1421 – Gavin Menzies

Interesting site listing evidence that supports the author’s claim that Chinese explorers arrived in North America before Spanish ones.

Of course, the Viking record still stands. Why doesn’t anyone ever mention that Lief Eriksson actually was the first non-Aboriginal person to visit here?

From “Awakening the Buddha Within” by Lama Surya Das:

The Korean Zen master I studied with, Nine Mountains, used to exclaim with gusto, “What is it?” This, his main koan or Zen conundrum, was boldly calligraphed in Korean as a hanging scroll on the wall. This is an intense, heartfelt, visceral question: “What the hell is it?” That was his whole teaching. What the hell is going on? What is this? Who is this? This is a fundamental existential question, turning our exploration inward. What is this presenting itself right now?

For the Latin word, Bellum, WAR, comes from the old word, Duellum, a DUEL, as Bonus from Duonus, and Bis from Duis. Now Duellum was derived from Duo; and thereby implied a difference between two persons, in the same sense as we term peace, UNITY, from Unitas, for a contrary reason. So the Greek word, polemos, commonly used to signify war, expresses in its original, an idea of multitude. The ancient Greeks likewise called it lye, which imports a DISUNION of minds; just as by the term dye, they meant the DISSOLUTION of the parts of the body. Nor does the use of the word, WAR, contradict this larger acceptation of it. For though some times it is only applied to the quarrels of states, yet that is no objection, as it is evident that a general name is often applied to some particular object, entitled to peculiar distinction.

— Hugo Grotius, “On the Law of War and Peace”

At the very beginning of “On the Law of War and Peace” Grotius provide us with this definition of war. What strikes me about this definition is just how modern it sounds. War as a state of being whereby there is a duality, a split between parties, who then engage in a conflict. The remedy, implied in this definition, is therefore unity, or a drawing together of the duality into a singular entity, unified and peaceful. The way to do this of course is through reconnection, and that I suppose it what peace is (though I haven’t yet come across Grotius’ definition of peace). Grotius does point out in his conclusion that:

…good faith, in the language of Cicero, is not only the principal hold by which all governments are bound together, but is the key-stone by which the larger society of nations is united. Destroy this, says Aristotle, and you destroy the intercourse of mankind.

The other thing I like about this description is the almost off hand reference Grotius makes to the Greek origins of the word. War as a disunion of minds, but also a dissolution of parts of the body. In an era where modern warfare can indeed completely dissolve bodies, this is perhaps a very apt description worth remembering.

If there is ever to be a way of asserting peace in the world, especially if the leaders of states are determined to draw distinctions and division between peoples, it must therefore come from both the connection of a body to more of itself and also the connection between minds and bodies who might otherwise represent the enemy, the “other” implied by the Latin definition. For where an “other” arises, there also arises the potential for war, as the distinctions become the points upon which the conflict hangs. It’s clear that leaders hungering for war seek to emphasize difference in order to facilitate the state of “bellum.” Sewing together people, nations and issues is the way to peace.

This is of course where the tools of the common people come into play, notably conversation, connection and compassion. And technologies such as the web facilitate these things.

During the war in Yugoslavia, perhaps the first Internet war, I remember reading discussion forums heavily used by Belgrade residents to write, in real time, about what was happening around them. They reported vividly the sounds of jets over head and explosions in various parts of the city. There was rampant speculation about what was being bombed, and where the planes were coming from. Over a number of harrowing weeks, people all over Yugoslavia connected with each other and the world during the terrifying nights when they were under siege from NATO. Reading these accounts, in real time no less, drew me far deeper into that war than I would have been otherwise, and made me a part of the whole thing. Reading well written English commentary from people my own age, expressing fear as bombs fell around them, bombs dropped from planes flown by my country, made the whole thing seem almost like a civil war. It was as if we were bombing our neighbours and friends, ourselves really. All the talk of Slobodan Milosevic this and that couldn’t possibly hold up to the reality that dozens and dozens of scared English speaking Serbians were an email message away. Like my family, friends and neighbours. The web erased the primary differences of appearance, accent and location, and instead emphasized an intimacy previously uncontemplated by the makers of war.

I think the web is one powerful tool of peace. Perhaps we’ll see blogs from Baghdad if the war proceeds against Iraq, and once again we will be afforded the choice to believe in difference or attempt to erase it.

There are 159 articles in the fourth iteration of the Geneva Convention which was signed on 12 August 1949. It’s worth having a perusal through the Convention, to see what the powers of the world agreed to with respect to protecting civilians in times of war. At times the document reads very coldly such as in article:

Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

It is so matter of fact that I actually find myself asking questions like, can there actually be a time when the killing of other people is morally acceptable? If States agree that there are rules of engagement for war, in other words limits around when killing is okay and when it isn’t, what can compel a State to tighten those restrictions forever?

It’s trite of course, but war is insane. The fact that people can be killed in large numbers for whatever reason, and that this activity is actually sanctioned by having it take place within a context is just apalling to me these days.

At any rate, these times might require some deep reflection on what it means to wage wars against people. For that reflection I have gone back to one of the original treatises on international law and the conduct of war, Hugo Grotius’ De Jure Bellis ac Pacis published in 1625 just as the concept of natural rights were being developed in Europe. Grotius’ life was fascinating, as we wove in and out of the turbulent political world of 17th century Europe. A child prodigy, and university student at 11, he practiced law and rose to become Governer of Rotterdam in the early 1600s. He was exiled from Holland, after a Calvinist coup d’etat in 1618, and fled eventually to Paris where he worked as an Ambassador to France for Sweden and helped to negotiate the end of the Thirty Years War. He wrote his classics in exile and became known as the father of international law. He died as the result of exhaustion brought on by being shipwrecked on a trip back to Sweden.

His final words were “By understanding many things, I have accomplished nothing.”

My little project of collecting meditation practices is now compiled on one page. You can access it here, or at the sidebar on the right where it will stay linked for a while.

The project was to discover 10 different sources for meditation practices while sitting, standing, lying and walking. This was originally used to complement my practice working with the Four Fold Way, in which investigation of four basic archetypes are complimented by meditations using one of the four postures.

Enjoy the collection.