Buddha meditated and came to the conclusion that the root of all suffering is attachment. He understood that when we are attached to something, we fear losing it and even worse, when we do lose that which we are attached to, we suffer.
We eventually lose everything when we pass on from this life. Well, maybe not everything, but certainly all tangibles. We still have God, or whatever we wish to call this force. The most valuable lesson of Buddha is to let go of attachment and live in the present, a continuous present, a forever present. The present moment is in a way living with the momentums that guide us. What some call God and others call Nature and yet others do not understand, is the force that drives us, now and forever. Enlightenment is therefore reaching God by the knowledge that nothing is permanent except the eternal belonging in God. When we live in the present, we are still performing to an undeniable and hopefully desirable future present.
Buddha, the Abrahamic prophets, Spinoza, and others have all pointed to the same life goal. As the saying goes, all roads lead to Rome. Buddha says reach enlightenment. The Abrahamic prophets say find a return path to God. Spinoza understands life’s highest value to be joy while presenting God as the totality. Combining all three ideas leads to the understanding that enlightenment is the unwavering dedication to God, Joy, or Nature (by whatever name we identify this totality of force) without mindless distraction and attachment. In today’s world, the first step to such a state of Enlightenment, Heaven, or Joy is detachment; it is by following the path of disentanglement from organized religion that we find the essence of Pure Love leading to the state of Harmony within God.
We find joyfulness in the compassionate collective through which it shall become far more contagious to spread love than indifference because empirical history and scientific discovery have proven that happiness is achieved through giving. Happiness is reached through action and not simply passion. As the Dalai Lama puts it (not that I am in any way suggesting that this current leader of Buddhism is a follower of his own advice), “It is not enough to be compassionate—you must act.” Yet, in all of his power, other than living lavishly in exile, not much active compassion has been activated by this man. In contrast, I will quote someone who tragically was killed by extremism at a very young age, experiencing life through incomparable harshness to the luxurious tongue-sucking life of the Dalai Lama: “No one has ever become poor by giving.” (Anne Frank)
Many children were massacred horrifically during the Jewish holocaust of the 1940s. This young girl, however, through all of the harshness and difficulty, observed that giving, sharing, and connecting only blesses lives with more happiness. We do not become poor in any sense of the word by choosing compassion. Ever since human civilizations formed, we have experienced historic social milestones through acts of kindness. These have become vital to human continuity.
We have continuously attempted to overcome wars and violent conflict resolutions through updated and newer models of peace treaties. One such colossal moment came during the signing of two peace treaties generally grouped together as the Treaty of Westphalia which ended one of Europe’s worst wars—the Thirty Years’ War. We have war and we have subsequent peace. Somehow, after a period of peace we forget the detriment of war; when we are unhappy about certain outcomes we resort to violence. Violence is an intentional behavior. Through an act of violence we intend to hurt another or possibly even kill. We resort to violence when we feel that there are no productive ways left to resolve a conflict. We also choose violence when we feel that it shall lead to desired outcomes. But the truth remains that violence would be absolutely unproductive in a just society.
A measure of the world’s social inadequacy is the amount of violent conflicts. As a species we are generally nonviolent. However, this trait is also consequential. We are intelligent beings. We avoid violent altercations if we assess the risk of such engagement to be higher than the anticipated reward. The closer a society is to our ideal just society, the less inclined we will be to revert to violence to resolve conflicts. This is because in this absolute form of perfect justice, there would be nothing to gain through violence. The logical assumption, in a perfect world, would be to implement rules for a just society. In this perfect world we would also not be living in capitalist-driven social and economic orders. We would be in a compassion-driven social order without economic drivers. Seeking the opportunity to capitalize would not exist because a just society would equate and balance everything. A just society would treat all equally.
Double standards are social implications of a world in disequilibrium, where evaluation is based on certain hierarchy, very much like our capitalist gauge. If the sum of any planned violence will conclude in profitability, we support the ensuing brutality without grievance or judgment. But in hindsight of genocides and violent campaigns, history proves there are no winners because violence begets violence and the sum game of it all is eventual loss. No empire that ever resorted to violence to conquer has continued to thrive. Equally, no society that succumbed to violence has ever healed from traumatic scars.
Suffering is something all want to end, at least from a selfish point of view. In an ideal circumstance of absolute detachment, we would end suffering. But this is not a realistic manifestation that humans are capable of attaining. We have cultural, geographic, and communal attachments we do not wish to give up. People believe in the concept of a nation. Somewhere in history, we divided the planet into smaller, more manageable parcels of land. We govern over them in the way we see fit. Yet we never think of animals having a nation that they govern in a manner similar to human models. Animals do have homes and some may even be slightly territorial. But this is not even close to the political model of nations. Organized religion creates a similar rift among humans. Just as we see ourselves as different humans from different nations, we also consider ourselves very different from each other based on our religions. These delusions have played crucial roles in human development and societal progress throughout our history.
There has been fierce opposition between the unlikeliest of sources—Jews and Muslims. These are two Abrahamic religions who follow near-identical life guidance. Somehow, they are in opposition not because they believe their messages oppose one another but because they want to rule over one another in the name of their distinct religion, on land they both want to conquer, and through the same linguistic impositions they both want to enforce. The differences between the two religions are not so much in spiritual messages as in capitalist directives. For example, the Jewish religion believes that the Torah wants them to reside in the Jerusalem area. They believe they have a spiritual connection to this land because their holy book states as much. The Jewish community believes that the rest of the world must abide by the writings in this holy book because it is what they believe.
Muslims and Christians have resided in Jerusalem for centuries and fought for control of this region. Until 1948, the land which is now mapped as Israel was Palestine. In a case of political consideration, the Jewish community was supported to resettle in the area of Palestine. With time, this Jewish population took over the lands and flourished. Now the Palestinians also feel that this is their land. Their attachment to the land comes more from a cultural background than a religious one because in Islam there is no mandate to fight for rule and ownership in Jerusalem. Ironically, there is no such mandate in Judaism either. Organized religion often manipulates the spiritual context to create a religious order that must then be satisfied by the membership.
In a much broader context, regional Muslim Arabs and Jewish Israelis and other Jewish people have been conflicted on the settlement issue in Jerusalem. On a global level, we are experiencing so much unrest because of the Jerusalem dilemma that we often refer to this as the Middle East Crisis. Jews believe it is mandatory to reside on this land and rule here because their religion dictates it. Nobody in the world should be agreeing that we should adhere to the mandates of the Torah. If we do agree to the Jewish list of wants, then what stops us from having to extend the same courtesy to every organized religion? By the same measure, how do we reverse historical events that have shaped our future? Do we register lands with strict belonging protocols? Do we hand the American continent to its original native population and return European settlers to Europe? It seems we are in favor of some considerations but not others. Generally, the ones we are in favor of have grander capitalist implications. We are biased in our assessment of issues.
However, the groups involved are not necessarily seeking an arrangement that is rooted in capitalist purpose. Israelis seek an outcome to support their religious delusion. Palestinians seek an outcome to support their cultural delusion. By extension, Muslim and Jewish members seek an outcome to support political and religious ambitions. Allies on both sides of the conflict seek a resolution to support economic interest. What if we gave Israel another land to form a state? Could we buy an equivalent piece to Israel out of Canada, as it has plenty of uninhabited land, and award this to form the new state for Israeli settlement? Surely, Israelis would not accept this, even if Canadians did. What if we did this for Palestinians? We may end up causing more problems.
The troubles we face are fabrications of our attachments. If the issue is a land to live on, there is plenty of land to share and call a safe, loving home.
