The closure of yet another bank branch as I walk past it the other day was a sad one. It highlights a troubling shift toward a fully digital economy. While digital payments offer convenience, they also often carry challenges and issues not thought about.

There were 575 bank branch closures between 2017 and 2021 in Australia, and more than a third of ATMs in rural areas were removed. Things in my view will only get worse.

As cash use declines in Australia, consumers are increasingly dependent on electronic systems that fail in so many ways. During power outages people are leaving supermarkets full of abandoned groceries and shopping.

We are facing fees and charges with electronic payments and fees with the use of private, non-bank run ATM machines per transaction.

With less face to face customer service at a bank branch, we are being pushed onto call centres in places like India and robot style services online, with customer enquiries not dealt with.

I believe it is time people demanded action in this area before it is too late - but what are the answers to this problem?

There are no answers to this problem. With 93 seats, plus the help of the Greens and Teals, and control of the Senate, and no real opposition, the Albanese Socialist/Communist government can do as it pleases.

On top of that, As Ramesh Thakur writes, “no matter who they ( the people) vote for, the blob – the network of mighty quangocrats, technocrats, activist NGOs and unelected and unaccountable judges – always wins”.

“The old left-right divide is passé. The new divide is between the international technocratic elite in alliance with national elites, against the interests, values and policy preferences of national populations”.

This came to a head during the pandemic years. An elite class of technocrats networks seamlessly cross sovereign borders to advance their self-interest contrarily to the wishes of their electorates.

If you think it is bad now, wait till the blackouts start !

This is called progress and fortunately for older people like us, we progress faster towards the grave and will soon blackout. That will solve our problem!

I do not envy the younger generations:
by 2021, 22% of Australians aged 15-34 were clinically depressed compared with only 9% in 2009 and extrapolating from the graph, today it would be around 28% - not including the undiagnosed.

Look Nathan, our older generation suffered more from chemical toxins like asbestos, tobacco and lead - while younger generations suffer more from mental digital toxins. Sadly they hide behind screens and cannot appreciate and don't know how to handle the simple joys of physical human contact. Both governments and commercial corporations discourage it, because lacking physical contact increases the dependence on them.

George Orwell, having lived in a different era, believed that by 1984, people will drown their helplessness and isolation in a physical toxin: Victory Jin - he failed to foresee the advance of electronic gadgets other than the telescreen.

When a vile government like Albanese's gets reinstated, it can do whatever it wants to. Australians, particularly the young ones, deserve everything that is going to happen to them. As Yuyutsu seems to be saying, we old nuisances won't have to put up with it for much longer.

We should understand that it's difficult for some old folk to adjust to modern living. Modern technology brings benefits, which are not always easy to accept or understand. I know there are some here who can't accept the fact that spats and straw hats have had their day, and its time to move on.

Nathan's post is timely. I do internet banking banking regularly, but today - and who knows for how much longer - my financial institution has bombed out: it's not working. Go and find one of the branches they haven't closed down.

It's a good thing that I don't leave paying bills until the last minute.

Yuyutsu,

<<This is called progress and fortunately for older people like us, we progress faster towards the grave and will soon blackout. That will solve our problem!>>

That's great for some people, but it doesn't help others. Plus, for others like myself who care about future generations, we do want to see outcomes to some of these challenges. After all we do care. Probably too much in the eyes of some, but we do care.

ttbn,

<<When a vile government like Albanese's gets reinstated, it can do whatever it wants to. Australians, particularly the young ones, deserve everything that is going to happen to them.>>

They do have too much control there, I agree (Labor), but don't forget those young people who cannot vote. They need some way to pay for things and they need to learn how to save money in a meaningful way, plus if they want work and get a job and to teach responsibility.

Paul,

<<We should understand that it's difficult for some old folk to adjust to modern living.>>

Just what is modern living and why is it better?

"modern living" gave us pollution, the Woke & the fracturing of societies everywhere.

Dear Nathan,

If you care for future generations, then try to make them small in number.

Technology is not meant to provide us with a better life, but to compensate for human numbers and enable more people to survive on this planet simultaneously.

Bringing new babies into this overcrowded world does not do them any favour - why should they squeeze and push to enter all at once when they can space it out just the same?

The disembodied do not feel any pain or boredom, so whether they are reborn after a year or 100 years or 100,000 years makes no difference to them.

Still no electronic banking available from my financial institution this morning. Life without cash and somewhere to hand it over is going to be so much fun, not just for old people who don't count for anything in the 21st. Century, but also for the smart-arse youngsters. There technical gadgets don't work any differently from mine.

Hi Nathan,
Modern society as we know it centainly has advantages over those less developed in a physical sense. Meeting our material needs and wants, requires far less effort than once was the case, thanks to productivity advances. Technical development in areas such as health and food production, has been of great benefit to a minority of the world's population, there is no denying that.

As for our social development, that's an entirely different question. Unfortunately it has not kept pace with our physical development, in many areas of human behaviour we're still in the stone age, or worse. Aka, great advances in science, so what do we do, we produce weapons of mass destruction, just that we can kill millions of our own kind!

Dear Paul,

«Modern society as we know it centainly has advantages over those less developed in a physical sense.»

Correct, but we already have a modern society for over a century - we don't need an ultra-modern one.

«Meeting our material needs and wants, requires far less effort than once was the case»

Our needs were fully met by the 20th century, and often with only one breadwinner per family, and not too long work-hours either.
Our wants are a different story, they are emotionally-based and no amount of matter can satisfy our hunger for meaning and to avoid the feeling of emptiness.
Filling an empty stomach with material food makes sense,
but filling an emotional hole with material products is a false solution since no amount of matter is going to fill it.

Besides, making efforts is not always a bad thing!

«Technical development in areas such as health and food production, has been of great benefit to a minority of the world's population, there is no denying that.»

Health is an exception - relieving pain is so important. I do not deny that.

Food production? Only as long as lack of food, or lack of healthy nutritious food is a problem.
We are well beyond these times and even while there could be enough for everyone if we wanted, a large portion of technologically-enabled food produced today is unhealthy junk.

You said "such as": other than medicine I struggle to find other areas where the benefits of technical developments outweigh their ill-effects.

" I struggle to find other areas where the benefits of technical developments outweigh their ill-effects."

Says a man typing up his thoughts on a device that would have been considered magical a mere 50 years ago which not only allows him to disseminate his thoughts peoples all over the planet and to stay in instant touch wth relatives, loved-ones and acquaintances but also gives him almost instant access to the accumulated knowledge of all mankind.

But he thinks these benefits are outweighed by the detriments and will of coarse relinquish access to this device.

Dear Mhaze,

50 years ago?
That's 1975 - I was using punched cards at the time.

First I would write what I wanted to punch on 80-column chequered papers,
(because once a card is punched, the holes could not be back-spaced and unpunched, so on any error the card would have to go in the bin)
then take the time to carefully punch from that draft, using a very similar keyboard, as the empty cards shuffled by,
and then if there was too much to say, then the deck of cards would be quite heavy and cumbersome, and might not even fit into the computer's card-reader in one go, and yes, that would upset the operator.

That gave me the time to consider what, if any, I really wanted to tell the world and weed out the silly, impetuous and unworthy ideas.
Not much was left.
And it would also save my readers the trouble and waste of time,
So they can instead enjoy the real world outside and interact with live people (relatives, loved-ones and acquaintances).

allows him to disseminate his thoughts peoples all over the planet and to stay in instant touch
mhaze,
Yes, even bad thoughts & information hence the Woke ! Inventions are invariably misused, just look at explosives & chemicals etc. With the right mentality good outcomes are achieved. With poor mentality you get Woke & Socialism. Neither have so-far proven to be the answer.

Yuyutsu, Puched Cards ? 1975 ?
You must have been working in a museum !
I was working on computers in 1960 and punched cards
were thought old hat then.
Our input came from the data prep girls on magnetic tape.
Ahhh, the girls I remember them, I wonder how they all turned out !

It’s telling how the same people ranting about modern banking never rage against the telephone, the television, the credit card, or the ATM - all ‘technocratic’ disruptions of earlier eras. Funny how the war on progress always begins the moment it edges past their comfort zone.

When change happened before they were born, it was ‘civilisation.’ When it happens during their lifetime, it’s suddenly ‘the woke technocrats plotting our doom.’ It’s never really the idea of change they hate - just the direction it takes without their permission.

There are legitimate concerns about a cashless society, but hijacking the topic to vent about imaginary elites and culture war ghosts doesn’t help anyone. It’s just noise.

Yuyutsu,

I appreciate the poetic defence of older methods, but it raises an unavoidable question: At what point, exactly, did humanity lose its ability to reflect?

Was it the moment we moved past punch cards? The rise of the internet? Email? Smartphones? Or was it, perhaps coincidentally, around the time you reached the age where everything started feeling too fast?

It’s striking how often people draw the line of "meaningful civilisation" just after they’ve fully come of age - as if reflection and wisdom peaked the moment they got comfortable.

If there’s a lesson in what mhaze said, it’s not that modern tools are inherently corrosive - it’s that every generation romanticises the pace of its own formative years, and treats what comes after as decline.

That, too, is a form of nostalgia - not insight.

Dear John,

You need not worry - I will be gone from this earth long before you, so you can have it all for yourself and mess it up as much as you like.

I am really not interested in living in a world where I need to interact with machines instead of with real live people, I don't see the point of living in such an environment and prefer to be dead.

Humanity has not lost its ability to reflect at any particular point, nor in all areas of life simultaneously: it's more like the boiling-frog when the water is being heated slowly.

While in medicine we haven't yet reached that peak when the increase in ill-effects outweighs the increase in benefits, in the area of entertainment we reached it centuries ago, long before I was born.

No, I don't miss sitting for an hour open-mouthed on the dentist's chair while they drill into my tooth with a 300-revolutions/minute drill, thinking that today's drills are "too fast"...

My parents had a television when it was introduced, so you cannot claim that I wasn't used to it or that it was "too fast" for me. Yet being more discerning than others, I never got one myself once I moved out, and I still do not have it, nor feel any need for it. Typing this response, for example, is more technologically demanding than using a television, yet here I am.

I'm not nostalgic over punched cards, because computers are still helpful in medicine and what they do for medicine couldn't be achieved with punched cards: the fitness I had for running over hills with heavy bags full of punched cards to get to the university's shared computer, that I miss, not the cards. My whole point in mentioning them was to tell Mhaze that typing thoughts on a device wasn't "magical" 50 years ago.

While 50 years ago computers were used as scientific tools, today they are being used for so much more, much of it unwholesome, that much that I think we would overall be better off without them.

Yuyutsu,

That first line was revealing - not because of what it says about me, but because of what it says about your position.

For someone who’s often spoken with serene detachment about civilisation’s decline, it was striking to see that veil slip just enough to pin the blame on a “you” and imply that the world is being “messed up.” That’s not observation - that’s judgment. And it suggests this isn’t just a lament about cultural shifts, but a personal frustration that things no longer reflect your values.

That’s fair enough. I don’t begrudge your preferences. If you’ve chosen to opt out of certain technologies or modern comforts, that’s admirable in its consistency. But my point wasn’t about you personally using a television or having a punch card phase - it was about how we determine, objectively, when society crossed some threshold into meaninglessness or decline.

You say humanity hasn’t lost its ability to reflect “at any particular point,” yet still speak with certainty that it’s already happened, and happened so gradually that any clear measure of it is conveniently out of reach. That makes it very hard to assess your argument beyond “things feel worse now.”

If the rise of television was already too far for you, and the internet is clearly beyond redemption, then at what point was society doing it right? Because it seems like every technological leap after your formative years is suspect - and every leap before, silently accepted.

That’s the pattern I’m highlighting. And I don’t think it’s unique to you. I think we all do it. But once we see it, we have to ask: Is this really a critique of the modern world… or just a sign we’ve aged out of being its intended audience?

Coffee was first introduced to Europe around 1500. A century later a 'Café Culture' had arisen Vienna and quickly moved to many European cities. That culture had many people, mainly the young, sitting in cafes discussing events or just whiling away the time. And an anti-café culture arose which saw all this as detracting from purposeful activity and diverting the youth. Efforts were made to close established cafes and oppose new one.

The same thing happened a century or so later when drinking chocolate became the latest fad of the fashionable youth of Europe.

The forlorn cries of the old and the entrenched against anything new is as old as civilisation itself. Each new trend, new invention, new way of doing things is seen as the end of civilisation itself. It isn't and never was. (I can see that ancestors of Yuyutsu and ttbn decrying the introduction of cuneiform writing back in c.2900 BC as the end of personal communication and the end of civilisation).

That's not to say that this type of wailing ought to be discouraged. The anguished cries of the old that their world is changing and not for the better is part of the human culture. The Bible would be half its current size if the whinging of the prophets were removed.

But lets not confuse cries that the world is changing in ways that the old don't understand with observations that this makes things worse. The quality of life of the average 21st century human is immeasurably better than any other time. And it continues to get better. My only regret is that I won't be around to see how good it is for 22nd century folk.

I'm not terribly concerned about the closure of banks or the move to a cashless society. Banks close because the customers no longer need or use them. That some still do is really beside the point unless you also think that the some who want the branches to stay open foot the bill for doing so.

But there are concerns about the cashless society and they revolve around the unprecedented level of data it will give the authorities and pressures that will bring to order society as they see fit.

If everything (absolutely everything) is traded electronically then governments will have the opportunity to access that data and use it. GST is currently 10% on everything to ease the transaction if its done in cash. But if its done electronically, then each item could have a different GST level. And that would mean higher taxes on those things the authorities disapprove of. Whatismore, it will allow rationing at a level the totalitarians only dreamed of. Oh you've already had your allocated two slabs of beer this month so your credit card won't process any further purchases.

A cashless society will introduce two new things. (1) a tension between those who want to limit the amount of data the government can gather about our purchases as against those who want to use that data to steer our purchases in the right direction...for our own good, mind you. (“The nine most terrifying words in the English language are ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” - Reagan.)

and
(2) massive black-market in things that the government seeks to ration - think of the tobacco wars on steroids.

Yuyutsu,

Has it ever occurred to you that the same technology you see as distracting or corrosive might, in the long run, actually bring about the very kind of spiritual life you value most?

If things keep heading in the direction they are, it’s not unthinkable that one day people may no longer need to work at all. And if survival becomes effortless, we could actually end up with more time for reflection than at any point in human history.

Not just scraps of reflection and meditation in rare moments - but a whole way of life centred around stillness, contemplation, even the kind of meditative existence that seems close to what you’ve often described.

A society of quiet gardens, uninterrupted thoughts, and voluntary simplicity, where everyone has the chance to explore meaning, not just monks or mystics. Isn’t that a version of life you’d find superior to the one we’ve ever known?

And yes, if some measure of struggle or friction is still needed for clarity - then so be it. One can choose to lift one’s own burden, just as you once chose the wireless and not the television. One robot instead of two. The balance, as always, remains yours to strike.

It’s possible, is it not, that the tools you now resist are the very ones preparing the world you’ve always longed for - not a descent into noise, but an ascent into stillness?

Meditate on this - reflect on it - and come back to me when you are ready...

Dear John,

First about your interesting last post:

Meditation is not easy.

To meditate effectively one needs years, if not lifetimes, of preparations. If one is not yet qualified then one will be constantly distracted and attempting prolonged meditating will be experienced as torture, though a bit of meditation, some 20 minutes twice a day is fine and may help a little.

In the Bhagavad Gita, Lord Krishna first prescribes Karma Yoga, starting in Chapter 2 and then the whole of Chapter 3 deals with it:
Karma Yoga is about work, correct work with the correct attitude. One must lead an active life as a way to purify one's mind before they can even dream of meditating and leading a contemplative life.

Human effort is invaluable.

Living in a fool's Garden of Eden, the unprepared will become bored and create mischief yet again.

The ancient Yogis had technologies, they had yogic powers that dwarfed modern capabilities, but they were spiritually ready enough to not abuse them and used these powers for peace and to create the environment they needed for peace of mind.

Allowing ordinary people to access such powers will lead to disasters, where nuclear reactions and genetic manipulation are only the beginning. The potential power of quantum computing is even more scary, tapping into a deeper energy of creation, the cosmic mind, sometimes referred to as "Hiranyagarbha" in Vedic sources. If that is successful, then firstly no password or any other individual protection will be safe: people's bank accounts will be open to all and no secrets could be kept.

Such powers may be safe in the minds of Yogis who practised ethics and stabilising their minds for many years, but can you imagine even in your nightmares what will happen if ordinary people today (not to mention someone like Donald Trump) get hold of such technologies and use them for selfish ends?

One can still contemplate while working, especially when performing repetitive manual labour, which is sadly almost gone in modern society.
I recommend manual dishwashing as a mild contemplative tool for beginners. I use it myself.

Yuyutsu,

Yes, meditation without preparation can become hollow or even distressing. I agree. But your view rests on a curious assumption: that spiritual depth can only be achieved through hardship, hierarchy, and restriction. That only the purified are worthy of peace.

It’s a view shared by many - but also one rooted more in fear than in freedom.

True contemplation doesn’t require external permission, nor years of ritual. It only requires sincerity - and space. Sometimes, what holds us back from reflection isn’t unworthiness - it’s the unexamined belief that we must earn stillness through suffering first.

You seem to believe that only the rare yogi can safely hold spiritual power. But that is, ironically, a materialist view - as if spiritual insight were a volatile substance that only the trained may handle, like uranium. Enlightenment isn’t hazardous waste. It’s the recognition that nothing was ever missing.

When you speak of AI and technology as dangerous in the hands of the “ordinary,” I hear the same old fear the priests of every era have whispered: “The people must not be trusted with the sacred.” And yet, over and over, the sacred finds them anyway - in fields, in kitchens, in laughter, and in stillness they didn’t earn, but simply accepted.

Yes, one can wash dishes mindfully. One can also walk a forest path in silence because the machines have done the weeding.

Meditate on this - reflect on it - for you still have much to learn....

Dear John, and anyone else who may have misunderstood:

I never said that one has to suffer for the sake of stillness, meditation or spirituality.

Work does not necessarily entail suffering, not if one performs a work suitable to them.

Karma Yoga is about doing the usual things one would do anyway, only with a different attitude. One could work in the fields, in the factory, at a building-site, in a shop or an office, in the police or the army, at the lab, in a hospital, in a restaurant, in school or university, bringing up one's kids or caring for one's old parents, etc., etc.

Or one could also meditate if they can, if they can sustain sitting quietly for hours with eyes closed doing "nothing" outwardly, but let the "ordinary" person try that for 4 hours from morning to lunchtime, then see whether they return to sit under the tree for the afternoon or say, "give me a pickaxe instead, I rather work in a quarry..."

All is good so long as one does a work that suits them and is ethical, but trouble and pain start when one is made to do something that is against their nature. Olympic athletes and boxers would of course incur physical pain in their job, but they do not experience it as suffering.

It is sad when machines take away one's job, whether menial or intellectual, forcing them instead to do something unsuitable or become unemployed. It is then that one suffers.

«I hear the same old fear the priests of every era have whispered: “The people must not be trusted with the sacred.”»

This may be what you hear, but is not what I said.

All the sacred knowledge is available for free, including on the internet. You are welcome to read it all, but you will not understand it correctly without proper preparation, just as you will not understand an advanced physics book without the proper mathematical background.

[continued...]

[...continued]

«your view rests on a curious assumption: that spiritual depth can only be achieved through hardship, hierarchy, and restriction. That only the purified are worthy of peace.»

God's peace is available everywhere at any time, but impure minds cloud one's perception so they are not aware of it. One may still have occasional glimpses of peace, but then an impure mind quickly covers it again.

Hardship, hierarchy or external restrictions are not required, though one should learn and practice self-discipline for their mind to be purified, and that is learnt while doing one's ordinary job well and with a right attitude. Lazy people who rather have machines do their work, will never attain this self-discipline.

«You seem to believe that only the rare yogi can safely hold spiritual power.»

ANY power.
There are no "spiritual powers":
Modern scientists gain material powers.
Ancient yogis gained mental powers.
ANY power can be dangerous in the wrong hands and the greater the power, the rarer the person who can handle it safely.

«One can also walk a forest path in silence because the machines have done the weeding.»

Sure can, but external silence does not quieten one's mind within.
Good works do.

Dear John,

You made an hypothesis:
"every generation romanticises the pace of its own formative years, and treats what comes after as decline."

Thus I started introducing some counter-examples, of younger people rejecting technologies that already existed when they were born, and of older people embracing the latest 21st century gadgets (without even understanding how they work). I could go on with such examples, thus your hypothesis at least needs to be refined.

There may still be some correlation between age and acceptance of new technology, but it could also be due to younger people not having experience and proficiency, thus appreciation, with older things.

Yes, I consider myself fortunate to have lived most of my life overall in the technological "Goldilocks zone", but that doesn't mean that I blindly approved of any previous technology and rejected every later one. I believe, for example, that the invention of "moving pictures", way before I was born, was a mistake, while on the other hand, genome-sequencing to produce individual cancer remedies was not.

Wanting to freeze technology at any specific date, say 1920, 1950 or 1980, would be fanatic, because advances in technology are not uniform and there are plenty of exceptions. When I suggested that making movies was a mistake, for example, I am very appreciative of the invention of life-saving ultrasound technology, both being "moving pictures".

«And it suggests this isn’t just a lament about cultural shifts, but a personal frustration that things no longer reflect your values.»

Culture in the 20th century did not reflect my values either.
I was speaking specifically of technology, not everything cultural.
In other areas, I think that culture is still overall improving and hasn't yet peaked: there is way to go, but present technology drags us down... overall, and that's a pity.

Yuyutsu,

There is no correct era. No golden median. No fixed fulcrum upon which the soul may balance perfectly. There is only now, and whether now is resisted or received.

You speak of a technological “Goldilocks zone” - as though the universe briefly aligned with your personal temperature preference before tipping into chaos. That’s not reflection. That’s nostalgia dressed in the robes of discernment.

You say you don’t idealise a particular era. And yet, with careful selection, you affirm one innovation while condemning another - ultrasound good, cinema bad - drawing lines that are less about the essence of a technology and more about your comfort with its cultural effects. That’s not transcendence. That’s taste.

Spiritual maturity is not marked by one’s ability to draw finer and finer distinctions, but by one’s ability to let go of the need to.

What I offered earlier was not a defence of every machine, nor a hymn to progress for its own sake - it was an invitation to reconsider what reflection might look like when stillness becomes abundant. You responded with a list. I spoke of liberation, you then returned with product reviews.

That’s alright. The path unfolds at its own pace.

Contemplation isn't always found in retreat. Sometimes it waits in the noisy, unfamiliar spaces that challenge our preferences and puncture our illusions. Sometimes the next step on the path is the one that feels most unnatural - precisely because it's the one that reveals what we still cling to.

Dear John,

You seem to mix a salad of the two issues we discussed:

1. About technology's benefits peaking.
2. About your generous "invitation to reconsider what reflection might look like when stillness becomes abundant".

Of my last 3 posts, the first two responded to #2 and the last one returned to #1.

On the new, second topic, I responded based on scripture that this idea of relieving everyone from their work, this tempting Lazy's Paradise, is not going to help purify people's minds and spiritual progress, but rather that work is essential for spiritual progress: proper and suitable work, which is not suffering.

On the original topic:
When you have a function over time of technological benefits minus ill side-effects, the returns eventually diminish and side-effects increase so at some point the first derivative turns negative. It may be difficult to compute the exact accurate point in time when that occurs, but then there's a peak and I consider myself fortunate to have lived during such a peak.

Now the function can have many peaks, and over an infinite span of time it could even have an infinite number of peaks. Indeed I idealise one such peak, but that peak was long ago, not during my lifetime or even within written history. That was a time, an era, when the great yogis and sages lived, when material technology was low but mental technology soared and peace and serenity reigned, not passive and dull laziness.

Yuyutsu,

I appreciate your effort to clarify the distinction between the two themes we’ve touched on. It’s a useful distinction, but not one that alters the deeper undercurrent.

You describe a vision of spiritual life where suitable work purifies the mind and brings one closer to stillness. I don’t disagree. But your definition of “suitable” work, and of “stillness,” seems to require such careful curation of era, context, and conditions that it becomes, ironically, fragile.

It’s as though serenity is a rare blossom - one that blooms only in the exact right climate, between the extremes of too much progress and too little. And yet, if serenity is so delicate, was it ever truly deep?

//...work is essential for spiritual progress.//

And yet, many great contemplatives - in temples, forests, and yes, in moments of quiet in the modern world - have found the opposite to be true: that progress often begins only when the compulsion to “do” is let go.

Of course, I recognise the scriptural grounding of your reply. But scripture, too, is a kind of technology - a conceptual tool, passed down and refined, built not of silicon but of symbol. And like all technologies, it can liberate, or it can bind. Sometimes it becomes a map we mistake for the terrain. Sometimes we reread its lines not to seek truth, but to protect what we already believe.

You see a great spiritual peak in an age long gone - one lost to history and memory. I see something else: the possibility that such a peak isn’t behind us, or ahead of us, but here - and only hidden by what we refuse to see clearly.

You are wise to recognise that not all movement is progress. But you have yet to see that not all stillness is retreat.

Dear John,

Certainly, scripture praises serenity, genuine serenity that is potent and content, not dullness, sloth and apathy masquerading as serenity.

«But your definition of “suitable” work, and of “stillness,” seems to require such careful curation of era, context, and conditions that it becomes, ironically, fragile.»

Obviously so, but I don't think that this task is required for the present discussion.

«It’s as though serenity is a rare blossom - one that blooms only in the exact right climate, between the extremes of too much progress and too little. And yet, if serenity is so delicate, was it ever truly deep?»

Serenity, once properly established is deep rooted and can withstand any weather, but while it is still only a seedling it can be delicate indeed.

«And yet, many great contemplatives - in temples, forests, and yes, in moments of quiet in the modern world - have found the opposite to be true: that progress often begins only when the compulsion to “do” is let go.»

Progress already began while they were making efforts, possibly without their knowing. Only then they can proceed to the next stage and let go - once they have what to let go of.

«I see something else: the possibility that such a peak isn’t behind us, or ahead of us, but here - and only hidden by what we refuse to see clearly.»

I cannot relate to this unless you reveal the mystery, but if this goes along the lines of Lazy's Paradise (and others' hell), where people are treated like hotel-guests by the machines and are not expected to do anything useful, then I will be glad to leave the world before seeing it.

Yuyutsu,

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I’m glad we’ve reached a point where we can speak more openly and plainly.

You’re right in that serenity should endure once it takes root. But the question then becomes: if something so resilient begins so delicately, how many people ever get the chance to reach it?

If the conditions need to be just right (the era, the setting, the type of work) then perhaps what’s fragile isn’t serenity itself, but the assumptions we have about how to find it. That’s where my doubt lies - not with the goal, but with the path we think must be taken.

Maybe the flower is strong, but the garden we picture is far too narrow?

I also found your point about effort before surrender quite compelling. Some people do need years of discipline before they’re ready to let go - and others find something real in a moment of stillness. As you said, it’s not the time or toil that matters most, but sincerity.

When I spoke of the “peak” being here, I wasn’t picturing a machine-run utopia where no one ever works again. I was pointing to something quieter: the idea that even now - in the midst of all this noise and change - something still and luminous might already be available to us, if we’re willing to look past our preferences.

You say you would rather leave the world than see it descend into such a state. I understand. But what if the world isn’t descending? What if it’s preparing for ascent, quietly and awkwardly, through imperfect means?

We may yet find that the machines we fear are simply tools clearing the ground for a deeper kind of cultivation.

Dear John,

There was a sign on a church, reading:
"You don't need this church - you can pray and seek God anywhere and at any time... But do you?"

So yes:
«in the midst of all this noise and change - something still and luminous might already be available to us, if we’re willing to look past our preferences.»

Indeed, always available, but are we willing to look past our preferences?

I used to be in a group where we also sang this song, over and over:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BWqo2BVn5M
- "We are opening up in sweet surrender to the luminous love light of the Lord".

It is a fond memory and it gave us a great warm glow, but were we actually surrendering then?

«if something so resilient begins so delicately, how many people ever get the chance to reach it?»

Everyone will, eventually, in one lifetime or another, but patience is a virtue.

But first we will only glimpse the spiritual perhaps for a second, then perhaps some months or years later for a couple of seconds, and then suddenly maybe without notice for a whole minute. This is called "frog leaps", spiritual progress is like that, where most of the time it seems dormant.

«But what if the world isn’t descending? What if it’s preparing for ascent, quietly and awkwardly, through imperfect means?»

The cycle of rise and fall never ends: have you any practical, concrete ideas at present, including what role can machines play in deeper cultivation which they cannot play already, or is the above presently only a vague idea for you?

Yuyutsu,

Thank you for this reply. There’s a warmth and sincerity in your words that’s deeply appreciated.

//It is a fond memory and it gave us a great warm glow, but were we actually surrendering then?//

The fact that you’re asking now may be more important than whatever the answer was then. Sometimes, we only begin to surrender once we question the sincerity of our earlier attempts.

As for the machines:
No, I don’t believe they will replace contemplation, or remove the need for practice. But perhaps they can remove some of the noise. They might do the washing, the scheduling, the counting, the remembering—leaving us fewer excuses to avoid silence.

A tool cannot cultivate the soul. But it can clear a path, so the soil can be worked more easily.

You’re right that progress can come in sudden frog-leaps, often unnoticed until afterwards. But the conditions that allow those leaps? Perhaps they don’t require a golden era or perfect outer conditions. Perhaps they arise when a person is simply ready—softened, open, sincere.

As you said: “Indeed, always available, but are we willing to look past our preferences?”

Sometimes that willingness arrives not through suffering, nor even through scripture—but quietly, in the middle of a conversation one didn’t expect would matter so much.

Let’s see where it leads.

Dear John,

«They might do the washing, the scheduling, the counting, the remembering—leaving us fewer excuses to avoid silence.»

Infinity - 100 = ?

«A tool cannot cultivate the soul. But it can clear a path»

A blocked path can be cleared.
But what if nothing blocks it but our own mind?

Assuming we are not hungry or thirsty, have a comfortable seat with a solid roof over our head, no creepy-crawlies around and heating and cooling as necessary.
Assuming that we are either not tired or if we are, then it is because we chose to fool around with anything (both of the moving and inert kinds) just to avoid the silence.

What external obstacles remain?

I can see two types:

1) health problems.
This is the one area where better technologies can help. ; and

2) social problems (including wars and domestic violence).
Yes, we are not yet over the peak on that one, there is more to do, but this discussion is limited to machines and technologies and is not about human relationships.

«Perhaps they arise when a person is simply ready—softened, open, sincere.»

Correct.

And what helps making us ready, softened, open and sincere?

Scripture prescribes work as a start, nothing too fancy, just the ordinary activities that we would be doing anyway, only with the correct attitude.

«Sometimes that willingness arrives not through suffering, nor even through scripture—but quietly, in the middle of a conversation one didn’t expect would matter so much.»

Correct.
If one seems to be giving up their preferences due to suffering, then that is because they have the preference not to suffer!

Once the suffering is gone, the old preferences will come back...

Suppression does not work on the spiritual path.

Yuyutsu,

You’re right to point out that many of our obstacles are internal. Machines may remove chores, but if the mind resists stillness, it will always find a way to distract itself - with or without technology. Infinity minus 100 is still infinity, as you say.

But where your point strengthens mine is here: if the work is internal, then perhaps the role of external tools is not to create stillness, but simply to stop making it harder to access.

Not everyone has the conditions you describe - solid roof, warmth, freedom from creeping dangers. Much of modern technology does help deliver those things more widely. So even if machines can’t clear the mind, perhaps they can help more people reach the starting line.

I also appreciated what you said about scripture prescribing ordinary work with the right attitude. That echoes something I’ve always believed: that the path isn’t far from where we already stand.

What you said about suppression rings true. Forced surrender isn’t real surrender. The willingness has to come of its own accord - but perhaps, with fewer burdens and more space, that willingness might arise in more people, more often.

How do you see this playing out in the modern world? Are there ways in which today's tools - when used with the right attitude - might aid the very inner preparation scripture calls for?

Dear John,

Indeed, not everyone has the conditions I described.
This is primarily a social issue, because there's already plenty for everyone if we wanted.

Two great inventions of the 20th century are air-conditioning and the contraceptive pill:

Without contraceptives (but still with better health and a liberal culture), technology will forever keep chasing population growth, and while it's likely to be successful in sustaining survival even at greater numbers, the peace of mind required to look within will remain out of reach for most, that while ill side-effects of technology reduce our quality of life and its distraction hinder our concentration on the spirit.

So what we need here is better distribution of 20th-century technology along with continued social progress.

«Are there ways in which today's tools - when used with the right attitude - might aid the very inner preparation scripture calls for?»

Today's tools are already being used for spiritual purposes, but the returns are diminishing.

As an example, I use video-conferencing for scripture-study.
My teacher is in India, but also travels often and the class is spread around the world. It is an overkill for the task, because we only watch the teacher, not each other, then use the chat function to ask questions at the end without creating a cacophony.

Looking back, before the 20th century, having live international classes was simply impossible. Yet I already had them in the 1970's:
What we technically did was to set classrooms in each participating city, each with a phone (rotary, analog) and a device attaching itself to the phone magnetically, then amplifying the sound into a long wire that went along the wall with a multitude of personal earphone outlets, then started an international phone conference call (which was very expensive then, but the cost was shared among the many participants).

The ability to see the teacher in video is nice, but the advantage is marginal. If we needed diagrams, then they could be sent by fax, and to ask a question we just needed to come forward one by one and talk directly on the phone.