Frivolous, fabulous, flippant

* Yesterday (September 17), I invited a friend along to a Zen meditation session sponsored by the Universal Wisdom Foundation (UWF). We arrived around 10:30 am at the Wisdom Park near Gilmore, Quezon City. A Buddhist monk from Korea led the group. We finished around 12 noon, after which we had a hearty lunch.

* After lunch, we were invited to a film showing by Ate Aurora, the secretary who works for the UWF. Apparently, one of the regular participants, Kasamang Ed, gave Au a copy of a CD (with the film) and persuaded her to show it to the group. Ed, who is around my age, is a bespectacled guy from UP Diliman, who wears long, hippie hair. He struck me as a serious and scholarly guy, actively participating in discussions on Buddhism. I couldn’t be more wrong.

* The film was entitled “The Quickening” and you can view it here: http://awakeningasone.com. A few minutes into the film, I sensed something was terribly wrong. With a narration accompanied by a series of (sometimes repetitive) images (“visual bites”) of a nuclear mushroom cloud, George Bush, etc., the film predicts the world will end on October 28, 2011. (Incidentally, that would be my dad’s 77th birthday.)

* The film embellishes its message with a hodge-podge (“halo-halo”) of themes from various sources:

1) Christian legend (it refers to “Three Days of Darkness” that precedes the coming of the “Purifier”, a comet that emits “cosmic rays of love and harmony”, but which is also an allusion to Jesus Christ)

2) Buddhist concepts (such as “awakening or evolving to a higher world consciousness”)

3) It uses language that appeals to liberals, environmentalists, and conspiracy nuts (at one point, it claims that the US government will soon stage a mock “alien invasion” that forces all nations to forget their differences and unite against the new threat, which is similar to the plot of a “fantasy hero” movie, The Watchmen).

The Quickening from keith wyatt on Vimeo.

* The film reminded me of American evangelist Harold Camping whose prediction of the rapture last May 21 failed spectacularly. Click here to read about it. When asked, Camping said that he “miscalculated” and gave another date: sometime in September or October 2011, which jives with the message of the film. I wouldn’t be surprised if his group produced the film itself.

* My initial reaction was livid anger and disgust at how a TRASHY film could worm its way into our group, pollute our minds, and waste everybody’s time. It became clear to me that the activity (and the film) was not sanctioned by either our guru (Sunim Vincent) who is currently in Indonesia or by Mr. Mariano, who heads the foundation.

* But just the same, I am flabbergasted at how a small clique or cabal within our group could manipulate people AWAY from the fundamental teachings of Buddha. Like many others in the group, I am critical of the rigid, inflexible, and closed minds or attitudes of other religions. But now, today’s experience made me understand and appreciate why other religions emphasize adherence to doctrine and dogma (sometimes under the threat of sanctions such as expulsion or refusal to give communion, e.g. the RH Bill comes to mind). Having a closed or prejudiced mind or world-view is bad, but having a “free-for-all” where any member of the group can preach his own views and opinions is equally undesirable. It’s confusing and chaotic.

* I wanted very much to walk out during the film-showing but I decided to wait until the film ended so I could everyone a piece of my mind. I did so in not so many words (“this film is more about Christian (myths) than Buddhist (teachings)”, “the film’s premise is hardly original… it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that change is accelerating but being right about one thing doesn’t make the rest of the film correct”).

* For the record, I was a devout Catholic when I was in high school. I liked reading the works of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas and even some contemporary theologians. And I must admit that I too was fascinated and hypnotized by the idea that the rapture/apocalypse/second-coming/end-of-times/age-of-revelations would happen in my life time. In fact, the early disciples were no different. They too thought that Christ would return in 100 AD. In some cases, there are some minor twists to this story. Not a few religious people believe that the world right now is very immoral and sinful and they pine for some “golden age” in the past where people were righteous and upright. And that a Supreme Being will cause the world to end at the very height of this immorality. (Even atheistic environmentalists are not immune from this “conservative” ideology or belief that the past is better than the present.)

* Now that I profess a different faith, I must admit I am now perplexed and intrigued with this phenomenon: Why do educated and rational people (like Ed) believe in such tales or myths, despite evidence to the contrary (or lack of evidence to support it)? Perhaps it’s our human need to feel “special” (e.g. Don’t we sometimes think our high school class was the best and everything was downhill after we graduated? C’mon, admit you’ve entertained that thought at one time or the other! And yes, I’m pretty sure other batches would disagree!)? We’d like to think we are the “chosen ones” to experience the Ultimate Wrap-up of Mankind’s Long History? And that thinking otherwise makes us feel ordinary and unimportant like specks of dust in the great sands of space and time?

* Anyhow, I’d like to explore that further in another blog but for now, I only want to shout out, “WHAT THE F_CK DID I GET MYSELF INTO?!? WHY ARE THERE SO MANY WEIRDOS IN OUR GROUP?!? KUNG GANITO RIN LANG NAMAN ANG MANGYAYARI, MAGTATAYO NA LANG AKO NG SARILI KONG RELIHIYON!! PWEH!!”

* P.S.: Most likely, I am doubly upset over today’s turn of events because I brought along a friend hoping she would be impressed with Buddhism. Instead, I felt like an ostrich and wanted to bury my head in the ground in shame.

* P.P.S. I’m not abandoning Buddhism because of this one incident. Popular (and misguided) superstitions, practices, and rituals aside, Buddha’s teachings remain profoundly enlightening to me. But next time, I’d probably more choosy and discriminating about people I associate with. Baka mahawa ako sa ka-weirdo-han ng iba. LOL

[NOTE: Borrowing from the concept behind TIME magazine's annual list of "100 Most Influential People", I am writing about people, real or imagined, who have deeply influenced me. This is one installment. You can also reach this page by clicking on a person's photo in my Gallery of Heroes page.]

---

Sherlock Holmes is a fictional detective created by Scottish author and physician Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. A brilliant London-based “consulting detective”, Holmes is famous for his astute logical reasoning, his ability to take almost any disguise, and his use of forensic science skills to solve difficult cases.

Holmes, who first appeared in publication in 1887, was featured in four novels and 56 short stories. All but four stories are narrated by Holmes’s friend and biographer, Dr. John H. Watson; two are narrated by Holmes himself (“The Blanched Soldier” and “The Lion’s Mane”) and two others are written in the third person (“The Mazarin Stone” and “His Last Bow”).

---

From the early beginnings of my “reading career” as an 8-year old kid, I have always regarded the activity as a form of entertainment. On a few occasions in high school and college, I read serious books (the topic of my last blog, E.F. Schumacher’s “Small is Beautiful” is one of them). But mostly, I gravitate towards works that are entertaining (e.g. Greek mythology) or hilarious (e.g. MAD Magazine) or intriguing (e.g. Hardy Boys). In the latter category belongs a book (or books) featuring one of my favorite fictional characters, Sherlock Holmes.

I admire Sherlock Holmes for his powers of observation and logic. By simply observing a man’s hands or marks on his shoe, for example, Holmes can make a good guess as to the man’s occupation or last whereabouts. It is entertaining to see him solve a mystery almost effortlessly and then explain his line of reasoning or methods to his faithful side-kick, John Watson.

In high school, I was enamored with logic, positivism, mathematics, and the scientific method, as exemplified by the works of Roger Bacon, Rene Descartes, and Alfred North Whitehead. It is no surprise then that Sherlock Holmes enjoys a special place in my heart and in my pantheon of heroes.

But more than just an admiration for abstractions, I’ve come to like Sherlock the man. I laugh when I read about naive tourists who visit London looking for Sherlock’s office along Baker Street. (They must have thought Sherlock was a real, historical figure!) I chuckle whenever Sherlock puts one over Watson and visits him disguised as someone else. I worried for Sherlock as he wrestled his arch-nemesis, the devious Professor Moriarty over the cliff in The Final Bow.

I can relate to some of Holmes’ habits and disposition in life. Like Holmes, I too sometimes forget to eat whenever I am absorbed in some project or task on my computer.

“[Holmes] had no breakfast for himself, for it was one of his peculiarities that in his more intense moments he would permit himself no food, and I have known him to presume upon his iron strength until he has fainted from pure inanition.”

Having grown up in a family that is not expressive emotionally, I can relate to Holme’s aloof composure, as well as his penchant for showing off his abilities (see my earlier blog on Wolfgang Mozart):

“Holmes’s demeanour is presented as dispassionate and cold. Yet when in the midst of an adventure, Holmes can sparkle with remarkable passion. He has a flair for showmanship and will prepare elaborate traps to capture and expose a culprit, often to impress Watson or one of the Scotland Yard inspectors.”

While I am, by and large, sociable, thanks to my stint as an altar and choir boy, I find myself choosing my friends and people I hang out with. I can swing from introvert to extrovert in the space of a few minutes, making me wonder what I really am inside: a socially adjusted introvert or an extrovert lacking in opportunities to socialize?

“Holmes is a loner and does not strive to make friends. He attributes his solitary ways to his particular interests and his mopey disposition.”

Like Holmes, I crave for stimulation. Holmes is known for occasional drug use. I’m known for going on movie or gaming marathons to drive away boredom.

“Holmes occasionally uses addictive drugs, especially when lacking stimulating cases. He believes the use of cocaine stimulates his brain when it is not in use. He is a habitual user of cocaine, which he injects in a seven-per-cent solution using a special syringe that he keeps in a leather case.”

While I do share Holmes high regard for logic and powers of reasoning, I must admit I do not share his skill in observation. As I examine myself, I notice that I spend most of my time “living inside my head” causing me to miss simple things like a friend’s new hair-do (important for women!) or her annoyed facial expression (for some joke or tactless remark I made) or that my shoe laces are frayed and needs replacing.

I guess I am more of a theoretician rather than an empiricist. Or perhaps it’s a simple case of absent-mindedness. I often find myself thinking of some new idea or rewinding an old conversation or some such thought while, say, washing the dishes or my car. You could imagine the sort of trouble I get into because of that. Let’s see. Dropping and breaking a cup is not far-fetched. Leaving or misplacing an umbrella or a cellphone behind is not unusual for me. Or I go upstairs to my room to get a stapler or a mug and then, when I get there, I wonder for a split-second what I was supposed to do.

As I write this blog, I realize that I need to practice “awareness of the present” more often. I am convinced that that is something I need to work and improve on. Holmes’ intellectual powers amount to nothing if not fed with raw sensory input delivered by his habits of awareness and observation. MINDFULNESS is the key. That’s elementary, Watson!

[NOTE: Borrowing from the concept behind TIME magazine's annual list of "100 Most Influential People", I am writing about people, real or imagined, who have deeply influenced me. This is one installment. You can also reach this page by clicking on a person's photo in my Gallery of Heroes page.]

---

Ernst Fritz Schumacher

Ernst Friedrich “Fritz” Schumacher (1911 – 1977) was an internationally influential economic thinker, statistician and economist in Britain, serving as Chief Economic Advisor to the UK National Coal Board for two decades. His ideas became popularized in much of the English-speaking world during the 1970s. He is best known for his critique of Western economies and his proposals for human-scale, decentralized and appropriate technologies. According to The Times Literary Supplement, his 1973 book Small Is Beautiful is among the 100 most influential books published since World War II.

---

In the mid-1980′s, I “met” Ernst Fritz Schumacher through my brother’s book “Small is Beautiful: A Study of Economics as if People Mattered”. I was intrigued by the title as well as the image of my idol, Mahatma Gandhi, on the book’s cover. Gandhi once said, “People are moved more by symbols, than by ideas.” Well, I’d like to think I belong to the minority who are moved by powerful ideas as well as symbols. Thus, I write this tribute to one of my intellectual fathers.

I divide this blog into two parts: the first discusses Schumacher’s ideas as outlined in the book, while the second part dwells on his life.

The Ideas

I wanted to re-read the entire book before writing this blog. I’m afraid that is not feasible at the moment, and so I will rely on trusty Wikipedia to refresh my memory.

Schumacher is a passionate advocate of Appropriate Technology (AT). It is technology that is designed with special consideration to the environmental, ethical, cultural, social, political, and economical aspects of the community it is intended for. AT usually takes the form of simple technologies that are labor-intensive rather than capital-intensive, and are thus suited for use in developing (or rural) regions.

An example would be Gandhi’s famous spinning wheel which he used to produce his own clothing in protest of a British ban on locally manufactured clothes. (Incidentally, the spinning wheel is enshrined in the original version of the Indian national flag.) The spinning wheel doesn’t cost much so most people, including the very poor, can afford one or make one. It uses manual labor, which a (formerly) cash-strapped country such as India has in huge supply. AT therefore captures the spirit of Gandhi’s wisdom: “The progress of a country depends not on mass production, but on production by the masses.”

Schumacher also firmly believed in small and medium-sized businesses, the equitable sharing of profits, and in the wisdom of keeping disparities in salaries to a minimum. Small businesses tend to behave more ethically and more responsibly towards their workers, the communities in which they operate, and the environment. Large businesses, by their very nature, tend to do the opposite. It is far easier for a CEO living in Long Island to fire an employee in Rwanda whom he has never met. Owners of small business have no choice but to behave responsibly or lose face, reputation, or their family’s good name. Owners of large businesses, on the other hand are “hidden” from public view and do as they please, leading to well-known excesses of the capitalist system. As Gandhi said, “There is enough for man’s need but not enough for man’s greed.”

Schumacher also emphasizes the primacy of people over things (products, capital, or profit), and the creative process over consumption. After a business trip to Burma, he coined the term “Buddhist Economics”. Buddhist economics is a set of economic principles partly inspired by Buddhist beliefs that individuals ought to do good work in order to ensure proper human development. Its goal is minimizing suffering instead of maximizing profits (or pleasure). This is certainly a departure from “conventional business practices” which encourage greater consumption, as reflected in the 80′s song “Everything Counts” by the Depeche Mode.

Take for example, the practice of giving discounts. Sellers give large discounts for bulk purchases and none for small purchases. Obviously, it rewards greater consumption and penalizes frugality. In a world with a growing population and dwindling natural resources, we should be doing the opposite: discourage greater consumption and encourage frugality. This is illustrated in the rate structure of electricity bills (at least here in the Philippines). If your monthly consumption is less than 100 kilowatt-hours, you pay less per kwh consumed. If you consume more, you pay more per kwh. IMHO, this exception should become more and more of a rule.

Finally, there are two other ideas in Schumacher’s book that I have adopted as mine: avoiding wide disparities in salaries and distrust of the stock market.

In the book, Schumacher proposes that ratio of salaries between the lowliest janitor of a company and its CEO should not exceed 1:5. In a recent article in the New Yorker, the economist and Nobel-prize laureate Paul Krugman praised the wisdom of our elders a generation ago (US in the 1950′s) for making sure that everyone worked to earn his keep and that every worker had enough to live a decent, if not comfortable, life. Sadly, this ethos was gone by the 1970′s and the 1980′s. Today, we see bankers who were responsible for the 2008 financial crisis rewarding themselves with obscenely huge bonuses and/or golden parachutes, paid for by the tax-paying public.

In his book, the author criticizes the stock market as encouraging irresponsibility. Ideally, investors put their money in a company because they believe in the company’s mission and/or product and they want to contribute to its growth. In other words, investment should be seen as a long-term commitment much like marriage, and not as a chance to earn a quick buck like one does at a casino. In the recent movie “Wall Street 2: Money Never Sleeps”, Gordon Geeko said, “Speculation is the root of all evil.”

Schumacher is a visionary. As far back as four decades ago, he argued that coal, not petroleum, should be used to supply the energy needs of the world’s population. (He probably wasn’t aware that coal is the most polluting of fossil fuels but he can be forgiven for that. He is, after all, an economist, not a climate scientist.) He viewed oil as a finite resource, fearing its depletion and eventually prohibitive price, and viewing with alarm the fact that, as Schumacher put it, “the richest and cheapest reserves are located in some of the world’s most unstable countries. Now, we are grappling with his predictions. Oil prices have shot up spectacularly since four years ago, bringing along with it the prices of food (because of petroleum-based fertilizers, which are definitely not “appropriate technology”). If only we had heeded his words, we wouldn’t be in the rut we find ourselves in.

Another area where he hit the bulls-eye is in high-tech vs. appropriate tech. Today, so many people are jobless because we (or the capitalists) have ruthlessly automated all the jobs away. Now, governments around the world, America included, are scratching their heads, unsure how to stimulate demand and get the global economic engine revving again. They devise all sorts of ingenious “stimulus” plans when the answer is staring us in the face: the solution lies in production by the masses, not mass production. It’s in ensuring that everyone (who wants to) can find a job. People want jobs not dole-outs or… what’s the fancy term these days? CCT’s (conditional cash transfers)???

E.F. Schumacher has been described as one of the most widely recognized heterodox economists, offering an “alternative” viewpoint to the dominant economic theory, similar to what “alternative music” or “indie films” do to the mainstream. However, I am pleased to note that, with the global recession, population growth, dwindling resources, and climate change, Schumacher’s theories, once dismissed derisively by many academics, is now poised to become mainstream or the new “orthodoxy”. Hooray, let’s all drink to that!

The Man

Wikipedia describes the young Schumacher as a dedicated atheist. In his later years, he became fascinated with religion (Buddhism and Catholicism), makes a 180-degree turn, and rejects materialist, capitalist, agnostic modernity.

He noted the similarities between his own economic views and the teaching of papal encyclicals on socio-economic issues, from Leo XIII’s “Rerum Novarum” to Pope John XXIII’s “Mater et Magistra”, to name a few.

He became interested in Christian mysticism, reading deeply about St. Teresa of Avila and Thomas Merton. In 1971, he converted to Catholicism.

Schumacher and Me

Like Schumacher, I am also an economist albeit a non-practicing one. In fact, his book might have influenced me into taking up Economics in college. (The other, more obvious influence was my growing involvement in political activism.)

Like Schumacher, I am a staunch believer in humanism, or putting people above all else… “as if they mattered”.

Like Schumacher, I also went through a period of agnosticism, cynicism about religious leaders and practices, and doubts about God’s existence. Like Schumacher, I became interested in the Buddhism and admire it because of its practicality and appeal to common sense. However, as I gain in the years and come face-to-face with my own mortality, I find myself in a dilemma. My mind believes there is no proof of a God, but my heart wishes and yearns for one. Life is simply boring, if not meaningless, without striving for something or someone greater than ourselves. A life that has no noble purpose simply sucks!

Apart from the question of life after death, I am interested in a Higher Being as guiding our actions and giving meaning and purpose to life. I find it difficult to believe in ethics and morality without a God.

I totally agree with Schumacher when he said, “It is when we come to politics that we can no longer postpone or avoid the question regarding man’s ultimate aim and purpose. If one believes ‘that there are no higher obligations’, it becomes impossible to resist the appeal of … gaining … power so that you … can order the world as you like.”

As I discern my mission in life, it might be helpful to revisit my spiritual and philosophical roots. And for that I thank E.F. Schumacher for reminding us that in everything we do, “God and people do matter”.

[NOTE: Borrowing from the concept behind TIME magazine's annual list of "100 Most Influential People", I am writing about people, real or imagined, who have deeply influenced me. This is one installment. You can also reach this page by clicking on a person's photo in my Gallery of Heroes page.]

---

Michel de Nostredame (1503 – 1566), more popularly known as Nostradamus, was a French pharmacist and reputed seer who published collections of prophecies that have since become famous worldwide. He is best known for his book Les Propheties (“The Prophecies”), the first edition of which appeared in 1555. Since the publication of this book, which has rarely been out of print since his death, Nostradamus has attracted a following that, along with the popular press, credits him with predicting many major world events.

---

As I mentioned in my earlier blog, The Making of a Movie Addict, our family, no make it our clan, acquired the technological wonder that is the Sony Betamax video player in the early 1980′s. (I was in grade school at the time.) One of the first few movies we watched was “The Man Who Saw Tomorrow” featuring the prophecies of the French seer Michel de Nostradamus.

Before I go any further, let me make clear that I do not believe in horoscopes and astrology. But I do believe that the seasons and the natural cycles do have some effect on human behavior. For example, rain and snow tend to cause depression or the so-called blues among many while sunny days tend to make people happy. Just how much effect the stars have on our destinies is, well, something I am uncertain of myself.

Going back, the movie made quite an impression on me. My youth and naivete might have been a huge factor. When you’re young, you are more easily convinced or persuaded by things like movies than when you’re older.

I watched a copy of the very same movie last night, partly in preparation for writing this blog. Obviously, the copy was not blu-ray or HDTV quality but I enjoyed watching it just the same. And like some 30 years ago, I watched it in the dark while busily swatting mosquitoes that were feasting on my legs.

Thinking of this movie brings such adjectives to mind as “eerie”, “creepy”, and “amazing”. The movie opens with Nostradamus’ prophecy about the desecration of his very own grave. The gravediggers were surprised to find a metal plate inside the casket that was engraved with “May 1791″ which was the precisely the month and year at that time. He also predicted that his gravediggers would soon die after they have committed their dastardly deed. True enough, one of the gravediggers was hit by a stray bullet, presumably from the rabble that was the French Revolution.

Many other prophecies followed — the death of King Richard at the jousting grounds, the French Revolution, the assassinations of Abraham Lincoln and JFK, and the beheading of Marie Antoinette, and the most creepy of all, the the succession of three anti-Christs, who were supposedly Napoleon, Hitler, and He-who-is-yet-to-come. Honestly, that was the very first time I heard of the term anti-Christ. As I said before, I was only a grader and so the only Bible I knew was a “comic book” that my Dad bought for us.

It would be an understatement to say that the movie shocked me, for it was very much like a horror movie. No, it was worse than a horror movie, because it claimed that the dire things shown would come true. The images of cracked, parched land (drought), “biblical” floods that would leave no stable ground, nuclear holocaust, and warnings that man shall become a “man eater” haunted me to this day. That the movie predicted these many years before the term “global warming” was invented is astonishing.

Never mind that the predictions for the future were mere attempts at interpretation by scholars and outright loons. I am convinced that many of his predictions were uncannily accurate or close to actual events and persons. While some of this prophecies were vague and thus subject to many interpretations, there were a few that named names: the rise of Generalissimo Franco of Spain, the discoveries of scientist, Louis Pasteur, the inventor of the hot air balloon (Montgolfier brothers), and Hister (a reference to Adolf Hitler), are nerve-wrackingly close.

I guess people have an innate penchant for superstition. Among Christians, this involves a belief that they live in the end of times or at a time of Christ’s Second Coming. History records of many instances in the past when people were in a grip of “doomsday fever”, only to be disappointed when the sun came up the next morning. The latest doomsday scenario today is that of 2012, the supposed end of the Mayan calendar. I have many friends who secretly harbor fear about 2012, even pointing out as proof the latest internet reports of mass bird and fish deaths in the past few weeks.

I must admit that the movie might have injected in me a pessimist bent. The grim prospects of climate change and the havoc it has wreaked in recent years (including Typhoon Ketsana, local name Ondoy, which submerged our house in Marikina in 7-foot deep waters) is reason for worry. I recall a co-worker, a Canadian named Andrew Hunt, who interjected in the middle of a discussion, “Aaahhh, what does it matter? In a couple of years, we’d all be dead anyway.”

The only saving grace of the movie was its prediction of 1,000 golden years of peace and prosperity after the reign and subsequent defeat of the third anti-Christ. Back then, I was baffled as to how mankind can recover so quickly after being ravaged by famine, war, pestilence, etc. Looking at the current state of technology though, I guess people will always find a way to endure, survive, and show resilience. And that is the basis of my hope.

[NOTE: Borrowing from the concept behind TIME magazine's annual list of "100 Most Influential People", I am writing about people, real or imagined, who have deeply influenced me. This is one installment. You can also reach this page by clicking on a person's photo in my Gallery of Heroes page.]

---

Joan of Arc (Jan 6, 1412 – May 30, 1431) was a peasant girl born in Domremy, France. Known for her piety at age 13, she received her first vision of saints who revealed her mission to save France, which was near collapse from plagues and military defeats. After many requests, she was allowed to see the Dauphin, son of the insane King Charles VI. Her recognition of the dauphin, though he was disguised, convinced all of the authenticity of her mission.

Clad in white armor and waving her banner of Saints Michael, Catherine, and Margaret, she led the French army to victory no less than 14 times, including expeditions to Orleans, Toulouse, Saint Loup, Patay, Rheims, Auxerre, Troyes, and Paris. She was at the side of the Dauphin as he was crowned King Charles VII in Rheims. France was electrified and revivified.

On May 24, 1430, she was captured near Compiegne on May 24 and sold to the English by the Duke of Burgundy. She was charged with heresy and witchcraft before the court of Bishop Pierre Cauchon and burned at the stake at Rouen on May 30. As the fires consumed her, she set her eyes on a crucifix and shouted, “God! Jesus!” Spectators reported they saw something rise above the flames into the sky. Not smoke but something else.

A court appointed by Pope Callistus III found her innocent in 1456, and she was canonized in 1920. Two years later, she was declared patroness of France.

---

Since the start of the new year, I’ve been writing one blog a day. For today’s blog, I spent a considerable time (almost an hour) choosing a hero. At last, I settled on Joan of Arc, the only woman in my exclusive club of “Big Heroes”. While composing her short biography above, I was pleasantly surprised to know that today, January 6, is her birthday. Now, I am not a superstitious person. But I would like think that this one-in-365 coincidence is a sign that I made the right choice and that this blog entry would be an inspired one.

I first “met” Joan when I was around 10 years old through my book, “Saints for all Seasons” (John Delaney, editor). (From age 9 to 15, I was active in our parish church first as an altar boy and then later as a member of the boy’s choir. Naturally, I took to reading religious books ranging from catechisms to biographies of saints.)

There were 20 articles, each dealing with the favorite saint of a contributor-writer. At that time, I remember reading only two essays: that of St. Augustine of Hippo and St. Joan of Arc. The latter was written by Candida Lund and had a subtitle: “GO BOLDLY”.

I don’t know what attracted me to Joan’s story. Perhaps, it was my childhood fascination with knights in shining armor, like those who graced King Arthur’s Round Table. (I had most of the legendary characters memorized: Sir Kay, Sir Lancelot, Sir Galahad, Sir Gawaine, Sir Uwaine, Sir Percival, and of course, Sir Mordred). In Joan, I saw a knight like no other. First off, this knight was a she, and a very young one at that. Displaying courage, leadership, and strong-mindedness, she was a stark contrast to the weak-willed Dauphin.  In a bizarre reversal of roles in an age of male machismo, a damsel sallies forth to save a king and a country in distress.

Fast-forward a few years later, I entered college, got my first paycheck, my first heartbreak, and soon, I forgot all about Joan, the Bible, the Rosary, and other relics of my holier-than-thou past. But whenever the going got tough — at work, at home, or wherever — those words, Joan’s battlecry, always came to back to me. I recite them like a mantra: GO BOLDLY, GO BOLDLY, GO BOLDLY…

In 1999, two productions came out that retold Joan’s story: a movie starring Milla Jovocich and a TV series starring Leelee Sobieski. I saw the first but missed the second but Milla’s impressive performance (and stunning beauty) was enough to rekindle my interest in my old friend.

The movie revealed some dimensions to her persona that I missed in the essay. For one, she came across as being driven by a sense of divine urgency. I admire people who are “driven”. “Driven” people are relentless in pursuit of their goals.

While the generals and politicians counseled caution, Joan always wanted to move forward. One very powerful and dramatic scene has Joan standing alone outside the gates of Paris, laying siege to it, oblivious to her injuries and the falling rain. She was a one-woman wrecking crew, unafraid to go alone because she had God at her side.

There are only three other people I know who had Joan’s fire, intensity, and ambition: Genghis Khan, Alexander, and Adolf Hitler. In a recent movie, Alexander (played by Colin Farrell) marched on in the jungles of India despite setbacks, desertions, and ill-health. Joan was like that. It was as if God had handed her a tight deadline and she was determined to beat it.

The US subtitle of the movie (“Joan: The Messenger”) does no justice to the real Joan. Unlike most prophets I know, Joan was not a mere messenger who left it to others to do God’s will. She was its executor or executive officer as well.

Neither was she an armchair general who directed the war from afar. She was in the thick of battle. She put herself in harm’s way. She got hit by an arrow in the neck. During the battle of Jargeu, she withstood a blow from a stone cannonball to her helmet as she climbed a scaling ladder. But as soon as her wounds healed, she rushed back to battle.

She was like the courageous Ruth who won a great victory by cutting off the enemy commander’s head. Like my other big hero, Mahatma Gandhi, she was “action-oriented” (aksyon agad), which is a rare virtue these days. The movie portrays Joan as having a hoarse voice (minamalat). This was a nice touch as it hints at Joan’s youth as well as her exhaustion from battle.

Renewing my friendship with Joan as an adult also raised important questions like, “In things like wars or tennis matches, does God really choose sides? If yes, why should he choose France over England?” (I mention tennis because I just finished reading Andre Agassi’s book “Open”, where he complains about Michael Chang‘s habit of praying to win their matches.)

As I dug deeper into her life, no small thanks to the Internet, I am further impressed by historical records and accounts of her piety, her miracles (predictions), her heroism, and her sharp mind.

PIETY. The Dauphin commissioned a background check on her and the report said that “she lived an irreproachable life, a good Christian, possessed of the virtues of humility, honesty and simplicity.”

Her compassion and humanity showed even in war. In the movie, she pleaded with English commanders to surrender to avoid unnecessary bloodshed: “I’ve seen enough blood, but if you want more, I can’t stop you. But I must warn you, that it will be your blood, and not ours!”

MIRACLES. In feats rivaling that of her compatriot Nostradamus, Joan predicted the outcomes of battles far away and recognized the Dauphin in a room full of strangers.

HEROISM. Though she never received any formal military training, she was a superb tactician and an inspiring leader in the battlefield. How else can she win 14 battles in a row?

SHARP MIND. In her trial, this peasant girl confounded her judges (who were theologians) with a sharpness of intellect that can only be divinely inspired. When asked if she was in a state of grace, she answered: “If I am not, may God put me there; and if I am, may God so keep me.” Her subtlety is reminiscent of Jesus: “Let the man who hath no sin cast the first stone.”

In battle, she was a master of psy-war even before the term was invented. Like Hannibal and Erwin Rommel (the “Desert Fox”), she kept the enemy guessing and attacked when they least expected it. Historians wrote, “The battle at Patay might be compared to Agincourt (which the French lost) in reverse. The French vanguard attacked before the English archers could finish defensive preparations.” By simply showing up on the field, she already won half the battle because English soldiers dreaded her as a “witch” (may sa “demonyo”), a reputation she might have coyly cultivated.

The last thing that struck me as I reflect upon her life was her youth. She had the precocity and youth of a Gregorio del Pilar and the purity of heart of Sir Galahad. Joan was Version 2.0 of the prophet Jeremiah:

But the LORD said to Jeremiah, “Do not say, ‘I am too young.’ You must go to everyone I send you to and say whatever I command you. 8 Do not be afraid of them, for I am with you and will rescue you,” declares the LORD.

9 Then the LORD reached out his hand and touched my mouth and said to me, “I have put my words in your mouth. 10 See, today I appoint you over nations and kingdoms to uproot and tear down, to destroy and overthrow, to build and to plant.”

Not only did Joan start young, tragically, she also died young. But more importantly, she finished young. By that I mean, she finished her God-given life mission in record time. Her example reminds us that it’s how a person lives, not how long, that matters.

In the tough and difficult battle of modern life, oftentimes we feel tired, afraid, or defeated. On those occasions, let us remember Joan waving her banner and shouting in her hoarse but melodious voice, “My men, my soldiers. Follow me!” And then march boldly to follow her in God’s Name.

---

In my previous blog, I forgot to add Joan to my list of heroes who did amazing things at a young age. Perhaps I was too fixated on intellectual abilities rather than achievement in general.

But now as I switch on my “achieve-o-meter”, I realize that Joan’s accomplishments are completely off the charts. If Mozart was a “shooting star” for having written 600 compositions in 20 years, then this young lady — warrior, mystic, and martyr rolled into one — must be a supernova for taking only two years to win 14 battles in a row, redraw the map of Europe, and change the course of history for centuries to come.

---

[NOTE: Borrowing from the concept behind TIME magazine's annual list of "100 Most Influential People", I am writing about people, real or imagined, who have deeply influenced me. This is one installment. You can also reach this page by clicking on a person's photo in my Gallery of Heroes page.]

---

Oskar Schindler (28 April 1908 – 9 October 1974) was an ethnic German industrialist born in Moravia. He is credited with saving almost 1,200 Jews during the Holocaust by employing them in his enamelware and ammunitions factories, which were located in what is now Poland and the Czech Republic respectively. He is the subject of the novel Schindler’s Ark, and the film based on it, Schindler’s List. (Source: Wikipedia)

---

Last Saturday (October 9) marked the 36th death anniversary of a man whose life touched mine, albeit indirectly thanks to Steven Spielberg and his movie-making magic. That man is Oskar Schindler, a war profiteer who turned hero in the dying days of the Second World War.

The movie’s debut in Philippine shores was marred by controversy over a 15-second “pumping scene” and frontal nudity of prisoners of war. I remember Mr. Spielberg insisting that the movie be shown in its entirety or not at all.

Thankfully, the local censors led by Henrietta Mendez relented. If not, I might, to this day, be looking down on Germans then as a million fools and cowards led by one son of a bitch (Adolf Hitler). From the movie, I discovered that, unlike Sodom and Gomorrah, Germany did have a few good, righteous, and brave souls. Herr Oskar Schindler was one. Col. Claus von Stauffenberg (played by Tom Cruise in the movie, “Valkyrie”) was another. But Germany was destroyed anyway by “fire and brimstone” from the sky, courtesy of the British and American air force. But that’s another story.

What did I like about Oskar and his life story? Well, for one, I have always been a sucker for the reluctant hero. I am using the word “reluctant” rather loosely. My roster of “reluctant heroes” include a deserter (biblical prophet Jonah), a megalomaniac (Raistlin Majere), and a shy and clumsy hobo (Bernie Laplante, played by Dustin Hoffman in the movie, Accidental Hero). If you saw the movie Schindler’s List, it’s easy to see why I inducted Oskar Schindler to such distinguished company. If you have never seen the movie, I suggest you rush to your favorite video rental store or torrent site. And please have a hankie ready!

The movie was a long one (three hours) even by today’s standards. I cannot and will not attempt to write a summary of it. However, I would like to point out crucial scenes or moments where our protagonist transforms from villain to hero.

---

STAGE 1: THE HUSTLER AND HIS “PRESENTATION”

Hustling might be too mild a word to describe the young Oskar Schindler. He was an opportunist, a war profiteer, a villain, and a vulture who rapaciously exploited slave labor to enrich himself.

In the photo on the right, the ambitious businessman (Oskar Schindler / Liam Neeson) persuades a bespectacled Jewish community leader (Itzhak Stern / Ben Kingsley) to be his right-hand man in his war supplies and munition business. Below is an excerpt of their conversation:

Stern: They (Jewish financiers) provide the money (for your business). I do the work. I hope you don’t mind if I ask but… what do you do?

Schindler: I don’t do work. I make sure the company remains in business, and has a certain pinash. I take care of the… presentation!.

---

STAGE 2: THE AWAKENING

As his venture flourished amidst a cruel war, Schindler occasionally and uncomfortably found himself in situations where his sense of humanity and morality were severely challenged. Here, he makes tiny, tentative, but unmistakeable steps towards redemption.

Upper left photo: This photo is best described by the following exchange:

Old one-armed man to Schindler: You saved my life (by hiring me). You’re a good man. God bless you! God bless you!

Schindler (addressing Stern while boarding his car): By the way, don’t do that [hire a one-handed person behind my back] ever to me again. Didn’t you happen to notice that man happened to have only one arm? What’s his use?!?

Stern: He’s very useful, boss.

Schindler (sticks his head out as car leaves): How?!?

Stern: Very useful. Success!

Upper right photo: On horseback, Oskar Schindler watches with his wife (or is it mistress?) the forced evacuation and maltreatment of the Jews by Nazi soldiers. He notices a little girl in red dress and his heart is moved with pity and compassion.

Lower left photo: Schindler gives Stern his gold watch to ransom the aging parents of a lady whose pleas for help he spurned earlier.

Lower right photo: An old Jewish couple (parents of the lady) is released from prison in order to work at one of Schindler’s factories. By this time, working for Schindler was seen as a way of escaping death in Nazi concentration camps. Towards the movie’s end, Stern warns Schindler that his factories were churning out more defective bullets and artillery shells than usual. Schindler retorts, “My dear Stern, I would be very worried if they actually worked.”

---

STAGE 3: MAKING THE LIST OF LIFE

Upper photo: Oskar Schindler furiously dictates from memory the names of his employees while Sterns works the typewriter. For each name on the list, he pays Nazi officers a hefty sum from the fortune he accumulated in the course of the war.

Lower photo: When the list is finished, Stern holds up the fragile piece of paper and says to Oskar, “This list represents Good. Within its borders and margins, we find Life.”

---

STAGE 4: DENOUEMENT

Photo above: Oskar Schindler breaks down in tears as he looks at his ring, his car, and thinks of all the money he wasted profligately. He wonders aloud in a voice tinged with remorse how many more lives he could have saved using them. His transformation and redemption is complete.

Incidentally, that ring was a gift from his grateful workers. On the ring was inscribed: “He who saves one life saves the world entire.”

Young Oskar always wanted to be remembered as “someone who did something extraordinary, who built a multi-million dollar company, and left with trainloads of money”.

After the war, Oskar Schindler’s businesses floundered. He got divorced. He died poor and penniless. He never saw his “money train” again. But he did something extraordinary, something remarkable. He saved the world one life at a time!