A few quick thoughts on marriage equality and the upcoming Australian postal plebiscite (or survey):

In recent years many Western countries have been able to pass through laws enabling marriage equality. Australia by comparison has lagged behind on this issue, due largely to the fact that a conservative government has been in power during the period in which the issue has been at the forefront of current affairs. That is not to say that there weren’t people pushing for marriage equality prior to 2013. There were, and there were nations that had already passed legislation to allow it prior to then. However, the past 4 years (or so) have seen many Western nations (the US, the UK and NZ to name a few) following suit and changing the legislation surrounding same-sex marriage (lets call it SSM for short).

Certainly, if Labor (or any other left-leaning political party) were to take power in Australia (now[i]), there is no question that a marriage equality bill would simply be passed through government. The Liberal party however have been adamant that if marriage equality is to be passed under their power that there will be a plebiscite, in which all Australians get to vote. Their reasoning has generally been that in matters such as this it is important to let everyone have their say.

Labor and the Greens have however blocked the previous attempts to enforce a plebiscite. Conservatives have treated this as a matter of hypocrisy[ii], or have argued that progressives fear that they would fail to get a winning vote. The polls however have repeatedly shown that the majority of Australians support marriage equality. The reason why Labor and the Greens shot down the previous plebiscite bill was that it was very expensive (I believe $170 million?), and that it was going to provide tax-payer money to both yes and no groups, effectively giving federal funding to a public anti-marriage equality campaign (as well as the pro campaign).

Conservatives that oppose marriage equality ask what is wrong with that, for government funding to go to those that insist on upholding a “traditional conception of marriage”, and allowing everyone to have their vote? Such people consider it to be a perfectly reasonable thing to oppose SSM, and feel offended that they get labelled bigots for merely expressing their opinion. The problem is this: Opponents of SSM have presented numerous arguments against it, but they are all completely erroneous. Every. Single. One. That is, there are lots of reasons why some people oppose SSM, but not one single good reason. I’m not going to go in-depth into all such arguments here. If you wish to read such arguments, you can start with the following links[iii].

Opponents of SSM argue that it would change the definition of marriage, and therefore it wouldn’t really be marriage at all. That is, they argue that marriage has always been defined as the union of a man and woman, for life, and for the purpose of bringing up children in a safe and stable environment. The thing is, that if we want to be frank, a major part of the traditional (and yes, Biblical) conception of marriage was as the purchasing of property (the woman) from her father to the husband. Fortunately most of us in somewhat modern cultures do not see marriage in this way anymore, but rather consider marriage to be a legal recognition of a life-long romantic partnership. We do not see the husband as owning the wife, but rather we (ideally at least) see them as equal partners.

As for the children part, many heterosexual people get married and do not have children, many by choice. LGBTI people already have legal access to IVF and adoption, and recognition of their unions as marriage will not change that in any way. Hence, if you are to deny LGBTI people access to marriage on the basis of it being strictly for the raising of children, perhaps you ought to divorce straight couples that have not children.

As such, given that the modern conception of marriage is as a legal recognition of a committed romantic partnership, there is no reason why this should apply only to heterosexual couples, and not to the LGBTI community. Words and concepts frequently evolve over time, and this is another example of such evolution. Not so long ago racism was largely accepted by mainstream society, and whilst it still certainly exists today, a significant percentage of modern people in Western nations will not tolerate it. It wasn’t even so long ago that women in Western nations were denied many of the rights given to men, and whilst there are still some legitimate areas for feminists to keep fighting, much ground was been won in this regard.

Regarding, the Liberal parties original plebiscite bill, it proposed giving taxpayers money to anti SSM lobbyists. Can you imagine a government giving federal funding to a racist organization to publish anti-Semitic material on television, in newspapers or on billboards? Can you imagine a government providing funding to a men’s rights group to petition the withholding of women’s rights?

Over the past few weeks we have constantly seen vile homophobic garbage in the media, from Bronwyn Bishops comments comparing SSM to bestiality and infanticide[iv], to the “Stop the fags” posters that have been showing up in Melbourne[v]. This is exactly why Labor and the Greens have opposed Liberals plans to host a plebiscite on marriage equality, as it is simply giving a voice to awful, irrational hatred that doesn’t deserve to be heard. Furthermore, the postal survey isn’t even a formal plebiscite, but rather a yes vote will simply lead to a vote in parliament. Hence, the whole thing can certainly be argued to be a gigantic waste of time and money.

Holding awful opinions doesn’t necessarily make someone an outright awful person:

Ultimately, I have to say that I think that the only reason why anyone would object to SSM is that they are homophobic. I happen to have a significant amount of family (and perhaps a few friends) that are openly homophobic, some virulently so. I personally feel that such opinions are equivalent to anti-Semitism; that is they are completely irrational, and downright ugly.

I do think however that we should avoid defining people completely by such opinions. That is, I know of many wonderful people that hold awful opinions. Human beings are complex creatures, and people temporarily identify with a range of different beliefs, seeking identity with religious, philosophical, political, racial and national groups. And yet, all beings are Spirit, and therefore have infinite worth and unlimited potential to shine forth radiance into the world. Most people have a mixture of strengths and weaknesses, and may largely help other people, whilst still being held back by erroneous beliefs.

It is important to remember that beliefs, opinions and even behaviour can change, and that these things do not define the true Self. Rather, the true Self is eternal and unchanging, always accessible when the mind is still. Homophobia is one of the many symptoms of ego and illusion. Whilst we should stand up for what is true and good, we can simultaneously hold sympathy for those that are suffering from illusion, fear and hate.

There is much more that can be said on this topic, but this will suffice for today. May we treat each other with respect and dignity, find love within, and be an example of how love can express itself in the world at large.

Peace

[i] Labor previously opposed same-sex unions prior to 2009.

[ii] As in Australian progressives had the chance to vote in marriage equality, but they themselves shot it down.

[iii] An example of a case against same-sex marriage “10 reasons why homosexual marriage is harmful and must be opposed”: https://www.tfpstudentaction.org/blog/10-reasons-why-homosexual-marriage-is-harmful-and-must-be-opposed. See for yourself, all the arguments are baseless.

“18 arguments against gay marriage – and why they’re all bollocks”:

http://www.mamamia.com.au/arguments-against-gay-marriage-rick-morton/

“Common arguments against gay marriage”: https://www.thoughtco.com/moral-and-religious-arguments-250095

“I oppose same-sex marriage – (and no, I’m not a bigot) by Michael Jensen”: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-28/jensen-i-oppose-same-sex-marriage-(and-no,-im-not-a-bigot)/6502850 .   He claims that perhaps many people simply haven’t heard a sensible argument against same-sex marriage. In truth however, his argument simply consists of “it won’t be marriage as we know it; it will change the definition of it.” We have already heard that, and no, it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

[iv] Bronwyn Bishop links same-sex marriage to bestiality and infanticide: https://twitter.com/skynewsaust/status/894887903158910976?lang=en.

[v] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-21/advocates-slam-anti-lgbti-poster-on-melbourne-street/8828566.

Star Wars and spirituality:

I’m a big Star Wars fan. Growing up I was warned by my (Christian) family to be weary of the Eastern philosophy spouted by Obi Wan and Yoda when they were teaching Luke Skywalker about The Force. Obviously, I do not share the concern of my family for Eastern philosophy; rather I think that they have the subject of religion largely back-to-front. That is, from my perspective it seems that conservative Christians attempt to twist fine metaphysical concepts from Eastern spirituality in an attempt to make them appear bad, whilst defending the very deep and explicit flaws within their own faith and sacred text.

Anyways, there is obviously no question that the concept of The Force was directly influenced by Eastern philosophy. I believe George Lucas has spoke of this openly. Star Wars is an important part of the modern psyche, and in many ways is the modern equivalent to the mythology of India or Greece, which often taught spiritual principles intertwined with an epic story of heroes and villains.

It is of course not uncommon for mythology to reflect common religious ideas, or to expand upon and develop them, or even to combine elements from different religions together and therefore create a new mythos. A number of prominent Christian fiction authors (C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien) have explicitly infused their writings with Christian theology. Likewise, there are countless science fiction books and movies, which have directly reflected existing spiritual worldviews, or expanded upon them.

As such, many spiritual teachers have at times used examples and language from Star Wars as a means of communicating with their students. I for one enjoy such things. However, I have also seen examples of conservative Christian apologists using the concept of The Force as presented in Star Wars as a means of attempting to demean Eastern spirituality. Hence, I would like to discuss this

Star Wars presents The Force as a kind of spiritual field that interpenetrates all life, from which everything gains its strength, from which force-users (Jedi, Sith and others) can draw supernatural power, and into which all life will eventually return. The Force is not said to favour light or dark, but rather is presented as essentially morally neutral, with the light and dark simply existing as opposite poles of its wholeness. Over the course of the canon (which goes forwards, then backwards, then fills various gaps…) we learn that it is the destiny of most beings to simply merge with The Force at death, and that retaining a degree of individuation after death is a rare feat only attained by a handful of Jedi.

Certainly there are parallels here to many different religions and philosophies. Once can certainly see parallels in the Jedi philosophy to Buddhism and Hinduism (amongst other Dharmic spirituality), Daoism and so forth. I have even heard it suggested that the primal battle between light and dark is parallel to Zoroastrianism, though one could just as easily claim the same of Christianity, or perhaps Manichaeism.

One of the clearest parallels though is obviously between the concept of The Force and the impersonal conception of God in Hinduism – Brahman. Brahman is explained in Advaita Vedanta philosophy as the substratum of reality, the ground of all being. All things exist within Brahman, and Brahman exists within all things as the Atman. The entire cosmos is but Brahmans grand divine dream, and the multitude of seemingly (but not actually) individual entities are asleep to their true nature, unaware of the greater reality that unites them, that exists within them, and that they exist within.

Conservative Christian apologists frequently attempt to portray this conception of Brahman in derogatory terms, as if it were not truly a conception of God, but rather a nihilistic non-existence, lacking love, life and so forth. On a number of occasions I have even seen Christian apologists attempt to claim that Eastern and New Age conceptions of God as impersonal lack any moral substance, but are morally neutral, like The Force, simply having a light and dark side, with no greater pure nature. This however is quite misleading.

Hindu spiritual texts state that Brahman is pure unconditional love, peace, infinite potential for manifest life, a great Mind without boundaries. The Sanskrit terms for this are Sat-Chit-Ananda, meaning (Infinite) existence, consciousness and bliss. Vedanta texts and seers both ancient and modern are quite clear that the dualities of the manifest creation are not contained within Brahman. That is, the nature of Brahman is peace, absolute unbounded love, and unity. This is happiness that is not dependent upon any circumstance, situation or person, and it can never be diminished nor disappear. It is always there, shining like the sun, and it can only ever appear to be obscured, but can never be extinguished.

The question of how one can equally accept the existence of a supreme reality that is absolutely pure, and simultaneously acknowledge the reality that the world we live in is filled with suffering, injustice, hate, violence and so forth is one that has long plagued theologians and philosophers. Christians have their own explanation, that God gave us all free-will in order to give life true meaning, and that humanity and some of the angels chose to disobey God and exercise our free-will in distancing ourselves from all that was good.

Many religions and philosophical systems over the years have attempted to answer this question. I feel personally that possibly the best answer to the question is to simply acknowledge the reality that this is something that we cannot really do justice to. That is, any answer I could give would largely depend on the perception of a larger picture, which would be largely (if not wholly) impossible for me to verify.

I will concede that naturalists perhaps have the simplest explanation for the suffering and injustice we perceive in the world at large, and I am not going to attempt to respond to the general claims of naturalism here. Rather, I am talking about how spiritual worldviews as a whole have to deal with the problem of suffering and evil.

The questions of evil and suffering are inherently difficult for any and all religions and systems of spiritual philosophy to explain, and I understand why many people feel that they are a deal-breaker for all beliefs in a benevolent Supreme Being. I am not going to attempt a proper exploration of this topic here, however I wish to make a point that this is a problem that all religions and spiritual philosophies must bear almost equally.   That is, Christian apologists and theologians cannot expect to side step their own responsibilities but then expect other faiths to bear the burden of this enigma alone.

From my own experience I would state that the material world is indeed filled with extreme polar opposites. Love and hate, life and death, pleasure and pain, success and failure, health and disease, prosperity and poverty, peace and violence, justice and injustice. Such is the nature of this world. And yet, we all have access to this great love that is within us at all times. It is always there, it is not dependent upon our state of health, our wealth, our age, the colour of our skin, our gender, our place within our community, or the state of the world around us. This love always exists, and we can choose to move into it through grace in harmony with self-effort. Such is the nature of reality.

This is what Advaita Vedanta teaches, and it can be directly experienced, not merely as a theoretical, intellectual conception, but as a living, breathing reality. I however am not merely claiming that Advaita Vedanta is the only religious or philosophical system to have taught this, or to have lead human beings into this experience. Rather, as a Perennialist I acknowledge that human beings from almost every nation, race and time period have experienced this same reality, though I do not claim that every religion equally represents this truth. Although I may critique the claims of conservative Christians and Muslims, I have no doubt that many amongst their ranks truly experience the peace of God in their hearts, even if I will still passionately argue that the doctrines of their faith (and the scriptures they hold sacred) do not accurately represent God in truth. Likewise, I will still argue that many of the world’s religions also simultaneously profess ideas that in actuality lead humanity away from the peace of God, and I don’t limit this criticism strictly to the Abrahamic faiths (but rather, I attempt to see objectively the strengths and weaknesses of the worlds faiths as they actually are).

Getting back to Star Wars, the picture of The Force as presented by George Lucas doesn’t seem to show the ultimate superiority of the light over the darkness. In this respect, this simply shows the choice of the founder of the mythos to create his own fictional universe in a way he chooses. This does not reflect back upon Eastern and New Age spirituality though. This is art imitating life, and one cannot then turn it around and criticize life on the basis of art.

There are indeed some amongst the vast world of ideas that do indeed claim that reality is fundamentally amoral, or morally neutral. From what I can see, it is largely those that seek to practice the black arts (whether or not they have any real, objective power) that espouse such views. That is, it is only really occultists and sorcerers that operate without any sense of right or wrong that seek to justify their beliefs and actions with such a philosophy. I believe that Anton LaVey is well know to have claimed that there is but one power in the universe, and that those that seek to only use it for light are fooling themselves into creating a false dichotomy, deluding themselves into thinking they are different from those that are happy to call on occult forces to harm others. LaVey does not speak for the spiritual community at large though; his was not the voice of Eastern philosophy or the New Age community as a whole.

One can argue as to whether strictly pantheistic worldviews believed in a moral purity behind the apparent duality of life. Such things are indeed up for debate. Perennialism and general Eastern philosophy are not merely strict pantheism however, though pantheism is part of their explanation of reality. I do know of many amateur philosophers that likewise espouse a form of moral neutrality. I would question how many of them have truly attempted to construct a systematic worldview. It is fine to speculate, but I am not convinced that such worldviews have truly been completely thought out.

Anyways, my point is that those that seek to artificially deride other religions have at times directly misused analogies from Star Wars in applying to real-life religions and spiritual philosophy. Let us remember that fear leads to anger, and anger leads to hate, and hate leads to suffering.

May The Force be with you, always.

James

Ego identity and football:

Roughly six months ago I was having dinner with friends and discussing politics, and a mate of mine made an observation in response to some of my own thoughts about the rise of political far-right. Politics isn’t football.

I live in Victoria, Australia. We have rugby and soccer like most other countries, but we also have our own form of football: Aussie rules. I like Aussie rules football, it’s a great game. I enjoyed playing it at school, and I still enjoy a kick of the footy with friends. I don’t necessarily always like the culture that goes with it though.

I understand that for many people, that statement is tantamount to blasphemy. A significant percentage of men and women in this country live and breathe football. That is, they don’t merely appreciate the game, but rather they are totally consumed by it. Football fans of all ages often get quite obsessed with their team, and allow their emotions to be controlled by the results of the latest game. That is, grown men (and women) get angry and upset when their team loses, and can even sulk for days (or weeks) after a loss. Grown men and women scream obscenities at the players (on both sides), umpires and supporters of other teams. And of course, excessive alcohol consumption only makes this worse.

All forms of football are quite physical, and by very nature players come into physical contact with other players. Whilst players accept this, it is common for it to be taken too far, contact becomes excessive, and those on the receiving end resort to knee-jerk reactions, and brawls are the result. Fortunately, Aussie rules football fans don’t generally riot, as do soccer fans worldwide (or Ice Hockey fans in the US). So perhaps then, in this respect they are relatively restraint.

Anyways, the point is that sports fans often allow their emotions to be controlled by events that are completely beyond their control. A victory brings on a euphoric high, and a loss brings a gut-wrenching low. Whilst I admire the skill, fitness and intelligence required to play the game well, football players themselves sometimes get overtaken by an inflated image of themselves, or take on an overtly harsh personality as a result. It is good to be strong, but power and strength can have both positive and negative manifestation.

All this being so, this is not what this article is about. Rather, the reason I am writing this article is to show that life is not like football. Most football fans choose a football team to support, and then they give themselves over completely to that team. They become one-eyed, they develop narrow vision (or tunnel vision). They support their team regardless of what happens, and they consider other teams to be their enemies. They write a blank cheque to their team, and will honor it no matter what. There are of course many people that might take a more sensible, moderate approach to football. Such people may enjoy the game with a smile regardless of the outcome, appreciate and respect players of various teams, and recognize the relative strengths and weaknesses of all teams (including their own). Likewise, not all players (and other people closely associated with the game) make football part of their artificial identity – their ego. So, when I talk about football culture and the ego, I don’t mean to say that everyone who plays or enjoys the game is the same. However, the fact remains that football culture is saturated by ego.

Many people that are passionate about religion and politics display similar tendencies and behaviour to that of hardcore, one-eyed football fans. That is, many people (particularly those we would term conservatives), approach religion, politics, national identity and so forth as if they were football. That is, they choose a team (for whatever reason), and they write a blank check to their team to do anything, and they will always take their side.

But life isn’t football.

At least, it isn’t like how many people view football. Complex and important topics naturally demand a more complex, nuanced approach. Questions of how we view life as a whole, how one chooses to live, how you choose to treat others, how you sort through the myriad of competing views about the nature of humanity and the cosmos, and how best should a nation govern and regulate behaviour, resources and finances, naturally demand a sensible, objective and well-considered approach.

Complex subjects frequently demand that we weigh up opposing interests and find a sensible middle-ground. It is true that – as my brother David frequently says -, “Truth isn’t necessarily always found halfway between two opposing views”. That is, there are some areas of debate in which one side may be completely correct, and the other completely wrong. However, whilst truth isn’t always found somewhere in the middle between polar opposites, it often is! That is, most commonly, in most areas of division and dichotomy, a reasonable and informed opinion finds itself flanked on all sides by more extreme, unbalanced views.

Those that simply choose a team and identify with it may feel a sense of inflated ego as a result. That is, they feel superior because they believe they are on the right team. They feel justified when they demonize those that differ from themselves. They overlook the flaws of their own team, and refuse to acknowledge the strengths of their opponents. They are however holding on to a false sense of self, and they refuse to see the whole as it is. If you place your happiness upon the foundation of a false identity, it has a precarious existence. You will feel threatened by any challenge, as if your own being was at stake, and will react emotionally, without balance and depth.

From where I am standing, the commentary given by people that treat politics and religion like football has little value, as sorting out the half-truths from their bias is often so difficult, you are better off to start from scratch. It is necessary for reasonable and intelligent people to sort through the maze of opinions out there and offer a true alternative. We must however be careful not to be drawn into reactivity to the ego in others. That is, it is often hard not to react in kind towards inflammatory remarks made by others. We must have the courage to face up to what is not true, whilst holding in our hearts what is true.

Peace.