimed his knowledge out of compassion for the world because he felt that at least a few "with little dust in their eyes" would be able to benefit fully from his ideas. From the Buddhist point of view the persistence of theism, with all its evil consequences seen in history, is a necessary consequence of the persistence of ignorance.While intellectual and scientific knowledge is not the sole (or even essential) constituent of wisdom it could in the modern world with high levels of educational attainment be a good basis for it. But what is really required is the cultivation of the mind (bhâvanâ, samâdhi). This is usually referred to as "meditation" even though this term is quite inadequate to convey the full implications of what is meant. Many modern-day "meditation teachers" do not give instruction in Buddhist mental culture, and even some of those who claim to do so may take a literal view of a few classic Buddhist texts on the subject. The Buddhist path requires a correct balance between three components: wisdom, morality and mental culture. Progress in all these three areas must be made simultaneously, and exclusive concentration on any one these, especially "meditation" of a highly stylized form, is not the balanced path. The Buddha has asked all his disciples to go to the Dhamma as their guide rather than to specific teachers. The Buddha's final instruction to his followers was to "work out your own salvation with diligence" with the Buddha's teaching (the Dhamma) as the only guide.The path of the Buddha cannot be followed if a person is deluded by the notion of God. This is why a correct understanding of all the ramifications of the God-idea is essential for anyone seeking to progress along the Buddhist path to total liberation.

Culture and Lifestyle

Theme Music: "Love Come Down" by Evelyn Champagne King

Peace,

This past weekend, I facilitated a workshop on Hip Hop & Social Justice. The conversation centered around the direction of the music, the conditions of the community, and how to have the music assist in improving the community's conditions. Usually, I hate convos like this because you tend to get a revisionist yearning for the "good ol days"of Hip Hop when everyone was conscious and positive and everything was good in Black America. This discussion was different, mainly due to the makeup of the participants. There was a good mix of artists, concerned community members, and social activists participating. Additionally, many of the artists were also activists and organizers. Another difference was the discussion of solutions versus bemoaning the current state of hip hop. The workshop was part of a much larger initiative to use the music to help repair and/or develop distressed communities. Here are some of my reflections from the discussion:

- We have to realize that hip hop is neutral, and not positive or negative like many make it out to be. The music will simply reflect the prevailing conditions and mentality of the time. You can't blame the music, you have to blame the conditions that produce the people who make the music. And while you can't change the music, you can help develop the conditions within the community to produce healthier people.

- Regardless of if we want to admit it or not, there is a economic component to this as well. As I've written before, when kids want to be a rapper to make it out of their conditions, then they'll say anything to be rich and famous. We have to create alternatives to the attractive options beyond sports, drugs and hip hop.

- One of the biggest things that we're battling is the idea of a "Hip Hop Lifestyle". The whole idea of a HH lifestyle is to market products to a young and naive demographic who thinks that HH is their Culture for more profits. To them, I say this: If HH is your culture, what does it teach you about women? What does it teach you about politics? How will it ensure your survival? The main reason that people think that HH is a culture is because we exist in a time devoid of a movement (i.e. Civil Rights or Black Power). In the absence of true Culture, the young people cling onto the music as a form of definition. If HH is a culture, that shows the vacuum that we have allowed to exist in the place of a vehicle of development for the youth.

Understanding the Culture

Theme Music: "Politics As Usual" by Hov

Peace, Pardon my delay, as things have been very busy. I had a interview with Wise Intelligent last week, and traveled out of town for the weekend, so I've had plenty to do. I'll cover those things in another post, b.u.t. for now, I'd like to present a email that was sent by my Earth, I Medina Peaceful Earth to a listserv regarding the dress code of women in our nation. In my unbiased estimation (sure), I think she did a great job of explaining the transformation that one goes through when growing into the knowledge of themselves.



Peace Queens, and especially Queen Shamika! Pardon me for the late response to this, but my hotmail was trippin. This has been an interesting topic and I thank all sisters who shared their understanding. This is how we learn and grow together.
Queen Shamika, thank you so much for sharing that wonderful jewel, as this is all of our history, those of us who are striving to be or consider ourselves true and living earths (it's a journey, not a destination), and knowledge me when I say that it has taken a minute for me to gain proper understanding within my own self of this jewel and history, and I'm still workin' at it cause the growin' don't stop. But what you posted cannot be denied in my own mind. You were there from damn near the beginning and helped build this nation and culture, especially in regards to sister's protocol, and you building how you do and lovingly sharing your understanding shows and proves the importance of the preservation of our culture. Many, and I would like to say most sisters throughout the world are refined and it is the devil's civilization and western attire that is the minority (although it has been spreading) and I have to constantly keep this in mind as a woman who strives to be the true and living Earth...not just a positive Black woman, but the Earth, the mother of civilization, who is 3/4ths covered (not hidden), as the only life bearing planet Earth is ( and please understand me when I say in the beginning, I heavily argued, challenged and resisted, so what I am saying now is a reflection of my gradual growth and development over the past year). If I chose this and acknowledge this as my nature, I have to strive to manifest it in as many ways as possible, through breath and depth, from the surface to the core.
So many of our people don't have a culture with principles that serve as a foundation to live out. A lot of cultural people don't live out a culture with identifiable principles that can be taught. But this is the gift that Allah, the Father gave us, and countless others have built, and without a foundation, we are lost in this wilderness and are more vulnerable to being influenced by the culture of America in the mental and physical (and it is powerful!). And I realized that as much as I spoke against America, as much as I detested the United Snakes, I was very American in my personal choices, and unconsciously at the time wanted to continue to reflect that culture, especially through my way of dress. And that's part of that schizophrenia or double consciousness that so many of us are conflicted with. I wanted to be that sexy, revolutionary sista who could speak at rallies, rhyme, spit poetry and rock a J. Lo catsuit at the club with the twins out, 1) because that's how I liked to dress at the time (unaware of the foundation of that), and 2) because I wanted people to see a different representation of a sista with cultural awareness (that you can still be "cute" and don't have to wear a mumu to have some semblance of cultural and political awareness). And I still don't wear mumus (no disrespect to those who do). But I was caught up in that 6 or limitation, thinking every sista had to look the same.
I can now take pride in knowing that I am striving to live out a culture which manifests itself in the mental and the physical. I can speak of cultural awareness and knowledge of self, knowing that I am a part of a living, breathing culture, and am engaged in getting true KOS and have an avenue to live it out wholistically. I can pride myself in knowing that I am a part of a culture that has its' own use of language and family system and that I do not look like everyone else does (although the "Earthy" look has been co-opted over the years to where nowadays, you can't visibly tell who is an earth and who is not). I have to remember that a lot of what is "in style' is dictated by gay white men! And rockin' 3/4ths does not have to separate me from other sisters (this is something I worried about...looking so different, that I would repel). But today, I get much positive acknowledgement from young sisters (who are my largest concern at this point) who know who I am and what I represent and have seen my change, because of how I wear it and the foundation it is built upon. You attract through your knowledge and wisdom, which can bring forth the understanding that my Allah Self Savior doesn't have to be out to be acknowledged, and if it needs to be, then I don't need that kind of attention (and this has been a struggle since middle school...Conscious and unconscious!)
This is our culture and history. It is what we do and how we distinguish ourselves, and I definitely strive to keep it funky. And I feel regal, whether I'm wearing a long skirt made out of some jeans and fabric with my adidas, a fly leather skirt below the knee with some boots, or a skirt with thin breathable fabric that blows in the wind with some sandals. And the response is definitely different, and I am acknowledged as a queen because I look and carry myself like one. First impressions give someone an entry into how they should address you. So what I project is what I will get. And I still have to fight within myself to take the devil off my planet cause those clothes still attract, when I know according to Supreme Mathematics and our history, they are not a right and exact physical representation of the planet Earth as it is seen and lived out within this culture that I advocate. What light am I trying to reflect? What world am I striving to manifest? The Devil's or Allah's? Can I live out Allah World Manifest as the Earth, which is 70% covered with water, with a halter top and a miniskirt? The two didn't add up, and my physical had to reflect more of my mental. I had to get to the root and really ask myself why I wanted to wear clothing that flaunted my hills and mountains. What part of my self-esteem was that serving and was it healthy? Was I objectifying myself and covering it up with shallow reasoning like, "I wear this because it's cute." I had to realize that the point was to be different, and to provide a different representation of a woman for the girls who are around me daily that look up to me. I had to realize that I could not let the Devil's civilization control me, and that I had to master and control my relationship to it.
What I had to come to after questioning and debating was, this is what we do and how we represent ourselves and I can either accept it or reject it, and I grew in to it. I thought I would have to sacrifice my sense of "style," but every thing that I wear is clothing that I choose, that I see as right and exact and fly! Every day, when I choose what to wear, it is a conscious decision to not let the colored man's laws or civilization colonize my mind and body. And I know there are sisters who are more refined or covered than me (i.e. showing no arms or skin at all) and I am thankful that there is diversity within 3/4ths so that every sister does not have to rock it in the same way, like a basic uniform. I am seeing that wearing 3/4ths represents the beauty of an original woman respecting her mental and her physical and distinguishing herself by being a physical representation of a queen, an Earth. Ever notice that in movies or pictures or representations of queens back in the day, they wore beautiful flowing long dresses with crowns? Those who dressed scantily were courtesans, concubines, or common. So I am now seeing the beauty in the historical correlation between past and present.