Nature: The Unrepresented Shelter

The most one-sided equation

On a morning walk today to explore a new part of Singapore, it occurred that whilst there aren’t acres and acres of free land, there is a very rich biodiversity in the tranches of land that are guarded and kept as nature would have it. Singapore ranks number 1 in the world on the MIT Green View Index, which is a measure of tree concentration. It’s name as the Garden City certainly something it continues to live up to. ~50% of Singapore is “green” in the sense of being trees, lakes or other greenery. On the walking path today I saw a complete cross-section of the two, one moment in depths of nature with aquatic animals and lizards, and within just ten minutes, back in the typical concrete urban set up. Singapore is a good, or great example of how a City should have its “nature v man-made” ratio managed. Who sets the ratio? Who bargains? Who are the actors, or stakeholders? Well, on the one side there is the “non-human” composition of Earth, and the other side is the human. When the human, full of desire and self-serving ambition decides to “go get”, where can they get anything from? Of course, it’s the non-human Earth. Gems, oil, and other natural resources form the bedrock of the “real economy”, and are the means to humans achieving what is in their eyes, their potential. So the ambitious human, needs to get something. If I wanted a building from another human, I can’t simply walk in and own it, I need to bargain. Have I got the credit line? Am I a worthy owner? After this, the owner may or may not decide to let me buy the premises. It comes with a price tag. On walking out of the mangroves this morning, I was reflecting that it should be appreciated that the designers have given a much greater bandwidth for nature that most other places. But who bargained? Did nature name a price? Did nature check the credit line? Or the worthiness of the human race to exploit it like it’s being exploited all over the world? Nature is silent; there will be no protest.

Opinions & Perspectives

Between 1946 and 1958 the United States conducted nuclear testing off an island called Bikini Atoll. They exploded 23 nuclear bombs in the sea, 42.4 TNT of explosive power; this is more than Hiroshima and Nagasaki atom bombs combined. Prior to the tests, the natives living on the island were gathered some for testing. They were told that the work the United States were doing was for furthering the will of God, Jesus Christ. The natives firstly not knowing any better, and secondly being helpless in the midst of US power, just tried to stay as clear as they could, but of course ended up deformed for multiple generations. It was the perspective of the US that US hegemony was the way to go. The other perspectives clearly would have varied, or at least been up for debate. Were these means to stop further aggression from Imperial Japan, and the Nazis, and keep such things at bay? Certainly many “facts” were disclosed at the time to support this. Just as they were before the assassination of Sadam Hussain. Or were these things not absolutely necessary, but things you can do when you have power, just because you can? We’re only discussing this now since the United States revealed under the Clinton administration in the 1990s the secret initiatives they were undertaking since it is part of their rules. If not, we would not even know of this. 

There is no doubt that so-called facts and evidence can be engineered, manipulated, in order to meet specific ends. Lessons from history, and stories of vice and virtue can help illustrate that the recent phenomena of fake news, misinformation, is anything but new; it might be using new tools, but as the Bible says, there is nothing new under the Sun. In the Mahabharata, the devious and deceptive cousins the Kauravas had schemed to send the Pandava brothers to the forest for 12 years, plus one year in disguise, such that if they were recognised in the last year, they would have to go again for 12 years. In the last year, the Kauravas sent an army to a kingdom called Matsya where there was word that the Pandavas were hiding. The elder Kurus who hastily went to support the Kauravas on their request, they wanted to sit on the fence as they didn’t want to openly support the righteous Pandava brothers out of fear of being locally reprimanded, or have their income and support stopped from the kingdom since they were ruling. They had a soft spot for the virtuous Pandavas, but were effectively silenced. When the eldest Kaurava, Prince Duryodhana asked the elders to confirm that if the Pandavas are recognised at this time, then it would mean they would need to be exiled again. Kripa, a priestly teacher said that it is not entirely clear whether identifying them would qualify or not to send them back again. Bhishma, a more outspoken Kuru, said that it was very clear for him that identifying them now was too late as their 13th year is already finished based on the location of the planets. Duryodhana disputed this, claiming that what he says is the truth, simply by virtue of him saying it, although he had no other basis for it. In this way, you have three different views on the “truth”, which were all being contested by different parties. They had different agendas, priorities, and needs. Kripa didn’t want to burn a bridge either side. Duryodhana clearly wanted the kingdom at any expense. The most impartial could be argued to be Bhishma since his opinion was also least likely to be self-serving, but Duryodhana and his team also picked holes in it saying that he is always partial to the Pandavas from the beginning. So there will always be these three things; opinions and perspectives.

Reality is One

On an absolute level, there was a definitive answer to whether the Pandavas had really completed the due term of their exile. There was also a definitive answer to the threat that Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany posed. The issue that clouds these, are agendas, mostly selfish, some ideological, and then on top of this our imperfect ability to see the reality due to the reasons discussed last week on our several shortcomings in perception. The mainstream certainly take full advantage of our somehow inherent inability to perceive truth due to preoccupation with self-interest. Therefore, what we connect with must not be linked to this selfish side of humans. The safestay, is therefore nature. The innocence of the flows of water, the soaring swift birds gliding hundreds of meters high barely visible to the eye, the morning dew simmering in the renewed rays of sunlight. These are our safestays. We must remember that nature didn’t come to the bargaining table, but it is ever-existing. It is deeply connected with us in ways we do not have the perception to understand. Indeed we are made of it, we are part of it, and we would do ourselves well to better understand it. This connection is not serving propaganda, or other self-interests, but is serving our best interests, which are inextricably interwoven with the planet. Coming from this perspective, we will develop opinions that are aligned with the reality, and aligned with truth. 

“In valour Rama is comparable to Vishnu, and in his looks he is attractive like the moon, he equals the Earth in his forgiveness.”

Narada Muni to Sage Valmiki, 1.1.18-19a, Bala Kanda, Book of Youthful Majesties, Ramayana

Genuine Openness: Perception & Selectiveness

Perception

Life is a funny process. Another year ends, and another begins. The only thing we have guaranteed to take with us is more experience. What is the quality of our experiences? What have they bought to us? It's important we are clear on what biases shape our psyche so that we are genuinely receptive to the arrangements in the world and our lives in a manner that is independent-minded and true to who we are. With more knowledge doesn’t necessarily come happiness. Yesterday morning I went to a bar to watch a mixed martial arts event, UFC 219. Being New Years Eve, there was practically no one there, but there was a festive atmosphere. I asked the bar lady whether they were showing the event. She asked for detail and I explained. She said in her mid-western accent, “Sure we can play it, but there’s gonna be no sound cos there’s gonna be kiddies comin' soon.” A few hours in, and a lady came in dressed as a clown, red lipstick covering almost the entire width of her face, a multi-coloured skirt and a baggy top. It was just me and her at the bar. Having forgotten about the kids party, I was initially thinking it could be someone with an odd taste, perhaps not all quite up there in the head. I then realised the kids might be having a party, and that it’s probably the clown for the party. We had some odd exchanges; I initially gave her a concerned look, and she gave me quite a straight look in return. In the facial exchange it was almost an exchange being responded to with a confirmation that she was there for a job. She spent a good half hour blowing up and tying balloons into different shapes. As it approached noon, many parents began to come in with their kids. After sitting down and ordering their food, some of the kids would individually approach the clown and she would give them a small gift. The way they approached was a stark contrast to how they behaved at their table with their parents. On the table they made noise, and were comfortable and familiar. When they approached the clown, they were shy, a little hesitant, but had an air of excited nervousness, which created a sense of anticipation on how the clown would react to them. Feeling very happy, they went back to their table and with great excitement and explained to their parents what they had received. My observing the clown before any kids were present; she understood I was there to watch the event on the big screen, and I knew she was there doing her job as a clown. Both as human beings getting on with activities which we both understood, there was a level of transparency. This comes about as we grow up and learn about things one tends to do in life i.e. work to sustain oneself.  For the kids however, the equation was totally different. They have a concept of a clown, not that it’s a human being who puts some face paint on, some different dress, and presents themselves as a clown. They just see a clown, and this is what they saw. There was a huge difference in my reaction, interaction, and what I got out of the clown verses what the children got from the clown. For them, it made almost a magical experience, for me the clown was just a distraction.

Selectiveness

As a kid in the UK, pre-Christmas holidays were some of the best times. I recall waiting for the TV guide when newspapers and magazines would publish what would be on TV, and the Christmas Eve, Day and New Years Eve and Day would have amazing films on, which coupled with food, family and games would make for an incredible time. The anticipation factor in this was huge. Seeing which films were on, following the football games over the period, and finally the anti-climax of going back to school. Films are now on tab online, as is almost any commodity. The interactional element cannot be commoditised, but our mentalities can drift that way. Getting a football shirt when at school as a gift, then showing it to everyone at school was a big deal. When we are older we can have all of those things, however the bliss perhaps isn’t the same as a kid receiving them. Faith and knowledge have an interesting relationship. The magic of Christmas, takes faith to believe in it. In the same way I dissected the clown in my head, if we dissect Christmas using logic, according to the way we celebrate, there isn’t much of a link. Christmas is a celebration of the birth of Christ, who was effectively from the Middle-East, and by no stretch of our imagination anything to do with the West. In fact, Jesus was geographically closer to Africa and India than he is to the West. So why not represent Jesus in this way as a clearly having Middle Eastern origin? Why the Santa Clause? Reindeer, and so many other things? This is selectiveness. I enjoy the Christmas spirit as much as the next person does, but it’s things we create in our heads and put faith in, and therefore feel a certain way about Christmas. A few weeks ago, there was a documentary about a baby elephant stuck in a hole in India. The person taking the video went very close to the elephant to the point you would very clearly see the elephants eyes, mouth, tongue and trunk in great detail. We are typically used to seeing elephants from afar, however seeing it from close gives much more realisation of how real a creature it is. The sound of an elephant is over 100 decibels, which is as loud as a jet flying 1,000 feet in the sky and they weigh up to 7 tonnes.  I guess this is what the term “up close and personal” also relates to. The elephant was so real, but yet so unbelievable as a species. If we had no idea that such a thing as an elephant exists, and someone purely gave a description, I have little doubt many people would easily dismiss it. 

Though technology and society are moving with pace, even to the extent they are fast changing human psychology, habits and motivations, there is a “naturalness” to connecting with existence and embracing that there are many things we simply cannot understand through our limited perceptions and misplaced faith in things. There is a sense of open mindedness that comes with mentally being aligned with natures many manifestations and learning to live our lives in a way that has a greater sense of harmony with these. This way we will experience the bliss of a child rather than distraction of an adult.

The mind is the instrument for feeling different material experiences, but intelligence is deliberative and can change everything for the better. The intelligent person therefore can attain salvation from the illusion of material existence by proper use of intelligence. The Vedas