These are my thoughts on Democracy.

 

I like to separate the problem of ethical and moral behaviour in humanity from the dilemma of how best to select a system to decide how a Country should be “ruled” or managed or “run”. It is sometimes stated that religious faiths of all kinds, if genuinely interpreted, will be a sound basis for a moral and ethical system of governance. True, but…organised religion is very powerful and can produce many deleterious effects, and that is my worry about religion.

 

Whatever system is chosen, the problem of finding how to ensure that those in the system adopt universal moral laws and implement them justly remains a problem. Many have shown how the major Religions are used, and abused not only in Sri Lanka but throughout the world. Being religious has many meanings. A person could label himself/herself as a follower of a particular faith for multiple reasons, and sadly, all too often, the reason does not arise from a proper understanding leading to a true change in behaviour which will benefit that person and also the wider community. We must face the fact that there will always be people who either believe but do not practice or those who do not believe but use it as a tool for selfish gains. That is a fact and has always been so. This must not stop sincere religious leaders from doing their best to spread the message that labels don’t matter but sincerity matters; deeds , not just words.

 

Democracy has many problems. Some have a narrow view of it as a way of ensuring that a majority group in a heterogeneous population are chosen in a fair and open manner to act as representatives of the people. It is implicit that the minority will have to accept that the majority will now act in a way that primarily suits them. This is a problem, as not heeding minority views is highly ethically questionable. In a non-ideal society, this majority may not pay heed to any minority views as they “have been elected by the people through a fair and just process” and their duty is to satisfy their voters. In an ideal society, the majority will do their best to listen, take into account and modify plans where the basic ethos is maintained with some modifications to be fair and “democratic”. They will need to compromise, not dictate, not discard. Various methods have been tried. Proportional representation, a second House, referenda on some key issues etc,

 

But I don’t know of any system that can totally and successfully overcome negative human aspects such as greed (for power and material gain), money, position and nepotism. Voters are often faced with choosing the lesser evil. Voters are also not infallible. Many of them will vote for personal gain, and any expectation that they should think of morality, equality, and fraternity will remain a goal that would probably never be attained. Immoral rulers arise from an immoral society.

 

Setting up an independent judiciary sounds very attractive. It presupposes that this is possible. Do independent, fair, honest, principled people exist? They probably do, but finding them is difficult, especially when their appointment is influenced by those lacking these characteristics.

 

Democracy depends on the majority vote, and many believe that the most able and honest are a minority in society, implying that the system does not allow for them to surface. Plato’s solution was to restrict parliament to those with a certain level of education and ability. This is “undemocratic”! There was a time when a registered voter needed to have a minimum level of education. This, too, makes the mistake that morality and high principles are correlated with age and maturity. Age is taken into account to be more inclusive, suggesting that you are necessarily wiser when you are older. There was a time (in the bad old days) when women were not allowed to vote because they were “inferior”. In the UK long ago, only the rich and elite could vote.

 

A person or a group of people could conclude that they know best, and Dictatorships are born. But it is the principle that matters. No one can take on the mantel of a self-appointed saviour. Theoretically, a benevolent, clever, and honest dictator could be a saviour, quite the opposite of the possibility of a psychopathic, dishonourable one.

Fairness is promoted (so some like to think) by limiting the period of rule, and it does work in some ways but leads to difficulties in implementing plans and short-termism. In a classic 5 year rule, the first year or so is spent undoing the “damage” done by the previous government and the last 2 are spent preparing to maintain power in the next elections.

 

I don’t know what the ideal system is, but until such is found, I favour democracy in a manner that is adapted for each country. I think a second House with minority representatives, religious representatives, and eminent, well-respected people in society is a good thing. I would favour keeping priests of any denomination in their temples, churches, and mosques without political prominence. Providing support to them in community activities that lead to justice, equity, and a more balanced society is reasonable.

 

Most importantly, the justice system has to be robust so that nobody with power, privilege, connections, or influence can escape the rule of law. Punishment in the next birth as a suitable deterrent may work for a few but not for most. Reward and punishment from a Deity have a similar appeal.

LIVING....AND DYING

LIVING....AND DYING

Life is possible only because it is inexorably linked with death. Although we recognised death from a very early stage in our lives, it was something that was there in the background, and we didn’t pay much attention to it and indeed tended to avoid thinking about it as it was not pleasant to be reminded that you and your loved ones are transient. I use the word transient in a relative sense. What is transient is a matter of perception. Your life is transient compared to the life of the Universe! and almost eternal compared to that of a dragonfly.

I am of the opinion that although there are many reasons for the arising of religion, one powerful stimulus was the desire to “extend” your life. Some sort of afterlife is part of all religious beliefs. It provides some comfort and a basis for moral laws. We all like to see “good” being rewarded and “bad” being punished. When examining this, Man inevitably sees something extraordinary beyond his capacity to understand how this operates. He sees a possible mechanism for this to operate through a God or Gods or some “spiritual law”. This causes problems such as why so much hardship and sadness exists in the presence of a God who is apparently either choosy, hasn’t got the power, or is non-existent. Any doubt about the power He is alleged to have is overcome by a belief or faith that, although it appears so, we cannot appreciate the true nature of the grand design. What we see as His failure is in fact our failure.

Man requires some sort of “immediate” reassurance when in difficulty. The Buddhist concept of Nirvana is too distant and is of little help in these situations, hence the intermingling of mainly Hindu concepts, such as worshipping deities and inanimate objects, such as statutes, throughout the cultural history of Buddhism. They can postpone the attainment of Nirvana for a future birth but do enough good now to keep their merit score high enough not to stray from the path.

What am I leading to? Firstly, to accept that death is real and without it, paradoxically, life is not possible. Secondly, we cannot take our material possessions with us at the journey's end. Thirdly, if human beings have the capacity to determine what the absolute “truth” is, they have not yet done so. If they had done so conclusively, there would be only one Religion. I think we must recognise the importance of faith (saddha), reverence and the comfort it provides to many. We can debate and form our conclusions on an intellectual dimension, but this is separate from aspects of human need.

The final question is whether we have the capacity to understand reality by mere intuition or through rational sifting of evidence through learning. The Buddhist philosophy implies that intuition is possible.

This leads me to believe we should be humble, understand the needs of others, be empathetic, be nonjudgmental, and think beyond the material universe. Death reminds us of our common destiny, the need to live in the present, and the need to cultivate our minds more than our physical aspects.

EVOLUTION, MORALITY, NATURAL SELECTION, ADAPTATION, SURVIVAL. SELFISH GENE

EVOLUTION, MORALITY, NATURAL SELECTION, ADAPTATION, SURVIVAL. SELFISH GENE

Mahendra February 10^th , 2024

Welcome to my first post in 2024. 

The Theory of Evolution is now almost universally accepted as a scientific fact. There are aspects within the general theory that are very clear and unambiguous, but some of the terms used above create some ambiguity.

The use of the term “selfish” is unfortunate as it implies “agency”. Only an agent (a sentient being with an image of self) can be selfish. To say that a gene is selfish implies that it has agency. Of course, it may not have been used in a literal sense, but it has caused a lot of damage as it has made evolution appear to promote selfish societies with no moral values.

The ultimate mechanism for spontaneous variation and evolution of change over time is the random mutations that occur in genes. As I understand it, these are entirely random and can manifest physically (? And non-physically) as a whole range of possibilities. These possibilities are also random and not directed in any way. What then happens is purely a result of those that have a better reproductive or survival value being “chosen”, and not by a thing that chooses but by the simple fact of what is best suited to survive. If evolution is driven directly via mutations which are needed, that implies that the environment somehow dictates the mutation process to follow a favourable path. This is not so. A whole random range is produced, and the winner is the one with the best chance to survive, merely through a perfectly natural process, and those produced which are not suitable just do not survive. This explains why evolution has to be thought of in the context of a massive scale of time. If purposeful mutation has occurred, the whole process would be shortened, but… an explanation is then required on how these purposeful mutations occur, and it will be very tempting to postulate a grand designer. 

Survival must be considered in the context of time (age) and species. In the lowest form, physical attributes will play a large part, such as a long neck (giraffe) or number of limbs, flexibility of joints, skin pigmentation, presence of hair etc. But at a higher level, surely behavioural characteristics must come into play. If that is so, it then implies that behavioural characteristics must also be heritable so that the advantage that promoted survival must be transmissible to the next generation, which is key and central to the theory of evolution. 

It is often mistakenly thought (in my view) that favourable behavioural characteristics have an underlying moral principle. This has the danger of making nature “personal” and possibly the design of a higher power. In my view, it is just basic material sense that drives the process. This explains why “bad” things still happen, as, in a purely mechanistic sense, a “bad” thing could be the best solution. But if we think of survival and its importance, then it is clear that as species become more and more complex, attributes such as cooperative behaviour, empathy, loving-kindness, and generosity will enhance the propagation of a species. “Moral” behaviour then becomes sensible behaviour to be automatically encouraged or supported by the process of evolution. This, again, needs a long-term perspective. We must not think that we can change the nature of future species or our own species by short-term measures applicable to the infinitely tiny time we occupy the universe If behavioural changes are heritable, then they will influence future generations and future species in a direction that we consider “moral”, but as it is a process of automatic selection and not driven by a designed perfect mechanism, there will always be heterogeneity in species behaviour as well as in species physical attributes.

We are also not slaves to evolution as a society; we must understand evolution but not treat it as something we cannot influence. We must not fall into the trap of determinism and inevitability. We must also keep reminding ourselves that to think of Evolution, we must think long-term. The whole process is driven by the need for survival, mediated via genes and natural selection. To murder your opponent sometimes may be a good strategy purely in terms of survival, but our intervention with the moral aspects of such a deed will create a better Society and inevitably, if behaviour traits are heritable, create better societies in the future; but it won't happen overnight, not even in a few generations.

We owe a lot to Charles Darwin for his research and intellectual abilities. But we must not forget the contribution of Alfred Russel Wallace, who almost simultaneously had the same thoughts as Darwin. Until the theory of evolution was propounded, it was not easy to debunk the Designer theory favoured by theistic religions. Evolution provides the best explanation for the blindingly vast variety of life and its progression through so many different stages in the space of millions of years. But in my mind, the emergence of a sophisticated animal which Home Sapiens is, and so different in intellectual capacity to any other animal past or present, quite so late in the scale of time living beings have existed, still needs an answer.

DESTINY 2023 DECEMBER

What is Destiny 

Distinction between fate and destiny. Is our future programmed and immutable? 

Predictive factors.

Genetics

Family history

Environment.

? Built-in longevity.

Upbringing, parents, influential teachers, relatives

Habits and lifestyle

Exposure to risk factors

Predictable natural disasters

Conscious decisions on life events.

Availability or, lack of, choices

Religion. 

Karma

God's will, design

Is there free will?

Universal trends, such as the certainty that the sun will die and the Milky Way and Andromeda will clash.

Living in times and places of danger.

Thoughts on the present, past and future

Thoughts on the past, present and future

We are often advised to live in the present moment and not think about the lapsed past and the yet to come future. At any one moment in time, there are overlapping circles of the past, the present and the anticipated future. The past cannot be changed, but lessons can be learnt and a better present and future could result. Dwelling on regrets and remorse is unproductive. Wishing things went differently is “wishful” thinking.

There is another aspect of recollecting the past that could be of benefit. The past has not only bad memories but many good ones. Reflecting selectively on the pleasant ones will bring a smile to your face, and is free of charge! You can indulge in playback of happy events in visual,  auditory forms with associated emotions which give you enjoyment. 

Thinking of the future is essential for safe and meaningful living. It often requires good decisions based on past experience and present conditions. What is not productive is to speculate on every possibility leading to paralysis of decision making and bad outcomes.

By all means accept that the present moment is the only one accessible now but it does not follow that reflecting on the past and on the anticipatory future is worthless - it is quite the opposite, it helps to make best use of the current moment.

A Point of View on why Sri Lanka has failed

I have a very controversial theory of why Sri Lanka has failed. A misunderstanding and misinterpretation of Buddhism has led to a self-serving and dangerously detached attitude where personal development in a material sense does not matter at all. What matters is a healthy accumulation of merit, or “ping”, to ensure that your next birth is comfortable. This also goes with an attitude of superiority over other beliefs and a self-centred view of what is good. Christians do far more charitable activities (may not always be for the right reasons) than Buddhists, who spend a fair amount of time, money and effort on monks and temples and on insurance for the after life.. 

 I know these views are very controversial, but I am constantly reminded by devout Sinhalese Buddhists how special they are when they manage to find time to speak to you between temple visits and pandering to Buddhist priests. I hasten to add that this is NOT a criticism of Buddhism. Methta Karuna Muditha are central concepts and service to fellow human beings follow these like the shadow follows  the ox. 

 Here is my final thought. Just imagine the impact it would make if Buddhist priests talked more about helping fellow countrymen by working hard, sharing their wealth and spending more of their time to see a happier and more equal society rather than harping on giving up attachments and spending time trying to attain the "ultimate bliss of Nirvana" which is wholly centred around the non-existent "self".

People would also realise that this life matters because you can do so many things to help others who are less fortunate. We must use our skills and resources to help build a safer and better society, not retreat into a forest or temple to help ourselves. Material good matters because food, shelter, housing, and health care cannot improve without investment and collective effort. Stop worrying about your next birth or Nirvana and do a better job of the current one, not just for you but for as many fellow travellers as possible