Media Watch

Published in the Sydney Morning Herald

Avatar's reversal of fortune
MAXIM OSIPOV
January 5, 2010

With the dazzling 3D-vortex of colours, actions and emotions, James Cameron's Avatar seems to have given everyone something to rave about.

But let's get it straight — Avatar is a downright misnomer for this latest new blockbuster.

No, not because, sadly for Hare Krishna moviegoers, the film's got nothing to do with Hinduism except its Sanskrit name. And some Hindu activists who habitually frisk all new releases for concealed sacrileges also needn't worry — there are none in Avatar, or at least not more that in those little digital icons they hide themselves behind on their own e-chats.

It's because the movie reverses the very concept that the term "avatar" is based on.

Leave aside the fact that Hindu theology reserves the use of "avatar", which in Sanskrit literally means "descent", almost exclusively for appearances of Vishnu on Earth. The key point here is that an avatar always descends from a higher realm into the lower, restores prosperity, wisdom, and happiness — and moves on unchanged after the mission is accomplished.

However, the "avatar" Jake Sully — and we the viewers along with him — shortly after his descent into the world of Na'vis sees the "higher" realm of earthlings rapidly grow pallid and repulsive in comparison to the pristine world of supposed savages. The "civilised humans" turn out as primitive, jaded and increasingly greedy, cynical, and brutal — traits only amplified by their machinery — while the "monkey aliens" emerge as noble, kind, wise, sensitive, and humane.

We, along with the "Avatara" hero, are now faced with an uncomfortable yet irresistible choice between the two races and the two worldviews. And invariably, along with him we cannot help but lean toward the far more civilised insides within the long-tailed, blue-skinned, and technologically infantile exterior.

So much for a descending "avatar". Jake soon admits to himself in his videolog: "I realised that I had it backwards, I wasn't sure what was the dream and what was real." Having regained through the avatar body not just his legs, but his dignity, his freedom, and his brethren whose love and trust he struggles to earn, the rescuer becomes the rescued, the benefactor becomes the benefitted. The "avatar" becomes . . . well . . . a refugee among the aborigines so content inwardly that they wouldn't trade their tree for whatever the savvy "sky people" gods have to offer! Contrary to The Matrix's Neo, Jake plugs into a supposedly illusory world to discover it to be much more tangible, wholesome and true than his own — and wants to stay in.

This makes us ask the question: Why? And what on Earth (or on Pandora) do "culture", "civilisation", and "human" stand for?

Not succumbing to the stock trifle of sci-fi genre, James Cameron makes this question the fourth dimension of his movie — and answers it most convincingly: It's the qualities of kindness, gratitude, regard for the elderly, self-sacrifice, respect for all life and ultimately humble dependence on a higher intelligence behind nature that qualify one as cultured, civilised, and human.

The other alternative is summed up by Jake Sully: "This is how it's done. When people are sitting on something that you want, you make them your enemy so that you can drive them out." And "They have already killed their mother". Here you have it, the savage — give or take his spaceship, touch-screen and a rifle.

And getting back to the Hindu theology, Bhagavad-gita (16.1-4) echoes this distinction: "Fearlessness; cultivation of wisdom; charity; self-control; austerity; simplicity; refrain from unnecessary violence; truthfulness; freedom from hatred; renunciation; tranquility; aversion to fault-finding; compassion for all living entities; freedom from covetousness; gentleness; modesty; steady determination; vigour; forgiveness; fortitude; cleanliness; and freedom from envy and from the passion for honour - these are qualities befitting real civilised humans.

"Pride, arrogance, conceit, anger, harshness and ignorance are qualities of barbarians."

In order to descend — that is, to be an avatar — one first ought to be above. Unfortunately for our civilisation, epitomised by the human conquistadors on Pandora, from the place where we are happily getting ourselves into, we can only climb.

Maxim Osipov is a student of Sanskrit and Indian philosophy and a follower of the Hare Krishna movement since 1991. Mukunda Goswami contributed to this article.

This is by Ed Gungor and appeared in Relevant Magazine. Apart from not being into "belief" personally, I think this is a good piece.

Can we believe in evolution and a Creator?

Arguing for God being the Creator of the universe doesn’t necessitate an attack on the theory of evolution. Don’t misunderstand me; some evolutionists (particularly some of the neo-atheists like Richard Dawkins, who argues in his new book people who don't believe in evolution are on the same level as Holocaust deniers) have gone ape over their theory (forgive the pun) to the point that they seem to forget it is a theory, and refer to it as if it is an undeniable scientific fact. (Please note: when I speak about evolution, I’m referring to Darwin’s macroevolutionary theory: life began millions of years ago from a kind of primordial ooze that gave rise to single-celled creatures, which then evolved into more complex ones, all the way up to we humans.)

Is the theory of evolution true? It definitely has its problems, but whether it is or isn’t true doesn’t impact the notion that God is the Creator of the world. Scientific theories about origins simply talk about how things came to be, not whether God was behind it. For Christians to argue about scientific theory—any theory—because they think it attacks the notion that God is the Creator seems silly.

What if the point of the creation narrative in Genesis was more poetic than literal? Historically, the Church has always held this position about creation. The Church’s take was simply that God created the world. That’s it. Before the nineteenth century, the Church never tried to specify how or when God did it. Those in the ancient world (to whom the text was written) did not think in literal or scientific terms, nor would they have cared about such notions. The big news of Genesis to the ancient world was that ONE God, not many, was responsible for all we see. That radical, salient point rang through that world which believed in many gods—not one—and had absolutely nothing to do with science.

A belief in God does not necessitate that a person accept the position that the earth is just six thousand years old. The historical, theistic argument is simply that we believe God is the why behind what is here, whenever and however it got here. Scientists may ultimately tell us how and when everything happened in ways not articulated in the biblical text, but science will never be able to tell us why. Why is the stuff of belief. Understanding this helps us be open to the research and questioning of science, while recognizing such questioning is not an enemy to faith.

Science does not have to be an enemy of faith. Nanoscientist James Tour, a professor at Rice University, spends his life building molecules in the lab. He says, “I stand in awe of God because of what he has done through his creation. Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God.”

One could say that the order of non-living things—the laws that govern physical objects, the earth orbiting the sun, the seasons coming and going, the laws governing atoms and the subatomic universe—is enough evidence to assert that there is a God who designed things to be the way they are. But the most compelling evidence—the evidence that seems to scream: THERE IS A GOD! — comes from things that are alive.

Dr. Walter L. Bradly, an expert on polymers and thermodynamics, says, “Ice crystals have a certain amount of order, but it’s simple, repetitive, and has a low amount of information, sort of like filling a book with the words, ‘I love you, I love you, I love you’ over and over again. In contrast, the kind of complexity we see in living matter has a high information content that specifies how to assemble amino acids in the right sequence, like a book being filled with meaningful sentences that communicate a story. Unquestionably, energy can create patterns of simple order. For instance, you could see ripples on the sand at a beach and know they were created by the action of waves. But if you saw the words, ‘John loves Mary’ and a heart with an arrow drawn in the sand, you know that energy alone didn’t create that.”

Even the smallest, single-celled organisms have more complexity within their cellular walls then anything scientists have been able to recreate using huge supercomputers. What guides the process in all living things is DNA, which regulates every cell of every plant and animal. The DNA molecule is like a tiny microprocessor that controls everything a living cell does. The data encoded on the DNA inside every cell of every living thing is a kind of written language. The English language uses a twenty-six-letter alphabet; DNA uses a four-letter chemical alphabet. As the chemicals are arranged in various “lettered” sequences, they form what amounts to words, sentences, and paragraphs containing all the instructions needed to guide a living cell. The DNA molecule instructs cells on how to make proteins, what and how to eat, how to get rid of waste, when to divide, how to repair itself, and so on. So, where did DNA come from? How was the code “written?” Was it written by chance or was there a Designer?

British chemist Leslie Orgel once said, “Evolution is smarter than you are,” to which atheist Christopher Hitchens responded, “But this complement to the ‘intelligence’ of natural selection is not by any means a concession to the stupid notion of ‘intelligent design.’”

Why not? Why couldn’t evolution have an intelligence that was put in it by God? That Hitchens (along with the other neo-atheists) can make no “concession” to the possibility of God being involved is evidence of a silly prejudice. It is not a logical observation.

One of the main obstacles for scientists trying to document the influence of personality traits on achievement was that the standard definition of traits - attributes such as conscientiousness and extroversion - was rather vague. Duckworth began wondering if more narrowly defined traits might prove to be more predictive. She began by focusing on aspects of conscientiousness that have to do with “long-term stamina,” such as maintaining a consistent set of interests, and downplayed aspects of the trait related to short-term self-control, such as staying on a diet. In other words, a gritty person might occasionally eat too much chocolate cake, but they won’t change careers every year. “Grit is very much about the big picture,” Duckworth says. “It’s about picking a specific goal off in the distant future and not swerving from it.”

- The Truth About Grit: Modern science builds the case for an old-fashioned virtue - and uncovers new secrets to success, Boston Globe

utsāhān niścayād dhairyāt...bhaktiḥ prasidhyati: By enthusiasm, confidence, and patience...bhakti becomes succesful.

- Nectar of Instruction, Text 3

Only the ignorant speak of devotional service [karma-yoga] as being different from the analytical study of the material world [Sāńkhya]. Those who are actually learned say that he who applies himself well to one of these paths achieves the results of both. One who knows that the position reached by means of analytical study can also be attained by devotional service, and who therefore sees analytical study and devotional service to be on the same level, sees things as they are.

- Bhavagad-gita 5.4-5

Dharma ­­— universal, eternal principles — refers to things that are universally true.

the association between sonar and whale deaths “is very convincing and appears overwhelming.”

Full story originally published in New York Times, available here: Watching the Whales Watch Us.

An amazing piece that indicates that whales are extremely intelligent. Maybe Star Trek is closer to fact than fiction...

A giant blob, up to 15 miles long, of organic marine algae of an unknown type has been found floating off the coast of Alaska - full report in the Alaska Daily News

David Jorm and I caught up on the deck and shot a few video podcasts. Here's the first one - on the Global Economic Crisis.

The next one is about Evolution.

This post worked just as well when it was blank. People are dying every second. Every famous person will die. It's not really news.

[A recent news article (May 21, 2009) also reinforced my conviction in my analysis. I've reproduced a portion of it below, embedded in excerpts from last year's post "There's Always One" (May 23, 2008)]

My call to nuke the Chinese is an ironic device. Unfortunately, it is actually the most sane thing to do given our current situation, which is an indication of how insane our current situation is. With the consumption of the Chinese rising to meet Australian standards the global economic and environmental situation is untenable. The only result of this can be the inevitable clash of the Americans and the Australians with the Chinese, and the Indians, and the Russians, and the Africans, and every other group who wants to live like we do.

Unless the Australians and Americans reduce their consumption and model a more responsible sustainable lifestyle, war with the Chinese, eventually an overt military one, caused by an economic one over the dwindling resources, is the near future of the human race.

- There's Always One, atmayogi.com, May 23, 2008

THE US has declared it "is not ceding the Pacific to anyone" in a forceful response to the rise of China and the Rudd Government's defence white paper, which last month flagged the possibility of US dominance fading in the Asia-Pacific region in the decades ahead.

Asked by The Australian in a briefing with foreign journalists about Washington's response to Canberra's defence blueprint, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was emphatic that Washington was looking to deepen its ties in the region and wanted to do more with allies such as Australia.

She made it clear the US, which has a huge naval presence in the Asia-Pacific based in Hawaii, was not going anywhere.

"We want Australia as well as other nations to know the United States is not ceding the Pacific to anyone," Ms Clinton said.

She stressed that Washington was also "sending a clear message that the United States will be engaged - we are a trans-Pacific power and a trans-Atlantic power."

- Hillary Clinton firmly commits the US to Asia-Pacific security, The Australian, May 21, 2009

Being lukewarm is a cop out. Why stop at killing millions of animals? If you are going to be a killer, then you should be logical about it and kill the Chinese before they kill you. Otherwise, if you do find that idea abhorrent, then take a look at the logical consequences of where this meat-eating is taking us. The Mahabharata tells us: "There is not enough gold, grains, or women in the world to satisfy the desire of one man" - what to speak of one billion Chinese, plus 400 million Americans, plus 20 million Australians plus the rest of the world.

Our irresponsibility in failing to set an example of responsible, sustainable consumption is leading the world to war over dwindling resources, and ecological and environmental disaster. Face up to it. If we don't become vegetarian now, we should drop a nuke on China. It's the only way to make our current diet and lifestyle sustainable.

So stop being so irresponsible: either push the red button, or give up the red meat.

- There's Always One, atmayogi.com, May 23, 2008

[This is a repost of a post from May 22, 2008. I just can't shake this. I am more convinced than I was then that this is the simple arithmetic of the situation, and that we are living in a post-WW II fantasy world of post-industrial consumer equality for all. We can't "have our iPods" and "let the Chinese have theirs" (that's a figure of speech - I would point to meat consumption as a more immediate threat). There isn't enough.
Please also see my follow-up to this post from last year "There's Always One" for further elaboration.]

With food prices rising, the dollar falling, and the economy reeling, it is becoming increasing important that we learn how to grow a portion of our own food. The first steps are obtaining and sprouting seeds, so we'll explore those topics here.

Winning the War on Food: Sprouting Seeds and Saving Seeds is a great article today from Natural News.com.

The glories of sprouted pumpkin seeds were extolled on Krpamoya Prabhu's blog a short while ago.

At Atma Yoga we've been sprouting seeds and using them in the salads.

This morning on the way to work Param and I were talking about the rising cost of food. Luckily we only eat a few grains and vegetables. It must be really hard for people who eat a lot of processed foods and especially meat.

Spiraling Food Prices Result in Deadly Violence Around the World, another story today on NaturalNews.com, was the topic at the dinner table the other night at Atma. We ended up discussing the relative merits of the HK416 assault rifle (can be fired after being submerged in water or sand - not sure about both) versus the Barrett M468 (fires the 6.8mm round - more accurate than the AK-47, more powerful than the M16; which is exactly what you need to stop a zombie or a feral human), and how the Australian Government should stockpile a million of them to arm the Australia populace to repel 300 million feral Indonesians after their country gets submerged by rising sea levels.

Either that, or it should be encouraging people to reduce their consumption, not allowing the unrestrained inflammation of their material desires.

World-wide, meat consumption is increasing at the rate of 4.7 million tons per year [source].

In China, annual meat consumption has jumped from 16 kilograms per person in 1983, to 53 kilograms per person today [source].

Check out this data table that I generated over at Earth Trends:

World meat consumption is going up, and the Chinese are contributing a huge amount to that.

These people want to live like you.

The conclusion is staggeringly obvious: we need to nuke the Chinese now.

The longer we wait, the stronger they grow. The more meat they eat, the more aggressive and strong they become. The more time they have, the more they build their industrial capacity and their war machine.

It is us or them - the world is not big enough for both. In fact, the world is not big enough just for them, if they live like us.

There are only two things that a responsible leadership can do: waste them, or reduce our consumption.

If you think that nuking the Chinese is a ridiculous proposition, then think of the alternative. Continuing the way we are now the world will very, very quickly run out of resources. It's not just the current rate of consumption: the Chinese are increasing their meat consumption at 12% per annum. There are a billion of them.

Every pound of beef requires 16 pounds of grain. It requires land to be cleared to graze cattle. It produces methane. It uses and contaminates water in processing.

If you think that the idea of reducing your consumption is ridiculous then you have to consider the alternatives:

• Option 1: nuke the Chinese now.
• Option 2: get a whole lot of assault rifles and lots of ammunition for when it all goes down.
• Option 3: reduce consumption and model a more globally responsible, sustainable lifestyle.

Which one do you feel like choosing? Oh, by the way, if you don't want to choose we will arrange one of Option 1 or Option 2 for you, automatically.

The most revolutionary thing that you can do to combat global warming, resource depletion and the eventual war between the Chinese and America / Australia is to become a vegetarian.

It's probably the best thing you can do for your health and your emotional wellbeing as well.

It's certainly the best thing you can do for the health and well being of 270 million tons of animals per year, and climbing.