Koyaanisqatsi and Buddhism

I went to see Baraka two nights ago in McLeod Ganj. The cinema had about 20 seats, a projector and sound system you'd expect to find in a lecture theatre, and cost Rs30 (35p). Very quaint. The film had no dialogue, no speach, just pictures and film documenting people and the world. It was moving. At the end, the guy that ran the place said he'd show Koyaanisqatsi the next night, a film with a similar theme, but with a soundtrack by the great Philip Glass, which I have had the pleasure of experiencing before. I told a few people about it and had five mates to take with me last night.

Koyaanisqatsi is far less Holywood, far less obvious and far more artsy than Baraka. There is flagrant over-use of speeded up and slowed down film, which becomes more and more accentuated until the end, when two of us agreed we just wanted to scream and make it stop. The film did not hand the simple message "we're destroying the world and need to stop" on a platter, but left many open ends and therefore lots to discuss. And discuss we did (over chai, of course).

The film depressed the Dutch nurse so much he had to go home. Three of us chatted for ages, trying to make sense of the loose ends. I thought I'd been impacted by all of this enough to keep me going for a few days until right near the end of the discussion, where we shared how it made us feel. Apart from like we wanted to scream. The two buddhists both said it made them want to go further into the hills and meditate more. It did just the opposite to me. It made me want to live a long life, and change as much as I can about this decaying world. The authors take a postmodern approach to their art, emploring us to create our own meanings, it was saying to me that the world needs to change. Koyaanisqatsi means 'crazy life; life out of balance; unsustainable life' etc.

Of course we got onto politics. I covered my ears as Richard said we can't change anything. The main buddhist approach to suffering that I've heard of is that suffering is created by incorrect understanding of reality, e.g. belief in the inherent existence of us and things. Although there is (especially from a critical psychologist's point of view) truth here, it seems deeply unsatisfactory to me, if all that is done about suffering is dharma (teaching) and meditation until the wrong views are eliminated, intuitive reality experienced and enlightenment is achieved. What about the unjust structures that operate in the world (most notably from my point of view, capitalism and patriarchy)? I agree that these don't have inherent existence, that is obvious. But they are real forces nonetheless. And they are forces that need challenging.

And here I stumbled upon something that's been niggling with me about buddhism since getting up here into North India, which is very buddhisty. Meditation is a private experience, as is enlightenment. I read a bit in a book that a friend leant me about buddhism, and the opening gambit was "everyone wants to be happy". True, but this seemed to be the core of the book; the rest of it was devoted to developing ways to make this happiness happen, on an individual level only. The writer qualitifed herself by saying 'try to achieve enlighenment for the good of all beings', she repeated that phrase over and over, but it simply glosses over the radically individualised nature of the buddhisms I've so far encountered. If one becomes a buddha and tries to help others become so, there is value, but so much more is needed. The oppressed of the world need us to stand in solidarity and do something practical.

Perhaps I am not doing buddhism justice. I've only briefly learned a bit about a few buddhisms. Please, somebody enlighten me.

I suppose that I would find difficulty subscribing to a philosophy that does not have challenging injustice at its very core, not just a corrolary feature to appease the activists.

And that's why I'm enjoying

so much.

Technorati Tags: art books politics spirituality