The Believer's Dilemma

Grossly generalizing the human race, there are three categories of believers:

1. Those that are born into a religion
2. Those that embrace a religion upon marriage
3. Those that embrace a religion after years of soul searching

Most people who fall into the first category take their religious beliefs for granted. Being a believer by birth often makes someone feel too secure that he reasons that there is absolutely no need to dig deeper into his religion. This false sense of security begets complacency and apathy towards more important aspects of the belief system, and these in turn, lead to a superficial understanding of the religion. Most people, including yours truly, fall into this category.

The second category consists of those who only pronounce (albeit hesitantly) their "new found" beliefs upon marrying their spouses who are believers of other religions. More often than not, these people lack true appreciation of their new beliefs, simply because the ultimate reason for their conversion is to win the hearts and minds of their spouses and in-laws. There is no clear distinction between the first two categories, with the exception of the second group of believers having an extra religion or two to add to their portfolio.

The third category of believers is essentially what we mere mortals should strive for. Starting with a clean slate while being on the outside looking in, free of prejudice and bias, this breed of believers are blessed in the sense that they are not influenced by any prior religious and philosophical doctrine in their quest for the truth. Thus, they are free to roam and explore a multitude of uncharted terrains laid before them, until they ultimately reach their destination where the truth is finally laid bare. The vicious cycles of confusion, sorrow, ambivalence, anxiety and helplessness that accompany them throughout their journey only serve to solidify their enlightenment, whilst building a mighty foundation for true appreciation and understanding.

In an ideal world, one would dream of achieving what the last group of believers have attained. But is pure enlightenment solely attainable through a fully "empty glass"? If a man of faith were to wish to embark upon such journey, would it then amount to an implicit renouncement of his belief? Is it even remotely possible to truly explore and appreciate another belief system with indoctrination clouding one's judgement?

One can only wonder.

BSD Forks Faster than Linux

Selected quote on a recent "G5 vs. x86 and Mac OS X vs. Linux" review posted on Slashdot:

"There's no OpenLinux, FreeLinux or NetLinux. I think that proves that *BSD forks at least 3 times faster than Linux." - Atomizer

Of Buddhism and Gods, Part 2 - Reincarnation

One of the most fundamental aspects of Buddhism is the concept of karmic rebirth. Some Buddhists argue that this process does not necessarily apply to the physical realm per se, rather it has to do with the rebirth of consciousness where continuous changes in the individual mind-state take place. However, the more predominant view on rebirth involves a continuous cycle of bodily deaths that a permanent "self" experiences.

In the latter, a permanent "self" transmigrates from one life to another in a cycle of birth and rebirth. Often this transmigration involves changes in the physical form of the "self" depending on the type of karma. Good karma leads to high rebirth as a deva or human, while bad karma leads to low rebirth as a hell-sufferer or an animal. The ultimate form of karma is a liberating one in which a "self" breaks free from the relentless cycle of rebirth to finally reach the permanent state of nirvana where the "self" ceases to exist in this material world.

While this school of thought clearly establishes what constitutes the end of "self", there is no clear explanation as to what constitutes the beginning. If we assume that the number of "selves" in this world is fixed and each "self" can only occupy one body, then it follows that since the beginning of time, the number of "selves" can only decrease, as more and more "selves" reach nirvana. However, the most recent number of the human population suggests otherwise as it keeps growing exponentially. At the same time, more and more animal species are becoming endangered and subsequently extinct, mostly in the name of progress brought about by homo sapiens. Therefore, it can be conjectured that the rate at which the number of animals is decreasing and the rate at which the number of humans is increasing do in fact cancel each other out at the very least, taking into account the number of "selves" that have succesfully reached nirvana.

While this theory looks promising, it fails to take into consideration an intermediate life form. Recent developments suggest the emergence of a third form that is part human and part animal. While there have been numerous attempts at christening this new life form, experts are still largely divided over the name. Biologists insist on calling them "chimeras", sociologists prefer the name "sociopaths", while psychologists refer to them as "psycopaths".

Regardless of the term used to describe these beings, scholars do reach a consensus on one occasion; that this hybrid life form consists of those so-called "humans" who molest their own children, leaders who cheat their own citizens, businessmen who cheat their own customers, world leaders who wage unjustified wars against so-called evil nations, and worst of all, drivers who like to jump queues in traffic. Why this intermediate life form was not discovered previously remains to be seen. But one thing is for sure, these hybrid beings are here to last.

Of Buddhism and Gods, Part 1

Assalamualaikum,

Many a first-time blogger feels compelled to write a welcome message in his first post. I however, will try my best not to succumb to cliches and get straight down to business.

After work today, my colleagues and I decided to have dinner at a Muslim Chinese restaurant near our workplace. Some would say that it was a perfect venue for a theological discourse. Perhaps they were right, for as soon as after our orders were taken, we were already in full swing discussing Buddhism.

Contrary to what many Malays believe, Buddhism does not advocate the existence of a supernatural and supreme being, i.e. God. That struck me as mightily strange, since the majority of Malaysian Chinese subscribe to both Buddhism and Taoism, with the followers of the latter worshipping the most number of gods in comparison to followers of other polytheistic religions. Not only that, but the number of gods that Taoists worship keeps increasing every day.

Therefore I would say that the confusion was justified, for how could two religions that have very different views on God be compatible with each other? Despite the notion that Buddhist and Taoist philosophies heavily influence each other, the fact remains that they are two very different religions, for I view the belief in God as the most basic tenet that serves as the foundation of any religion.

Putting me out of my misery, one of my colleagues finally explained that being a very flexible and extensible belief system, Taoism has no problem assimilating its values and beliefs with those of Buddhism, but not the other way around. In other words, the relationship is unidirectional. Therefore if one is originally a Taoist, he will have no problem being a Buddhist as well. But for a Buddhist to subscribe to Taoism is outrageous, or a road least travelled at best. This however, begs another important chicken-and-egg question; are Malaysian Chinese Taoists first and Buddhists second, or is it the other way around?