A long-misplaced analogy

Operating systems have changed a lot from when computers first fell into the mainstream. Movies like "Hackers" and "The Pirates of Silicon Valley" are such that, despite their errors and inconsistencies, still popularize computer-culture (as well as the computer-related counter-culture).

For those of you who are really familiar with computers, there are a variety of operating systems out there to make things more convenient for the end user. They also provide major headaches when things go wrong. As if you couldn't tell by the premise of this blog, religious paths can work the same way.


[Let's take a moment to understand that any copyrighted names of software or anything else doesn't belong to me, but to their actual owners, stated here or otherwise. It's the internet; I'm using names and very clearly not trying to steal them, so don't sue me.]


Lets take a look at Windows. Windows is, more or less, a defacto standard for both business and pleasure. Consequently, Windows also has a lot going for it in the way of software. This is especially true for people who can't find applications for their purposes; they end up programming for Windows because that's what they use. In the business world, it's fairly easy to see why Windows wins. The customer support is provided world-wide, and to date, I have not encountered more diverse, more easily accessible, or more integrated language support. You also have a MUCH wider variety in things like hardware components and software utilizing them.

On the downside, Windows gets to feel really bloated after only a few months of use. Sometimes, with such a variety of hardware and software (not to mention parsing through drivers), you'll stuff that acts up, stuff that doesn't work properly, and stuff that just disappears. Let's not forget the fact that being a defacto standard means that most forms of malware are designed to exploit any and all vulnerabilities in the software. Fixes only provide temporary relief. I won't even begin to discuss Windows' paltry CLI.

There's also Apple. Mac OS, especially from Tiger onwards, is really, really easy to learn and to use. Nearly all aspects of the OS are fully integrated with each other. iTunes, the iLife Suite, and other software solutions all work together very well. And, being based on FreeBSD means that those who like Unix can jump into the Darwin prompt and do things in the "old-fashioned" non-GUI way. There's also an almost non-existent threat of malware. Things in general run more smoothly because Apple decides what hardware is supported, and so there's less bloat in terms of drivers and such.

This approach has its drawbacks, however. There's MUCH less flexibility in the way of hardware configuration. This also means you're paying more for what you're getting (for hardware), and can't configure a comparable system for less because the software is effectively tied down to the hardware. There ARE those who have gone the route of "Hackintoshes," but the practice remains to be deemed legal, and there's a whole slew of problems on that route, as well. Things often don't work perfectly and you really have to know what you're doing to fix those problems on your own. Other drawbacks of the Mac-platform include sub-par language support, occasionally restrictive software choices, and being bound to specific companies based on hardware configuration. This last one is a big deal to some people, as Apple doesn't support ATI or AMD up-front (buying a card for your desktop would be a slightly different issue, in my opinion).

And, then there's Linux, or Unix, or Solaris, or what have you. These are really interesting OSes because they come from antiquity and have their roots there. While the other two platforms are almost completely GUI-oriented, with the *nix group, you have a choice in the matter. Underlying Linux is a Command-Line Interface that allows you to directly interact with the OS in a very different way from the GUI. If you choose, you can have the GUI instead, or you can have both. And, the commands you learn, or the programs you learn to use via CLI can be used on other systems and other distributions of Linux. It's based on "old-school" ideas of freedom ('free' as in 'beer' as well as 'free' as in 'speech'). The community surrounding each distribution, and the platform on the whole, is amazing and is very supportive. And, if you have old hardware that you don't want going to waste, Linux can breathe new life into it.

The drawbacks here are numerous, though. The end-user at home doesn't get much in the way of technical support, at least not like you can with Windows or Mac OS. You often have to resort to the community to get some help, which isn't so much a bad thing is it is a waiting game. Sometimes you go through a lot before you find a solution. Sometimes you don't get proper answers. Sometimes the first suggestion you get works. It's not always consistent. Even Ubuntu - often hailed as the most newbie-friendly disro - doesn't always behave the same on every system. If you're buying or building and you plan on running this type of OS, you have to do your homework to know what exactly will work easily, what needs work, and what won't work at all. There's also a steep learning curve, not so much because it's hard but because there's so much to learn, and it all depends on what you're running and trying to do. One consolation is that as you learn, things get much much easier to a point. Some of what you can do is truly amazing; you just have to figure out what you're doing. You can eventually play around with things and you can get a feel for what things do. If you don't develop that type of approach, though, you face a significant disadvantage.



Religious paths work similarly. You have those approaches which offer diversity and are easily accessible, or are very mainstream. However, they're not always "user-friendly." Sometimes you get a lot of contradictions. Sometimes they appear counter-intuitive.

The least outrageous comparison is that of the Linux/Unix type of OSes to mystical paths. On mystical paths, like Wicca, New Age paths, Neo-Paganism, Zen/Vipassana/Tibetan Buddhism, Yoga, or even the Hindu Monastic sects, the community is a very integral part of the learning process. The learning curve is not the easiest, and finding good sources for guidance is often a trial in and of itself. Still, you really get a feel for direct, intuitive interaction with the Divine. If you choose to have some visual or ritualistic approaches, then those are available as well. Mainstream aspects are often found as-is or adapted for mystical paths. And, sometimes things like meditation find their way into more mainstream paths as well.

The Windows of the religious traditions would most probably be faith-based paths. Easily accessible, nearly universal in its approach, and at this point, a de facto standard for the approach to Divinity. At the same time, it has its flaws. It's much harder to preach faith to a group when you have some "free-thinkers" in the bunch. I'm not saying it's not possible, but it definitely requires significant effort and time to reach out to them, as opposed to those who take to faith unquestioningly. On the other hand, usually you get a high-volume of people who take to your "platform." Religions that fall into this category are mostly mainstream, like most Christian denominations, Islam and Judaism to a large extent, some 'Hindu' sects, like Swaminarayanism, and many MahaayaaNa Buddhism schools, such as Pureland.

There aren't many "Macs" in the slew of religions in the world. I'd argue that mainstream Hinduism falls into this category, as does Sufiism, some Judaic traditions (the study of Kabbalah comes to mind), and Eastern Orthodox Christianity. Hinduism is very Mac-like because of the openness inherent in its paths. The Bhagavad Giitaa itself affirms the karma-yoga, jn~aana-yoga, raaja-yoga, and bhakti-yoga, so it has its easy-to-learn side, but also the tinker-under-the-hood side. Most schools generally agree that Sufiism is technically an offshoot of Islam, so as such, you are required to obey the five pillars of Islam. But, Sufiism also offers a mystical approach that's distinctly different from the Linux-like religions. Asceticism is kept to a minimum, and Sufis are encouraged to have families and marry, and to have jobs and contribute to the community. Instead of seeing those aspects as a hindrance to their path, they value the lessons learned from them and relish the added difficulty they provide. The Eastern Orthodoxy's approach is slightly different, with lay people encouraged to take spiritual, meditative retreats, and under proper guidance, use mystical means to add to their religious experiences. In contrast, though, you're definitely stuck in terms of "hardware." You'd be hard-pressed to dedicate yourself to most Sufi schools without converting to Islam. In order to properly understand the teachings of the Kabbalah, it's usually understood that not only should you be aware of the Judaic tradition, but also have Rabbinical training. Eastern Orthodoxy and Hinduism also have their baggage as well.


I'm not saying that one's better or worse. Ultimately, technology should work based on your needs. I feel that religion should, too. The trick is that while most of us can admit it to ourselves when we're indulging a little in a new computer, we don't always do the same with life as a whole. As such, we can't properly assess our needs.

It's a wise man who can differentiate between his needs and his wants, let alone choose to follow his need over his want.

Still, I think we should really try to think about religion as something that's meant to ultimately help us, even if we find ourselves restrained a little. It's also something that needs some sort of updating. We definitely face issues that we didn't face two-thousand-something years ago, and we also have knowledge we didn't have back then. Fixing bugs is important, and it also doesn't hurt to add new features.

A Technological Monk

Today, I'm going to elaborate on something I've discussed before: why it's important to take time to slow down.

I am a technological monk, a modern monk. I meditate, though not nearly as frequently as I want (or need) to. Truth be told, we have to make time for the things we enjoy, and one of these days I'll get around to working it into a routine or schedule. Until then, however, I make do by slowing down. I adapt the older techniques to a more modern way of life.

The fundamentals of Eastern meditation can be found from the Upanishads down to Patanjali (Deva: पतञ्जलि, pata~njali), who compiled the yoga sutras. Actually, the first line of the yoga sutras is as follows:

अथ योगानुशासनम् ||१||
atha yogaanushaasanam ..1..
Here (अथ) is the continuation (denoted by prefix अनु-) of the teachings (शासनम्) of yoga. This indirectly (though not merely implicitly) shows that the study of yoga had been going on for some time before Patanjali's formal compilation of sutras. While I'm on the subject, here are the next few lines:

योगश्चित्तवृत्ति निरोधः ||२||
तदा द्रष्टुः स्वरूपेऽवस्थानम् ||३||
वृत्तिसारूप्यमितरत्र ||४||

yogashcittavRtti nirodhaH ..2..
tadaa draSTuH svaruupe.vasthaanam ..3..
vRttisaaruupyam itaratra ..4..

"Yoga is the cessation (nirodhaH) of the turnings (vRtti) of the mind (citta).
Then (tadaa), the seer (draSTuH) resides (avasthaanam) in its own true form (svaruupe).
In other cases (elsewise, etc. ; itaratra), the true self (saaruupyam) [identifies with, "is"] the turnings (vRtti)."

What this essentially means is that:

1. The process of "yoga" is when the mind (in actuality, citta is the amalgamation of three components of sense-related consciousness) stops turning or revolving. It stops creating movement.
2. This is a very bold statement. Most people have never experienced this in a waking state, and so the third sutra serves to allay any fears of death.
3. The "seer" (a metaphor for the true inner consciousness) resides in the knowledge of itself.
4. In other cases, this inner consciousness identifies with movements in the mind. This identification is fallacious.

The idea here is that we have consciousness. It cannot be turned off while we are alive. This consciousness is usually focused "outwards," through the mind and its movements, through sensory perception, and out to the world. However, through careful and sustained practice, prayer, and/or raw discipline, one can turn off perception to these "outward" things, including to one's thoughts. Since consciousness cannot be turned off, it insteads reflects back on itself, and this "self-awareness" is the basis for yoga. Mystics find their liberation from the world through this, and despite being a horrid cliché that I hate, I will buckle and say that a Westerner can think of this as "enlightenment."

(Breakdown here is courtesy of my amazing former professor, Dr. Edwin Bryant, and his amazing Yoga Sutras topical study of religion. My explanation and interpretation exists because of what I learned in his classes.)

Relax, I'm getting to the point.

Nowadays, we're brought up to multitask. Multitasking is great, and useful, and is a great skill. But, overdeveloping that ability backfires. We learn to focus first, before we learn to split our attention amongst other things. When we learn to multitask, most of us continue to develop that without fully developing the ability to truly focus on one or two things. We don't have balanced attention.

Meditation works entirely on focus, especially with only one object. I'm not saying that multitasking has absolutely no place in meditation, but unless you're advanced, have another motive, or are a special case, it primarily hinders progress. That's why I don't buy the excuse that absolutely EVERYONE gives: "I just can't focus." Guess what? NO ONE can! It's nothing that doesn't affect everyone else. "Stopping" thought is not easy. You have to work at it, over a long period of time, and with discipline. Really, that statement is pretty much just a poor excuse; either they don't really care about it or don't realize that they have to invest a significant amount of time. Instant gratification really doesn't apply, especially for things considered "ascetic" arts.

At any rate, the fact of the matter is that we're stuck with a better multitasking ability and we're left wanting in terms of singular focus. My good friend Adam pointed out to me recently that an average pack/day smoker gets to have anywhere from forty to an hour and forty minutes of time that could be considered mild meditation. Adam, being ever the resourceful one, takes whatever opportunity he can to do what he refers to as "bullshit meditations." What a great idea! I, myself, do a lot of these b.s. meditations in my daily routines.

As I've said before, taking time to slow down can really have magical effects for some people. Taking time to focus on doing something in the not-so-efficient or not-so-resourceful way can serve a great deal of purposes, including building character-defining traits, forming idiosyncracies that can enrich your life (for yourself), and de-stressing! These habits give you a chance to concentrate your focus on one or two things, which lets you regroup. Many people think that by constantly checking on problems or worrying (essentially bringing things to the forefront of your mind from time to time) "in the background" that they're doing something good. Actually, it's a lot like flicking Alt+Tab; you're flipping through open programs, but just because you're not seeing some of the programs for more than five seconds at a time doesn't mean that they're magically "in the background." You have to let them sit, until they're tossed into the swap partition. This frees up your RAM to do something else, and when you do finally switch back to your other thoughts, they really are "refreshed." From personal experience, I can tell you this is really conducive to the Eureka Effect.

Understandably, modern life differs from ancient life. We can't all just up and leave our jobs and become ascetics or monks; devoting our lives to a method to free ourselves from life doesn't seem to fit the contemporary mood. On the whole, we don't care, and most of us haven't even thought about our own mortality in a truly life-altering way (aside from the fifteen minutes after somebody close to us passes away). However, why should that stop us from utilizing meditation as a quick tool to boost the quality of our lives? It can boost productivity, balance our moods, give us some greater perspective beyond the immediate here & now of our individual lives, and perhaps give us some spiritual insight in the process.

And why shouldn't we recruit the use of technology for this? As a personal example of how I sharpen my focus, I recently started learning the Linux command-line. I've been learning some scripting so that I could do some batch video conversions for my iPod. While in the future I can convert video really easily and without much thought, I spent two to three hours last night trying to get the script to work just right. That was good, solid focus. No multitasking; I wasn't checking torrents, downloading guides, writing this blog post. I was taking things one step at a time and trying to get exactly one thing working. This is just one example of how I take time to work on laser- or flashlight-like focus, instead of a lantern or lightbulb-like focus (a modern take on a very old metaphor). Slowly but surely I am learning some discipline. Actually, I've read numerous articles on the web that highlight research in education techniques. Doing things for shorter periods of time with a more intense focus and doing them daily is generally much more effective than "brute-forcing" something into your head irregularly and for prolonged periods of time. From my varied sources, this is true of meditation. The misconception is that when you sit down to meditate, you sit down for hours at a time until you get it. Beginners hear this and it really turns them away for the idea after trying it. Actually, it is much more effective to try and meditate for maybe a half hour a day for a few weeks, and as it gets more comfortable/familiar/easier, to increase that time. Very similar to many doctors' recommendations for exercise...

This is another junction where we can identify some of our issues by taking a look at our technological practices, and how some of our technological solutions can trickle back into other aspects of our everyday lives. As if I haven't said it enough already, there's no reason we can't still find ancient wisdom in our cutting-edge laptop or bleeding-edge software release. Similar ideas are at play now that were in effect thousands of years ago. And, at least for some things, that's not such a bad idea.

East and West, knowledge and consequence.

Something interesting I've thought about numerous times is the consequence of knowledge. There's a very interesting distinction between knowledge and ignorance when you compare "Western" and "Eastern" traditions.

The West, heavily influenced by Christianity, we have a lot of influential thought about intention and innocence. If one commits a wrong-doing, but doesn't know that it's wrong, it's forgivable. Provided, that is, if one knows that it is wrong from then on and does not do it again. After all, if they didn't know, it's not their fault, right? Innocence of intention is really important here. It is much more heinous to commit a wrong-doing when one knows that it is wrong. Their intention here is not innocent.

In the East, heavily influenced by Buddhism, you have a different perspective entirely. Throughout life, knowledge is really important. Thus, it is more heinous to commit a crime when one is ignorant of it. The logic there is that before one does something, they should understand what it is that they're doing, and the consequences thereof. It's more forgivable to commit a wrong-doing if you know that it is wrong. That's because one knew it was wrong, and still brought himself to do it. He must have had a reason, and so from there, it's easier to forgive and repent, and to atone and move on. Ignorance is not an excuse. How intention figures into this is a lot more complicated, but suffice it to say, the perspective does not change as much as you'd think.

An interesting point of contention.

Techno-Spirituality

The thought has crossed my mind that the word "religion" brings up awful connotations for a lot of people. Admittedly, when I think of religion, large institutions with powerful figureheads come to mind. I promptly shudder. But I do feel that in this crazy mixed-up universe of ours, there's some sort of obvious order. We, as humans, have an inclination to come up with a list of things we live by or believe in, whatever they may be. In addition, I feel that we often forget that list in our day-to-day struggles. That's most apparent for me when I'm cursing at the lady in front of me on my way back home to get out of the way.

With vast amounts of information being drilled into our skulls these days, I relish the simple little thoughts I have. One of them is what I dubbed "techno-spirituality." Spirituality, for me, is really about applying my basic personal beliefs in my life so that I live by my own standards. I don't mean thinking "my religion says that everyone who doesn't believe won't go to Heaven," and then going out and trying to convert people. I do mean "don't take things personally" and then when someone yells at me, I try to understand where they're coming from and not take it to heart. If I can't do that, then at least I shouldn't blow up on them in return.

Technology plays a humongous role in my life, as it does in the lives of everyone I know (save my grandmothers'). Despite interacting with machines all day, I find little trouble in retaining my humanity. I have applied my spirituality to my technology. I can't say the same for some of those around me, who despite having much in the way of technology, lack some integral things in real life. Randall Monroe once did a comic (can't find the link atm) wherein a person on a computer, pissed off at someone, was magically flown to the other end of the pipe. Once he saw that the object on the other side was human being, he stopped being so angry. Along the same lines, one of the Microsoft "I'm a PC" commercials features Deepak Chopra, saying "... and I'm a human being. Not a human doing. Not a human thinking. A human being."

As silly as that seems, it also seems very apt. I told read that as a human being, I must control my thoughts lest they control me. Now, think back to your day-to-day struggle. Are you at the mercy of what pops into your head? Or are you more deliberate with what you do, and little more conservative in letting those thoughts pop out into the open?

Right about now, I'd love to quote Ze Frank. But, if you aren't thinking, then where are those thoughts coming from?