Just wanted to give applause and show gratitude for everyone whose blogs I have enjoyed over the semester. I also thank you for reading along and peeking into my dementia. I know this is premature, but I am glad to have met each of you, and to have shared a brief moment in time with such a wonderfully inspiring group.
Soon we shall part, certain that many of us may never meet again. Impermanence is a simple fact of life; a tightly held fist tries to keep hold of things, but they slip through because of the grasping. I wish you all the happiest of lives and know I will see you on the other side!
"Faith is not the equivalent to mere belief. Faith is the condition of the capacity to follow the path of doubt to its end."
--Stephen Batchelor
Friday, November 7, 2008
On Novalis
I have been waiting patiently for this week so I could write about this selection. When the book opens, it invariably turns to page 172 as I have now creased the binding to that position.
------------------
"We are alone with everything we love."
The first time I considered this, my interpretation was very negative. What do you mean we are alone? What if my love also loves me? How dare you!
I read it now with a different perspective. I alone feel the love that I feel. My love for you is not your love for me. We may love each other, agreed, yet what I feel is for me alone. There are wonderful times, when it seems that the love of two people is the same and shared, when our two-ness becomes one-ness, when I know you feel the same that I do. Even in this moment, my expression of our sharedness is mine own, just as yours belongs to you. In this moment, we are one, yet two, and thus we are alone just the same.
-----------------
"Philosophy is really homesickness."
If I could stop laughing, I could write about this.
----------------
"Marriage is the highest mystery."
Still laughing, hold on...
----------------
"We are close to waking up when we dream that we are dreaming."
Once again, reflection brings awareness. My initial impulse was to laught this off as philosophical mumbo-jumbo. But upon deeper analysis, wow.
What is the dream, my nightly sleep visions or this reality that I assume is real? Am I sleeping and dream that I am awake? Is this life nothing but a dream? If that is the case, then the recognition that this life, a dream, is nothing but, then I awaken into a new sense of realization. Now I begin to understand that what seems real is part of the dream, that what I hold dear is also the dream--that I am not I, but the visualization of I.
I wonder what I will wake up to...
I should have taken the blue pill.
------------------
"We are alone with everything we love."
The first time I considered this, my interpretation was very negative. What do you mean we are alone? What if my love also loves me? How dare you!
I read it now with a different perspective. I alone feel the love that I feel. My love for you is not your love for me. We may love each other, agreed, yet what I feel is for me alone. There are wonderful times, when it seems that the love of two people is the same and shared, when our two-ness becomes one-ness, when I know you feel the same that I do. Even in this moment, my expression of our sharedness is mine own, just as yours belongs to you. In this moment, we are one, yet two, and thus we are alone just the same.
-----------------
"Philosophy is really homesickness."
If I could stop laughing, I could write about this.
----------------
"Marriage is the highest mystery."
Still laughing, hold on...
----------------
"We are close to waking up when we dream that we are dreaming."
Once again, reflection brings awareness. My initial impulse was to laught this off as philosophical mumbo-jumbo. But upon deeper analysis, wow.
What is the dream, my nightly sleep visions or this reality that I assume is real? Am I sleeping and dream that I am awake? Is this life nothing but a dream? If that is the case, then the recognition that this life, a dream, is nothing but, then I awaken into a new sense of realization. Now I begin to understand that what seems real is part of the dream, that what I hold dear is also the dream--that I am not I, but the visualization of I.
I wonder what I will wake up to...
I should have taken the blue pill.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
On Franz Kafka
I was sitting down to write my blogs just now, and a bug skittered from the window sill, up the speaker next to my table, across my computer desk, and eventually dropped from the ledge into the trash can. I don't often pay attention for serendipity, but in this case I felt drawn to write on Kafka.
----------------
"The fact that there is nothing but a spiritual world deprives us of hope and gives us certainty."
I can't believe I am reading this for the first time in this moment.
I am going to out myself for those who don't know: My name is Woody, and I'm an alcoholic. No jokes, I am a member of A.A. I wanted to put that out there, as many of my blogs to this point have hinted to some kind of recovery in my life; also, this blog is going to speak to that program.
The main purpose of the A.A. meeting is to provide newcomers the opportunity to hear our sober members offer in a general way their experience, strength, and hope. Many metings, following the readings of the preamble, steps, and traditions, open the floor to a topic discussion at which point anyone is welcome to give their two-cents worth on the subject at hand. As the topic list is usually not more than 80-100 subjects, one can assume that the same topic will arise many, many times. They do. Trust me.
Lately, 'hope' has been turning up at a lot of meetings I attend. What happens after a bit of time passes in sobriety is that a member will hear the same topic so many times, his sharing on that topic becomes rote--either something they have said makes a lot of sense and he has noticed others perk at its mention, or it gets a laugh and thus becomes a part of the repertoire. This is my story with 'hope.'
The following is my 'hope' share, spoken by me God knows how many times. (OK, it's not verbatim, but I find it difficult to translate spoken word into text, so deal with it!)
"When I crawled into these rooms years ago, all I had left was hope. My drinking had left me a suicidal, homicidal, thoroughly beaten man. When I woke up in jail one more time, and found that my family would not bail me out like they used to, I called my grandfather, who has 38 years sober this year. He said he wouldn't bail me out, but he would take me to a meeting if I felt like I had finally had enough. I had, he did.
It was in the stories that you people told of your own experiences that gave me hope. Hell, all I had was hope. A.A. was the last house on the block for me. I had been to jails and institutions; all that was left for me was death, and I couldn't even get that right! On my last run, I had seen "Leaving Las Vegas" with Nic Cage and thought, "What a way to go!" My story was nothing like his. I didn't fall into bed with a gorgeous hooker who put me up in her apartment, while I sunk into deeper and deeper bliss, eventually dying in a romantic flourish. No, instead I found myself standing on a bar stool at TGI Friday's yelling to normal people that I was the second coming of Jesus and they had all better repent for the day had come. Like I said, I couldn't even drink myself to death. Plus I was too chickenshit to put my pistol in my mouth.
Anyhow, getting a sponsor and working these steps has brought about a complete psychic change in me, just like the book promises. What I have today is a sense of responsibility to my own well-being and the true and honest sense of purpose. What I call my higher power is not your higher power, nor do I care what your higher power is. All I know is that when I go to sleep at night, the meditation and prayer I do gives me peace and quiet; it shuts off that voice that constantly tries to tell me I don't deserve to be happy, sane, or sober. I hope that if you are new to A.A., you can find something to pray to that offers you the same serenity.
Like I said, 'hope' was all i had coming into these rooms. But I don't know or understand 'hope' any longer. The side-effect of a higher power is the constant reminder that everything is exactly how it should be in the world. This place, this universe, existed long before my footprints showed up and it will go on long after I leave here. My life is but a passing glimmer on the big picture. I don't need hope any longer as I now have faith that things are going to turn out exactly as they should--even if I don't like the way it happens. Hope, to me, is a necessary emotion at times, but one that ultimately must evolve; what I have now is confidence. Not only will the universe unfold exactly as it should, but the part I play in the world is exactly what it should be.
Hope has been replaced by faith. Faith gives me confidence. And trust. But still, I share my experience because I know that someday, a person is going to come into this room and my story will be the source of hope they need to hear."
----------------------------------
So, once again, I thought I had come up with something entirely new, developed some concept that no one had thought up yet, but it turns out that I didn't. Oh well, I guess I should get used to the idea that every sensible, logical, or beautiful idea I will ever have has been spoken or felt by someone before me. In some small way, that brings me comfort. I don't have to bear the weight of the world's creative effort on my shoulders. But I am in good company.
In the struggle between myself and the world, I second the world.
----------------
"The fact that there is nothing but a spiritual world deprives us of hope and gives us certainty."
I can't believe I am reading this for the first time in this moment.
I am going to out myself for those who don't know: My name is Woody, and I'm an alcoholic. No jokes, I am a member of A.A. I wanted to put that out there, as many of my blogs to this point have hinted to some kind of recovery in my life; also, this blog is going to speak to that program.
The main purpose of the A.A. meeting is to provide newcomers the opportunity to hear our sober members offer in a general way their experience, strength, and hope. Many metings, following the readings of the preamble, steps, and traditions, open the floor to a topic discussion at which point anyone is welcome to give their two-cents worth on the subject at hand. As the topic list is usually not more than 80-100 subjects, one can assume that the same topic will arise many, many times. They do. Trust me.
Lately, 'hope' has been turning up at a lot of meetings I attend. What happens after a bit of time passes in sobriety is that a member will hear the same topic so many times, his sharing on that topic becomes rote--either something they have said makes a lot of sense and he has noticed others perk at its mention, or it gets a laugh and thus becomes a part of the repertoire. This is my story with 'hope.'
The following is my 'hope' share, spoken by me God knows how many times. (OK, it's not verbatim, but I find it difficult to translate spoken word into text, so deal with it!)
"When I crawled into these rooms years ago, all I had left was hope. My drinking had left me a suicidal, homicidal, thoroughly beaten man. When I woke up in jail one more time, and found that my family would not bail me out like they used to, I called my grandfather, who has 38 years sober this year. He said he wouldn't bail me out, but he would take me to a meeting if I felt like I had finally had enough. I had, he did.
It was in the stories that you people told of your own experiences that gave me hope. Hell, all I had was hope. A.A. was the last house on the block for me. I had been to jails and institutions; all that was left for me was death, and I couldn't even get that right! On my last run, I had seen "Leaving Las Vegas" with Nic Cage and thought, "What a way to go!" My story was nothing like his. I didn't fall into bed with a gorgeous hooker who put me up in her apartment, while I sunk into deeper and deeper bliss, eventually dying in a romantic flourish. No, instead I found myself standing on a bar stool at TGI Friday's yelling to normal people that I was the second coming of Jesus and they had all better repent for the day had come. Like I said, I couldn't even drink myself to death. Plus I was too chickenshit to put my pistol in my mouth.
Anyhow, getting a sponsor and working these steps has brought about a complete psychic change in me, just like the book promises. What I have today is a sense of responsibility to my own well-being and the true and honest sense of purpose. What I call my higher power is not your higher power, nor do I care what your higher power is. All I know is that when I go to sleep at night, the meditation and prayer I do gives me peace and quiet; it shuts off that voice that constantly tries to tell me I don't deserve to be happy, sane, or sober. I hope that if you are new to A.A., you can find something to pray to that offers you the same serenity.
Like I said, 'hope' was all i had coming into these rooms. But I don't know or understand 'hope' any longer. The side-effect of a higher power is the constant reminder that everything is exactly how it should be in the world. This place, this universe, existed long before my footprints showed up and it will go on long after I leave here. My life is but a passing glimmer on the big picture. I don't need hope any longer as I now have faith that things are going to turn out exactly as they should--even if I don't like the way it happens. Hope, to me, is a necessary emotion at times, but one that ultimately must evolve; what I have now is confidence. Not only will the universe unfold exactly as it should, but the part I play in the world is exactly what it should be.
Hope has been replaced by faith. Faith gives me confidence. And trust. But still, I share my experience because I know that someday, a person is going to come into this room and my story will be the source of hope they need to hear."
----------------------------------
So, once again, I thought I had come up with something entirely new, developed some concept that no one had thought up yet, but it turns out that I didn't. Oh well, I guess I should get used to the idea that every sensible, logical, or beautiful idea I will ever have has been spoken or felt by someone before me. In some small way, that brings me comfort. I don't have to bear the weight of the world's creative effort on my shoulders. But I am in good company.
In the struggle between myself and the world, I second the world.
On Franz Kafka (part II)
After a lengthy conversation with a dear friend, I realize that last post (re: hope) was partial bullshit.
The evidence was swaying, despite my protestations.
When I interact with others, I often close with "have a blessed day." My friend asserts that this is my hope for them. I attempted to argue that I am not 'hoping' they have a nice day, I am merely reminding them of their option to have a nice day, or not to. Bullshit, I know it and she knows it.
She also mentioned that I share my sobriety story with others in the hope that they may gain something from it. I haven't a leg to stand on with that one. It's true, I do hope that drunks get sober, that they are willing to do whatever it takes, and that they have hit the bottom they need to hit. As much as I would like to say that I know that everyone is exactly where they are supposed to be, I am human and thus not able to be present in every moment. I accept that, from time to time, I am not at peace with the world--I hope for things that will happen regardless of my understanding that things are as they are.
Yet again, I find that I do not know everything, even about myself. Damnit.
The final argument was the most compelling: "You hope that people read your blog posts..."
The evidence was swaying, despite my protestations.
When I interact with others, I often close with "have a blessed day." My friend asserts that this is my hope for them. I attempted to argue that I am not 'hoping' they have a nice day, I am merely reminding them of their option to have a nice day, or not to. Bullshit, I know it and she knows it.
She also mentioned that I share my sobriety story with others in the hope that they may gain something from it. I haven't a leg to stand on with that one. It's true, I do hope that drunks get sober, that they are willing to do whatever it takes, and that they have hit the bottom they need to hit. As much as I would like to say that I know that everyone is exactly where they are supposed to be, I am human and thus not able to be present in every moment. I accept that, from time to time, I am not at peace with the world--I hope for things that will happen regardless of my understanding that things are as they are.
Yet again, I find that I do not know everything, even about myself. Damnit.
The final argument was the most compelling: "You hope that people read your blog posts..."
Thursday, October 30, 2008
On Philo
I was feeling a bit ornery a few moments ago, so I was wishing for a reading that would have allowed me to rip into some ancient philosopher, spewing all of the ire and fire I could muster. Unfortunately, I read Philo and now I feel at peace with the world, wanting to spread love, joy, and good will to the entire human population. Well, maybe that’s a little extreme…
What really happened is, I skipped to the last selection of the reading and was reminded of my place in this drama, reminded of the grace that has been bestowed upon me by whatever one chooses to call “higher power.”
“When the righteous man searches for the nature of all things, he makes his own admirable discovery: that everything is God’s grace.”
It would be very easy to read a statement like this and make a grand assumption that a man must be on a holy quest, a mission to seek and know the greatest of all mysteries, to attain supreme enlightenment, or become privy to secret and ancient knowledge. I don’t think that is necessarily the point. As I interpret this, when a man finds enough humility or truth in himself to ask for help, to seek a different path than the one that has limited or harmed him, then does the face of God reveal itself.
In this moment, a man rises above his egoist fray and attempts to know and feel courage, opens the door to a greater understanding of his life, and begins to sense a power and strength previously unknown to him. This courage, this power, this desire to be free opens the portal behind which lies grace. The word 'righteous' may seem out of place here, but in looking past the traditional connotation, the man who seeks a better way is the righteous man. The man who can trust in something unseen is the righteous man. The man who is sick and tired of being sick and tired searches out peace and serenity—this is the righteous man.
“Every being in the world, and the world itself, manifests the blessings and the generosity of God.”
Although I believe this to be true, at times I convince myself it isn’t. The worst of men commit horrible, barbaric acts of violence and yet by this logic, they too “manifest the blessings and generosity of God.” How can this be? Like all men, they are able to be drawn so far into themselves, they lose touch with humanity, and by that, humility. How can I judge another man when I too suffer from the same symptoms; maybe they aren't as severe, or lead me to the same acts of depravity, but do I not know the malaise of an overblown sense of self that leads me to make mistakes when dealing with my fellows? Of course I do.
Nevertheless, hope springs eternal. With each moment of discomfort or shade of misery, we decide whether we want to remain in desperation or seek solace from it. When we reach out, or reach within, we find release. This is God. This is the blessing and generosity of the passage: grace.
What really happened is, I skipped to the last selection of the reading and was reminded of my place in this drama, reminded of the grace that has been bestowed upon me by whatever one chooses to call “higher power.”
“When the righteous man searches for the nature of all things, he makes his own admirable discovery: that everything is God’s grace.”
It would be very easy to read a statement like this and make a grand assumption that a man must be on a holy quest, a mission to seek and know the greatest of all mysteries, to attain supreme enlightenment, or become privy to secret and ancient knowledge. I don’t think that is necessarily the point. As I interpret this, when a man finds enough humility or truth in himself to ask for help, to seek a different path than the one that has limited or harmed him, then does the face of God reveal itself.
In this moment, a man rises above his egoist fray and attempts to know and feel courage, opens the door to a greater understanding of his life, and begins to sense a power and strength previously unknown to him. This courage, this power, this desire to be free opens the portal behind which lies grace. The word 'righteous' may seem out of place here, but in looking past the traditional connotation, the man who seeks a better way is the righteous man. The man who can trust in something unseen is the righteous man. The man who is sick and tired of being sick and tired searches out peace and serenity—this is the righteous man.
“Every being in the world, and the world itself, manifests the blessings and the generosity of God.”
Although I believe this to be true, at times I convince myself it isn’t. The worst of men commit horrible, barbaric acts of violence and yet by this logic, they too “manifest the blessings and generosity of God.” How can this be? Like all men, they are able to be drawn so far into themselves, they lose touch with humanity, and by that, humility. How can I judge another man when I too suffer from the same symptoms; maybe they aren't as severe, or lead me to the same acts of depravity, but do I not know the malaise of an overblown sense of self that leads me to make mistakes when dealing with my fellows? Of course I do.
Nevertheless, hope springs eternal. With each moment of discomfort or shade of misery, we decide whether we want to remain in desperation or seek solace from it. When we reach out, or reach within, we find release. This is God. This is the blessing and generosity of the passage: grace.
On The Hermetic Writings
"Leap free of everything that is physical, and grow as vast as that immesurable vastness; step beyond all time and become eternal; then you will perceive God."
This writing brings home the argument I discussed in my previous blog--does God create anew, or is God merely rearranging matter as God sees fit? Now I see the error of my thought, even if God is just moving a bit from 'Pile A' to 'Pile B', God still created both piles, is in both piles, and just is both piles. In fact, I am a part of God, as are you, which means that we should have known this all along!
I hate being wrong. Of some 40,000 books, articles and papers that comprise the Hermetic Writings, the one selection Mitchell chooses is the one that spurs me to realize that I don't know everything. Bah.
If I had a Dirk Dastardly mustache, I would be twirling it between my thumb and forefinger about now...
------------------------------------
What really intrigues me about this particular snippet is the very first line, that "If you don't make yourself equal to God, you can't perceive God." I spoke of my mantra in an earlier post, but have since discarded it for a different repetitive meditation. It has resurfaced.
How does one make themself like God? "Recognize that you too are immortal and that you can embrace all things in your mind..." I like this, I really do. We have come full circle, back to Buddhism and the Dao. This is the bridge. We begin to realize that nothing is inconceivable (a word that makes no sense whatsoever--once something is conceived it is conceivable so nothing is, in effect, inconceivable--but I digress), that everything is knowable, and in learning this we realize that none of this matters--we eventually return to the immortal state from whence we came.
If we are a part of God, and thus God, and even more, a bit of everything else, why is this concept so hard to comprehend? It turns out that God can indeed create a rock so heavy that even God can't lift it--but only because God believes he can't. In truth, the rock is but a pebble.
At this point the Buddhist laughs, the Christian prays, the athiest nods his head, and the agnostic goes back to work and picks up his check on Friday.
This writing brings home the argument I discussed in my previous blog--does God create anew, or is God merely rearranging matter as God sees fit? Now I see the error of my thought, even if God is just moving a bit from 'Pile A' to 'Pile B', God still created both piles, is in both piles, and just is both piles. In fact, I am a part of God, as are you, which means that we should have known this all along!
I hate being wrong. Of some 40,000 books, articles and papers that comprise the Hermetic Writings, the one selection Mitchell chooses is the one that spurs me to realize that I don't know everything. Bah.
If I had a Dirk Dastardly mustache, I would be twirling it between my thumb and forefinger about now...
------------------------------------
What really intrigues me about this particular snippet is the very first line, that "If you don't make yourself equal to God, you can't perceive God." I spoke of my mantra in an earlier post, but have since discarded it for a different repetitive meditation. It has resurfaced.
How does one make themself like God? "Recognize that you too are immortal and that you can embrace all things in your mind..." I like this, I really do. We have come full circle, back to Buddhism and the Dao. This is the bridge. We begin to realize that nothing is inconceivable (a word that makes no sense whatsoever--once something is conceived it is conceivable so nothing is, in effect, inconceivable--but I digress), that everything is knowable, and in learning this we realize that none of this matters--we eventually return to the immortal state from whence we came.
If we are a part of God, and thus God, and even more, a bit of everything else, why is this concept so hard to comprehend? It turns out that God can indeed create a rock so heavy that even God can't lift it--but only because God believes he can't. In truth, the rock is but a pebble.
At this point the Buddhist laughs, the Christian prays, the athiest nods his head, and the agnostic goes back to work and picks up his check on Friday.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
On Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali
For me, there is nothing better than spiritual writing presented logically, almost scientifically. The formation of an argument, supporting data to corroborate the claim, empirical evidence and observational relationships, and an incontrovertible summation I find to be very effective. Needless to say, Al-Ghazali immediately caught my attention.
In this first passage from the selected readings, a logical proof for belief in a loving God is represented, and is done so beautifully.
"All beauty is loved by those who are able to perceive beauty." This lays down a groundwork for the argument.
"Beautiful forms are loved for themselves and not for any end..." This is observable evidence.
"It cannot be denied that where beauty is percieved it is natural to love it, and if God is beauty, he must be loved by those to whom his beauty and his majesty are revealed." This is the point.
"If, where beauty is found, it is natural to love it, and if all beauty consists in perfection, then it follows that the All-Beautiful, who is absolute perfection, must be loved by those to whom his nature and attributes are revealed." This is the summation of logic and argument. Claim and data are united.
I realize that to read this type of poetic dissertation with such a critical eye may do a disservice to the message, but most of the time, this is how my brain works. I find great joy in logic and reason, thus I appreciate (more than some, less than others) a more academic approach to spirituality.
Occasionally I moved by the pure beauty of lyric praise, and magnificent composition to that which is true and right. Althought I do not discount the virtue of this selection, I found myself more impacted by the manner in which is was presented. Regardless, the result was the same--I found joy in this exposition, which I believe was the author's point all along.
In this first passage from the selected readings, a logical proof for belief in a loving God is represented, and is done so beautifully.
"All beauty is loved by those who are able to perceive beauty." This lays down a groundwork for the argument.
"Beautiful forms are loved for themselves and not for any end..." This is observable evidence.
"It cannot be denied that where beauty is percieved it is natural to love it, and if God is beauty, he must be loved by those to whom his beauty and his majesty are revealed." This is the point.
"If, where beauty is found, it is natural to love it, and if all beauty consists in perfection, then it follows that the All-Beautiful, who is absolute perfection, must be loved by those to whom his nature and attributes are revealed." This is the summation of logic and argument. Claim and data are united.
I realize that to read this type of poetic dissertation with such a critical eye may do a disservice to the message, but most of the time, this is how my brain works. I find great joy in logic and reason, thus I appreciate (more than some, less than others) a more academic approach to spirituality.
Occasionally I moved by the pure beauty of lyric praise, and magnificent composition to that which is true and right. Althought I do not discount the virtue of this selection, I found myself more impacted by the manner in which is was presented. Regardless, the result was the same--I found joy in this exposition, which I believe was the author's point all along.
On Muhammad
(*Can't believe I forgot to post this week. Aaargh.)
I have gone back and forth on a certain debate with friends. I have an understanding, as do they. The issue is not to be right or correct, just to more clearly understand each others and our own belief systems. It really is a win-win scenario, although it does get rather heated. The contention lies in the creation myth, and more specifically, how it relates to spiritual matters.
I am of the opinion that, if there is a creator God, a sentient being at the center of all creation, then he/she/it does not create "new" matter. It merely pulls material from itself and reforms that material into a manifestation that pleases it (I use the word it as it is non-gender biased). My friends seem to lean the other way, that God has the ultimate power to bring new material into existance, at will.
Unfortunately, Muhammad supports neither argument.
"Do not despise the world, for the world too is God."
"Wherever you turn is God's face."
Damn you, prophet. You were supposed to take my side! Hah! Regardless of the argument over minutiae, the principle is the important matter. Whether or not God creates anew, or reforms matter from himself, the outcome is the same: that which exists is of the world, and that world is of God. Every man, woman, and child; every tree, stone, and droplet of water; every mountain, ocean, and breath of wind; all is glorified and holy in the eyes of the creator for, "He is the first and the last, the manifest and the hidden, and has knowledge of all things."
Oh well, I suppose I will have to find a different prophet to quote when among my peers...
I have gone back and forth on a certain debate with friends. I have an understanding, as do they. The issue is not to be right or correct, just to more clearly understand each others and our own belief systems. It really is a win-win scenario, although it does get rather heated. The contention lies in the creation myth, and more specifically, how it relates to spiritual matters.
I am of the opinion that, if there is a creator God, a sentient being at the center of all creation, then he/she/it does not create "new" matter. It merely pulls material from itself and reforms that material into a manifestation that pleases it (I use the word it as it is non-gender biased). My friends seem to lean the other way, that God has the ultimate power to bring new material into existance, at will.
Unfortunately, Muhammad supports neither argument.
"Do not despise the world, for the world too is God."
"Wherever you turn is God's face."
Damn you, prophet. You were supposed to take my side! Hah! Regardless of the argument over minutiae, the principle is the important matter. Whether or not God creates anew, or reforms matter from himself, the outcome is the same: that which exists is of the world, and that world is of God. Every man, woman, and child; every tree, stone, and droplet of water; every mountain, ocean, and breath of wind; all is glorified and holy in the eyes of the creator for, "He is the first and the last, the manifest and the hidden, and has knowledge of all things."
Oh well, I suppose I will have to find a different prophet to quote when among my peers...
Friday, October 10, 2008
On Jesus of Nazareth
Commenting on the words of an avatar, Jesus, Buddha, and Krishna, is a futile gesture. How about if I just say, "this reading is beautiful," and call it a day? Instead, I am going to tell you things I will not do with this blog, so that you may find them yourselves. There are much better people than I to advise you.
What I will try and do is not attempt to apply the readings to famous Christians throughout time and try to point out their failures to follow the message. "Don't judge, and you will not be judged; don't condemn, and you will not be condemned..."
I also will not be telling you how to live your life, for there are much better authorities on the matter. "...don't worry about these things and say, 'What will we eat?' or 'What will wear?' For this is what worldly people seek; and your father knows that you need these things. But first seek the kingdom of God, and these things will be given to you as well." Even more to the point, "love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, and pray for those who mistreat you..." Like I said, I won't be giving you any advice that someone else hasn't proposed better.
I will not be telling you how to find God, or even find a connection with him. "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives; and he who seeks, finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened."
Finally, I won't tell you how to gain eternal salvation or glory. But I read somewhere that "unless you change your life and become like a child, you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven." So you have that going for you, which is nice.
-------------------------------------
As one who has had his troubles with Christianity, I cannot in good faith, respond to this weeks writings with a sense of objective distance or fair play. I tried that in a blog you will never see. What I have done here is toed the party line, and tried to be the person Jesus speaks of, never knowing, always seeking.
Today, I want to look for similarities in people, rather than point out flaws, differences, and failures in them. I enjoy coming across wisdom like never before. Still, my initial inclination is to scream, "HYPOCRITE!!" as I watch television or walk throught the bookstore, or even drive by a Christian church. Change will come if I remain diligent, but Rome wasn't built in a day (although it took only 3 to burn down... go figure!).
I guess everyone has a cross to bear.
What I will try and do is not attempt to apply the readings to famous Christians throughout time and try to point out their failures to follow the message. "Don't judge, and you will not be judged; don't condemn, and you will not be condemned..."
I also will not be telling you how to live your life, for there are much better authorities on the matter. "...don't worry about these things and say, 'What will we eat?' or 'What will wear?' For this is what worldly people seek; and your father knows that you need these things. But first seek the kingdom of God, and these things will be given to you as well." Even more to the point, "love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, and pray for those who mistreat you..." Like I said, I won't be giving you any advice that someone else hasn't proposed better.
I will not be telling you how to find God, or even find a connection with him. "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives; and he who seeks, finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened."
Finally, I won't tell you how to gain eternal salvation or glory. But I read somewhere that "unless you change your life and become like a child, you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven." So you have that going for you, which is nice.
-------------------------------------
As one who has had his troubles with Christianity, I cannot in good faith, respond to this weeks writings with a sense of objective distance or fair play. I tried that in a blog you will never see. What I have done here is toed the party line, and tried to be the person Jesus speaks of, never knowing, always seeking.
Today, I want to look for similarities in people, rather than point out flaws, differences, and failures in them. I enjoy coming across wisdom like never before. Still, my initial inclination is to scream, "HYPOCRITE!!" as I watch television or walk throught the bookstore, or even drive by a Christian church. Change will come if I remain diligent, but Rome wasn't built in a day (although it took only 3 to burn down... go figure!).
I guess everyone has a cross to bear.
On The Cloud of Unknowing
If I ever think I know what God is, that's the time to find a new God. I am not meant to know what God is, only that I should love God.
--Overheard at an AA meeting
----------------------------------
It's a funny thing when it comes to the All; the more I seek to know what that thing is that runs this whole show, the less I get to know. The universal abstracts are never definable, which makes logic very difficult for the believer. By abstracts, I mean those things that are not physically tangible: emotions, ideas, literary characterizations, etc. An apple can be described, death cannot. The same goes for love, fear, life, and even God.
What we learn from the greatest teachers is how to define the undefinable. We do so by describing what God is not. A friend recently told me about an image in her art class, a depiction of Jesus, suffering. I told her that to describe God, she could have said, "See all the stuff inside the frame? Everything on the outside of it is God." This makes sense to me.
An anonymous monk published a spiritual "manual" entitled "The Cloud of Unknowing" and from this we read, "...upon God himself, no man can think. And therefore I wish to leave everything I can think, and choose for my love that thing which I cannot think." In recognizing that God cannot be thought of or visualized, except by the power imbued within us to love, we are faced with an uncomfortable option: do I continue to trust my human ability to conceptualize, or do I trust my God-given ability to feel? Not an easy question for men whose lives are built upon such lofty ideals founded in reason, logic, science, and pragmatism.
Let me offer you this definition of faith, from Merriam-Webster Dictionaries:
faith: 2b) firm belief in something for which there is no proof.
The core value in faith lies in one's willingness to accept that something exists without possessing any practical knowledge of it's reason. I can tell you that I know not how electricity makes my lights turn on, or helps my refrigerator keep my food cold, yet when I walk in the front door, I have faith that flipping that little switch on the wall will illuminate my entryway. Faith exists in all of us, in some way or another. Faith in God is not entirely different from that example.
I can purchase wonderful soil, build a functional planting box, buy the best seeds, ensure that my garden gets plenty of clean water and manage that it gets the proper amount of sunlight; still, I cannot make a seed become a flower. I have faith that the order of the universe works. I think we all do. The real trick, and one I believe is inherent upon every human, comes in whether or not one wishes to trust that the universe works for a reason.
What we learn from this weeks lesson is simple: if you have come to believe that there is a creator of what has been created, it behooves you to know that you cannot know what it is. All you can do is love that it is. If you have not, or cannot, believe that this universe has an order beyond random chance, I earnestly implore you to keep an open mind and remain willing to concede that human knowledge has yet to develop the power of creation. You may one day be amazed.
"Do not stop, therefore, but keep laboring in it till you feel delight."
--Overheard at an AA meeting
----------------------------------
It's a funny thing when it comes to the All; the more I seek to know what that thing is that runs this whole show, the less I get to know. The universal abstracts are never definable, which makes logic very difficult for the believer. By abstracts, I mean those things that are not physically tangible: emotions, ideas, literary characterizations, etc. An apple can be described, death cannot. The same goes for love, fear, life, and even God.
What we learn from the greatest teachers is how to define the undefinable. We do so by describing what God is not. A friend recently told me about an image in her art class, a depiction of Jesus, suffering. I told her that to describe God, she could have said, "See all the stuff inside the frame? Everything on the outside of it is God." This makes sense to me.
An anonymous monk published a spiritual "manual" entitled "The Cloud of Unknowing" and from this we read, "...upon God himself, no man can think. And therefore I wish to leave everything I can think, and choose for my love that thing which I cannot think." In recognizing that God cannot be thought of or visualized, except by the power imbued within us to love, we are faced with an uncomfortable option: do I continue to trust my human ability to conceptualize, or do I trust my God-given ability to feel? Not an easy question for men whose lives are built upon such lofty ideals founded in reason, logic, science, and pragmatism.
Let me offer you this definition of faith, from Merriam-Webster Dictionaries:
faith: 2b) firm belief in something for which there is no proof.
The core value in faith lies in one's willingness to accept that something exists without possessing any practical knowledge of it's reason. I can tell you that I know not how electricity makes my lights turn on, or helps my refrigerator keep my food cold, yet when I walk in the front door, I have faith that flipping that little switch on the wall will illuminate my entryway. Faith exists in all of us, in some way or another. Faith in God is not entirely different from that example.
I can purchase wonderful soil, build a functional planting box, buy the best seeds, ensure that my garden gets plenty of clean water and manage that it gets the proper amount of sunlight; still, I cannot make a seed become a flower. I have faith that the order of the universe works. I think we all do. The real trick, and one I believe is inherent upon every human, comes in whether or not one wishes to trust that the universe works for a reason.
What we learn from this weeks lesson is simple: if you have come to believe that there is a creator of what has been created, it behooves you to know that you cannot know what it is. All you can do is love that it is. If you have not, or cannot, believe that this universe has an order beyond random chance, I earnestly implore you to keep an open mind and remain willing to concede that human knowledge has yet to develop the power of creation. You may one day be amazed.
"Do not stop, therefore, but keep laboring in it till you feel delight."
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Let's go on holiday!
Mommy? Why is there a Santa Claus?
Well, dear, Santa was born on December 25th, the same as Jesus. Since Jesus came to give the gifts of life and forgiveness to all men, Santa figured he, too, should bring presents to the world.
So he went to Australia and loaded a bunch of Pygmies onto his ships, put them in funny costumes, and called them elves. He taught them to speak English, trained them in carpentry, metalworking and welding, electronics, tailoring, book binding, and general contracting and instructed them to build a factory that rivaled even General Motors!
Santa then collected the catalogs from Sears, Macy's, Toys R Us, KB Toys, Brookstone, and all the other stores and instructed his elves to make many, many duplicates of all the items therein. Living at the north pole excluded Santa from copyright or trademark infringement.
Then he went to M.I.T. and, after some heated negotiation, convinced the good doctors there to make 12 flying reindeer. He brought these back to his compound at the north pole, which coincidentally is not under any country's jurisdiction in regard to labor laws (and surprisingly, PETA is not willing to travel that far), and placed his animals in a stable also built by his "elves." One of the reindeer, Rudolph, had a drinking problem, but luckily it made his nose glow bright red which helped on foggy nights so he didn't have to be put down.
You see, son, Santa needed to bring gifts to all the world, just like Jesus did! That is why Santa does not bring toys to North Korea, Iraq, or Iran.
Santa is a lot like the Easter Bunny. When Jesus was crucified by the Romans and Jews, there was a little rabbit that sat at the foot of the cross. That rabbit was given magical powers by Jesus to lay multi-colored eggs, which he did all over Calvary Hill. Later that week, all the good Christian children came up and found the eggs, and placed them in a basket, after which they counted them up to see how many each child had. The child with the most eggs was the most loved by God and he got to eat as much ham as he wanted because, as it turns out, he was not a Jewish convert like his school chums.
Now the rabbit also saw that the cross Jesus was on was made of wood. What color do you think the wood was? That's right it was brown! What else is brown? Chocolate! The very next year, the Easter Bunny not only hid eggs all over Jerusalem, but with some of them he hid chocolate. Eventually, Jesus inspired the Cadbury company to make cream filled eggs, as the magical Jesus rabbit was not granted eternal life...
Silly rabbit, tricks are for ids!
So you see, Christmas and Easter are really about the spirit of giving, and how Jesus came to save the world. But not dirty, terrorist Muslims.
-----------------------
I wasn't going to post this but Ja-File said I should. Blame him... LOL
Well, dear, Santa was born on December 25th, the same as Jesus. Since Jesus came to give the gifts of life and forgiveness to all men, Santa figured he, too, should bring presents to the world.
So he went to Australia and loaded a bunch of Pygmies onto his ships, put them in funny costumes, and called them elves. He taught them to speak English, trained them in carpentry, metalworking and welding, electronics, tailoring, book binding, and general contracting and instructed them to build a factory that rivaled even General Motors!
Santa then collected the catalogs from Sears, Macy's, Toys R Us, KB Toys, Brookstone, and all the other stores and instructed his elves to make many, many duplicates of all the items therein. Living at the north pole excluded Santa from copyright or trademark infringement.
Then he went to M.I.T. and, after some heated negotiation, convinced the good doctors there to make 12 flying reindeer. He brought these back to his compound at the north pole, which coincidentally is not under any country's jurisdiction in regard to labor laws (and surprisingly, PETA is not willing to travel that far), and placed his animals in a stable also built by his "elves." One of the reindeer, Rudolph, had a drinking problem, but luckily it made his nose glow bright red which helped on foggy nights so he didn't have to be put down.
You see, son, Santa needed to bring gifts to all the world, just like Jesus did! That is why Santa does not bring toys to North Korea, Iraq, or Iran.
Santa is a lot like the Easter Bunny. When Jesus was crucified by the Romans and Jews, there was a little rabbit that sat at the foot of the cross. That rabbit was given magical powers by Jesus to lay multi-colored eggs, which he did all over Calvary Hill. Later that week, all the good Christian children came up and found the eggs, and placed them in a basket, after which they counted them up to see how many each child had. The child with the most eggs was the most loved by God and he got to eat as much ham as he wanted because, as it turns out, he was not a Jewish convert like his school chums.
Now the rabbit also saw that the cross Jesus was on was made of wood. What color do you think the wood was? That's right it was brown! What else is brown? Chocolate! The very next year, the Easter Bunny not only hid eggs all over Jerusalem, but with some of them he hid chocolate. Eventually, Jesus inspired the Cadbury company to make cream filled eggs, as the magical Jesus rabbit was not granted eternal life...
Silly rabbit, tricks are for ids!
So you see, Christmas and Easter are really about the spirit of giving, and how Jesus came to save the world. But not dirty, terrorist Muslims.
-----------------------
I wasn't going to post this but Ja-File said I should. Blame him... LOL
Friday, October 3, 2008
On The Diamond Sutra and The Book of the Great Liberation
A Buddhist says to the hot dog vendor, "Make me one with everything."
---------------------------------
Read the following with caution. There is humor at work and many have been lost to its process. I know of no other way to write of such things without being light of heart.
---------------------------------
Coach Brown, my elementary school phys. ed. teacher said constantly, "there's no 'I' in 'Team'." Some part of me (rhymes with me-go) wants to hunt him down and explain that there is no 'I', period. Then I laugh and realize that I would only be ridiculing myself, practicing no spiritual principle whatsoever.
"...no Bodhisattva who is a true Bodhisattva entertains such concepts as 'self' or 'others'."
I wonder, again starting a sentence with a capital letter i, how the true Buddhist ever speaks, since all functional communication employs me, I, we, you, and they. We read that "The truth is ungraspable and inexpressible. It neither is nor is not." Says you...
------------------------------
"Since there is really no duality, separation is unreal. Until duality is transcended and at-one-ment realized, enlightenment cannot be attained."
I suggest there is no enlightenment, as that implies a state of unenlightenment. We read that there is no duality. There cannot be a 'state of' and a 'not state of' when it comes to the abstract, there just is.
I may try this the next time I get a parking ticket. The meter expired? Time does not exist, officer, it is merely illusion. See you in court.
There is a simple wisdom at play in this reading that challenges every convention known to the modern thinker. There are two states, original and clouded, yet the clouded state only obscures the mind so long as it is allowed to. We are once again shown the power of the ego, the uninvited houseguest that seeks to separate the mind from truth by any means necessary.
According to Buddha wisdom, our mind already has the keys to the kingdom, has the power to see truth from falsehood; in it's true state, it "is naked, immaculate, transparent, empty, timeless, uncreated, unimpeded..." What happened? I want that back! When did I allow this barricade to build itself? Why did I? More importantly, what can I do to return to that state of purity?
Turns out, its like returning from Oz to Kansas--I could have gone back anytime I wanted! It was there all along. My mind is not separate from itself, it is what it is. For some reason, I have chosen the path of most resistance. I have made the false world attractive, built a house in the clouds and promptly moved in.
The point is, I think I like sex. And food. And driving fast, and playing hockey, and watching movies, and reading books, and arguing over the trivial. Turns out that I like them because I want to like them. I identify myself with them. They give me joy because I lack inner peace and a true connection with the universe. Others seek God to accomplish these same feelings, identity and connection. Regardless, until I decide that these no longer sate me, this is the course I follow. At least I am not alone.
In the meanwhile, I write about pure states and clarity and enlightenment as though I have an idea of what they are. Like you, I don't, but writing gets me closer to willingness and that is all I can ask for at this moment. I am willing to be willing.
Still, I wish sex would stop feeling so good. That would sure make the transition easier...
---------------------------------
Read the following with caution. There is humor at work and many have been lost to its process. I know of no other way to write of such things without being light of heart.
---------------------------------
Coach Brown, my elementary school phys. ed. teacher said constantly, "there's no 'I' in 'Team'." Some part of me (rhymes with me-go) wants to hunt him down and explain that there is no 'I', period. Then I laugh and realize that I would only be ridiculing myself, practicing no spiritual principle whatsoever.
"...no Bodhisattva who is a true Bodhisattva entertains such concepts as 'self' or 'others'."
I wonder, again starting a sentence with a capital letter i, how the true Buddhist ever speaks, since all functional communication employs me, I, we, you, and they. We read that "The truth is ungraspable and inexpressible. It neither is nor is not." Says you...
------------------------------
"Since there is really no duality, separation is unreal. Until duality is transcended and at-one-ment realized, enlightenment cannot be attained."
I suggest there is no enlightenment, as that implies a state of unenlightenment. We read that there is no duality. There cannot be a 'state of' and a 'not state of' when it comes to the abstract, there just is.
I may try this the next time I get a parking ticket. The meter expired? Time does not exist, officer, it is merely illusion. See you in court.
There is a simple wisdom at play in this reading that challenges every convention known to the modern thinker. There are two states, original and clouded, yet the clouded state only obscures the mind so long as it is allowed to. We are once again shown the power of the ego, the uninvited houseguest that seeks to separate the mind from truth by any means necessary.
According to Buddha wisdom, our mind already has the keys to the kingdom, has the power to see truth from falsehood; in it's true state, it "is naked, immaculate, transparent, empty, timeless, uncreated, unimpeded..." What happened? I want that back! When did I allow this barricade to build itself? Why did I? More importantly, what can I do to return to that state of purity?
Turns out, its like returning from Oz to Kansas--I could have gone back anytime I wanted! It was there all along. My mind is not separate from itself, it is what it is. For some reason, I have chosen the path of most resistance. I have made the false world attractive, built a house in the clouds and promptly moved in.
The point is, I think I like sex. And food. And driving fast, and playing hockey, and watching movies, and reading books, and arguing over the trivial. Turns out that I like them because I want to like them. I identify myself with them. They give me joy because I lack inner peace and a true connection with the universe. Others seek God to accomplish these same feelings, identity and connection. Regardless, until I decide that these no longer sate me, this is the course I follow. At least I am not alone.
In the meanwhile, I write about pure states and clarity and enlightenment as though I have an idea of what they are. Like you, I don't, but writing gets me closer to willingness and that is all I can ask for at this moment. I am willing to be willing.
Still, I wish sex would stop feeling so good. That would sure make the transition easier...
Thursday, October 2, 2008
On The Buddha
A man is at his doctors office and says while poking himself in the eye, "Doc, it hurts when I do this."
The doctor says, "Well then, don't do that."
------------------------------------------
"But when you realize that something is unwholesome and bad for you, give it up. And when you realize that something is wholesome and good for you, do it."
We have offically left the realm of religion and moved into right thinking and right acting. Granted, in this context Buddha speaks of the virtue of trusting in self versus trusting the message of the preacher, the scriptures, or mere observation; but taking it further, is this not an axiom by which one would live a decent life?
One might say there is a precursor here that goes unmentioned. You ask, "What if the person is a complete buffoon, or worse, a serial killer, and what if what is wholesome or good to them is abhorrent to the rest of us?"
We are confronted with the total paradox of personal growth, one which religion has debated for millenia. Many religions have a clearly defined father figure, one who said from the beginning, "This is right. That is wrong. Go about your business." But for the spiritualist, total harmony is reliant upon the individual and his ability to let the world behave as it will. The more suited he is to accepting that some people do traditionally awful things, the more at ease he finds himself. The more comical he finds this puny drama, life, the more he laughs.
I would say that what is fine for the serial killer is in fact fine for the serial killer, if it makes him happy. Sounds absurd, doesn't it? Yet, who am I to say what should make another person happy? Am I not just another person, suffering in my own way? Do I not struggle with my own fears, doubts, and worries? Do I not seek peace within and without? I do. Letting go of the world about me is often the only thing that allows this world, and my life in it, to make any sense. This is not an easy path to take, yet for my life it has been vital in every way. To quote Robert Frost, "I took the road less traveled, and that has made all the difference."
---------------------------------
"Be a lamp to yourself. Be your own confidence. Hold to the truth within yourself, as to the only truth."
From the entrance arch to the temple at Delphi comes an inscription, one that mirrors the Buddha similarly, yet simply. Carved in Alabaster is the phrase: "Know Thyself." A pretty good beginning.
The doctor says, "Well then, don't do that."
------------------------------------------
"But when you realize that something is unwholesome and bad for you, give it up. And when you realize that something is wholesome and good for you, do it."
We have offically left the realm of religion and moved into right thinking and right acting. Granted, in this context Buddha speaks of the virtue of trusting in self versus trusting the message of the preacher, the scriptures, or mere observation; but taking it further, is this not an axiom by which one would live a decent life?
One might say there is a precursor here that goes unmentioned. You ask, "What if the person is a complete buffoon, or worse, a serial killer, and what if what is wholesome or good to them is abhorrent to the rest of us?"
We are confronted with the total paradox of personal growth, one which religion has debated for millenia. Many religions have a clearly defined father figure, one who said from the beginning, "This is right. That is wrong. Go about your business." But for the spiritualist, total harmony is reliant upon the individual and his ability to let the world behave as it will. The more suited he is to accepting that some people do traditionally awful things, the more at ease he finds himself. The more comical he finds this puny drama, life, the more he laughs.
I would say that what is fine for the serial killer is in fact fine for the serial killer, if it makes him happy. Sounds absurd, doesn't it? Yet, who am I to say what should make another person happy? Am I not just another person, suffering in my own way? Do I not struggle with my own fears, doubts, and worries? Do I not seek peace within and without? I do. Letting go of the world about me is often the only thing that allows this world, and my life in it, to make any sense. This is not an easy path to take, yet for my life it has been vital in every way. To quote Robert Frost, "I took the road less traveled, and that has made all the difference."
---------------------------------
"Be a lamp to yourself. Be your own confidence. Hold to the truth within yourself, as to the only truth."
From the entrance arch to the temple at Delphi comes an inscription, one that mirrors the Buddha similarly, yet simply. Carved in Alabaster is the phrase: "Know Thyself." A pretty good beginning.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
On Tzu-Ssu and Tu-Shun
In this weeks readings, we face an interesting dichotomy--two philosophers who take different approaches to explaining the infinite, and by that I mean God and Nature. One would rather try and describe what cannot be described (which can only result in mumbling futility), using colorful simile intended symbolically; another expresses his feelings and interpretations in an attempt to tug the heartstrings of the reader. It is up to each individaul to decide which of these methods is more effective.
Frankly, I get bored with the former. I have mentioned this in class and among friends, but philosophy means much more to me when it helps to see the great beauty in life, or when it makes practical and applicable suggestions that I can integrate toward fulfillment. In this regard, I am much more apt to appreciate the writings of Tzu-Ssu.
What brilliance in:
"...the mature person looks into his own heart and respects what is unseen and unheard."
"The mature person pays attention to what is happening in his inmost self."
"Once we find the center (of arisen pleasure, anger, sorrow, and joy)* and acheive harmony, heaven and earth take their proper places, and all things are fully nourished.'
This I can apply to my life. Seek balance of emotion by avoiding extreme states. To seek balance, look inward. Wonderful.
I am reminded of the Buddhist in New York City, who purchases a five dollar hot dog from a street vendor. Although he pays with a twenty dollar bill, he gets no money back.
When asked about the disparity, the vendor replies, "You of all people should know--change must come from within."
--------------------------------------
As to Tu-Shun, I can appreciate the beauty of a good simile, "life is like..." But, I tire quickly of this type of observation. Often the speaker has worked out so detailed a model that his invention lacks spontenaity. I would much rather a man speak from his heart in trying to capture a vision of life than develop a grand illusion for the sake of literary competence. I laud brevity, in conversation and in wit.
To the end of the passage, Tu-Shun borrows from ancient wisdom in stating "a simile is the same as not a simile." I get it, the net is all inclusive, yet it isn't a net. No crystal in the net is different from any other crystal in the net. All things are connected, all people are connected, all is one. The net describes this oneness of many parts.
This is the same example as the ocean metaphor in that every drop of water is necessary yet each drop is identifiable. Valid but not helpful.
In this case, Tu-Shun is like an arsonist who tosses his cigarette into a forest fire--why bother?
* Parentheses are mine.
Frankly, I get bored with the former. I have mentioned this in class and among friends, but philosophy means much more to me when it helps to see the great beauty in life, or when it makes practical and applicable suggestions that I can integrate toward fulfillment. In this regard, I am much more apt to appreciate the writings of Tzu-Ssu.
What brilliance in:
"...the mature person looks into his own heart and respects what is unseen and unheard."
"The mature person pays attention to what is happening in his inmost self."
"Once we find the center (of arisen pleasure, anger, sorrow, and joy)* and acheive harmony, heaven and earth take their proper places, and all things are fully nourished.'
This I can apply to my life. Seek balance of emotion by avoiding extreme states. To seek balance, look inward. Wonderful.
I am reminded of the Buddhist in New York City, who purchases a five dollar hot dog from a street vendor. Although he pays with a twenty dollar bill, he gets no money back.
When asked about the disparity, the vendor replies, "You of all people should know--change must come from within."
--------------------------------------
As to Tu-Shun, I can appreciate the beauty of a good simile, "life is like..." But, I tire quickly of this type of observation. Often the speaker has worked out so detailed a model that his invention lacks spontenaity. I would much rather a man speak from his heart in trying to capture a vision of life than develop a grand illusion for the sake of literary competence. I laud brevity, in conversation and in wit.
To the end of the passage, Tu-Shun borrows from ancient wisdom in stating "a simile is the same as not a simile." I get it, the net is all inclusive, yet it isn't a net. No crystal in the net is different from any other crystal in the net. All things are connected, all people are connected, all is one. The net describes this oneness of many parts.
This is the same example as the ocean metaphor in that every drop of water is necessary yet each drop is identifiable. Valid but not helpful.
In this case, Tu-Shun is like an arsonist who tosses his cigarette into a forest fire--why bother?
* Parentheses are mine.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
On Chuang-Tzu
I had a friend years ago, Dave, who annoyed me to no end. He had the ability to answer any question with the inverse of it's terms, as in, "Did you turn on the lamp, or did the lamp turn you on?" I am under the impression that he had been reading Chuang-Tsu, the trickster of Chinese philosophy.
What better way to describe the indescribable than to speak with poetic absurdity? Even more effective is the absolute and childlike simplicity of the inverse statement, which he uses to masterfully explain the non-linear, Dao. Chuang-Tsu recognizes the impossibility of trying to explain this existence with language that is ill-suited for universal description. He understands more than most that no manifestation of Dao can be written of with any direct verbiage; much like the statistician attempts a probability solution, Dao can only be described by what it is not.
"And someday there will be a great awakening when we know that this is all a great dream. Yet the stupid believe they are awake, busily and brightly assuming they understand things, calling this man ruler, that one herdsman--how dense! Confucius and you are both dreaming! And when I say you are dreaming, I am dreaming too."
As the world unfolds, it does so with no expectation of understanding. Thus should we be: simple, alive, witnessing the world rise, enfolding us as we enfold the world. We know nothing if we learn anything.
Dammnit. I have become Dave. Or has Dave become me?
What better way to describe the indescribable than to speak with poetic absurdity? Even more effective is the absolute and childlike simplicity of the inverse statement, which he uses to masterfully explain the non-linear, Dao. Chuang-Tsu recognizes the impossibility of trying to explain this existence with language that is ill-suited for universal description. He understands more than most that no manifestation of Dao can be written of with any direct verbiage; much like the statistician attempts a probability solution, Dao can only be described by what it is not.
"And someday there will be a great awakening when we know that this is all a great dream. Yet the stupid believe they are awake, busily and brightly assuming they understand things, calling this man ruler, that one herdsman--how dense! Confucius and you are both dreaming! And when I say you are dreaming, I am dreaming too."
As the world unfolds, it does so with no expectation of understanding. Thus should we be: simple, alive, witnessing the world rise, enfolding us as we enfold the world. We know nothing if we learn anything.
Dammnit. I have become Dave. Or has Dave become me?
Thursday, September 18, 2008
On Selections from the Bible
(Disclaimer: This post is very personal, yet I have no fear in sharing about my life as I hope someone may find wisdom, strength, or hope in my words. I would ask that your comments are applicable to my opinions only, not my personal history.)
--------------------------------
What a wonderful book to be enjoyed by each man to himself. What a tragedy that man feels compelled to make others see things his way.
I have dreamt of time machines, of helping history along. If I could have only been there to help men see the deeper truth of the Bible, to understand metaphor and myth, to personalize rather than organize. If I could have been the catalyst to prevent war, genocide, and fervor. But that would make me equally as culpable...
--------------------------------
I have read the Book a number of times, at different places in my life, for different reasons. Early in my life, I wanted very much to be part of a religion so that I could have social identity. I pulled away from Catholicism and joined a Church of Christ. I left them as well when my best friend and I had an argument. I went to Mormon tabernacle for a while, although my motives were simpler--seek approval for sex before marriage (I was "in love" with a Latter Day Saint). Soon after, I immersed myself into Judaism. Living in a small town, I was running out of religions to turn to...
Later in life, I turned to the Bible for analysis. I had abandoned the idea of God and, as a good atheist, needed ammunition with which to defeat Christianity. This was easy as the Book is filled with outrageous stories and a history that fall short under scientific scrutiny. I pored over the text, cover to cover, building an arsenal of barbs, logic, and hypocrisy. I was a good atheist.
Later in life, I found myself hopeless--drunk, suicidal, incarcerated. This time I sought the Book, hoping to find a Santa Claus-like foxhole prayer. "God, if you get me out of this one, I'll believe in you. Heck, I'll become a preacher!" Once again I found myself reading and reading, yet the salvation I needed came at the hands of attorneys, favors from wealthy contacts, and an overcrowded penal system.
I missed a lot.
If you have followed my blogs to this point, you have probably realized that I have a fairly clear idea of what my higher power is. Somewhere between Hinduism and Buddhism lies the concept of an everythng, or nothing, that this world is merely a manifestation of. I seek love and kindess, peace and serenity, humility and grace, and offer the same in turn. These are the traits common to all healthy faiths, regardless of denomination. Still, I belive the ego is a manifestation all it's own, and is hell-bent on destruction. Like a parasite, it thrives on discomfort and disease.
I read the Bible one last time recently, only this time I sought wisdom. I have come to terms with the fact that all men of loving faith have found some level of comfort with their existence. This time, I sought similarities instead of looking for differences. Much of what I came to love out of that Book is printed in The Enlightened Mind. Much of the sacred text can be interpreted in numerous ways. I truly believe that a man should seek his own understanding of the Bible, so he can apply the lessons and truths to his own life.
I offer a few examples of my interpretation for your consideration.
"And God looked at everything he had made, and behold! It was very good." Gen 1:31
and
"God has made everything beautiful in its time, and has put eternity in our hearts." Ecc 3:11
Mirror statements like these are so wonderful. Time and time again, the message is simple--this world is wonderful because everything in it is of God. That includes us puny humans! Eternity as a concept is very human, not recognizing time is a virtue.
"Be still, and know that I am God." Psa 46:10
Is this a command to sit quietly because God is in charge, or does this statement imply that each person is manifested of one Godhood? I choose to think the latter...
"I form light and create darkness. I make peace and create evil." Is 45:7
A statement of holy power, or two statements of duality? All things exist in a world of oneness, thus every duality exists in God...
Finally, the single unifying tenet of all love-based faith:
"Love your neighbor as you would yourself." Lev 19:18
Enough said.
--------------------------------
What a wonderful book to be enjoyed by each man to himself. What a tragedy that man feels compelled to make others see things his way.
I have dreamt of time machines, of helping history along. If I could have only been there to help men see the deeper truth of the Bible, to understand metaphor and myth, to personalize rather than organize. If I could have been the catalyst to prevent war, genocide, and fervor. But that would make me equally as culpable...
--------------------------------
I have read the Book a number of times, at different places in my life, for different reasons. Early in my life, I wanted very much to be part of a religion so that I could have social identity. I pulled away from Catholicism and joined a Church of Christ. I left them as well when my best friend and I had an argument. I went to Mormon tabernacle for a while, although my motives were simpler--seek approval for sex before marriage (I was "in love" with a Latter Day Saint). Soon after, I immersed myself into Judaism. Living in a small town, I was running out of religions to turn to...
Later in life, I turned to the Bible for analysis. I had abandoned the idea of God and, as a good atheist, needed ammunition with which to defeat Christianity. This was easy as the Book is filled with outrageous stories and a history that fall short under scientific scrutiny. I pored over the text, cover to cover, building an arsenal of barbs, logic, and hypocrisy. I was a good atheist.
Later in life, I found myself hopeless--drunk, suicidal, incarcerated. This time I sought the Book, hoping to find a Santa Claus-like foxhole prayer. "God, if you get me out of this one, I'll believe in you. Heck, I'll become a preacher!" Once again I found myself reading and reading, yet the salvation I needed came at the hands of attorneys, favors from wealthy contacts, and an overcrowded penal system.
I missed a lot.
If you have followed my blogs to this point, you have probably realized that I have a fairly clear idea of what my higher power is. Somewhere between Hinduism and Buddhism lies the concept of an everythng, or nothing, that this world is merely a manifestation of. I seek love and kindess, peace and serenity, humility and grace, and offer the same in turn. These are the traits common to all healthy faiths, regardless of denomination. Still, I belive the ego is a manifestation all it's own, and is hell-bent on destruction. Like a parasite, it thrives on discomfort and disease.
I read the Bible one last time recently, only this time I sought wisdom. I have come to terms with the fact that all men of loving faith have found some level of comfort with their existence. This time, I sought similarities instead of looking for differences. Much of what I came to love out of that Book is printed in The Enlightened Mind. Much of the sacred text can be interpreted in numerous ways. I truly believe that a man should seek his own understanding of the Bible, so he can apply the lessons and truths to his own life.
I offer a few examples of my interpretation for your consideration.
"And God looked at everything he had made, and behold! It was very good." Gen 1:31
and
"God has made everything beautiful in its time, and has put eternity in our hearts." Ecc 3:11
Mirror statements like these are so wonderful. Time and time again, the message is simple--this world is wonderful because everything in it is of God. That includes us puny humans! Eternity as a concept is very human, not recognizing time is a virtue.
"Be still, and know that I am God." Psa 46:10
Is this a command to sit quietly because God is in charge, or does this statement imply that each person is manifested of one Godhood? I choose to think the latter...
"I form light and create darkness. I make peace and create evil." Is 45:7
A statement of holy power, or two statements of duality? All things exist in a world of oneness, thus every duality exists in God...
Finally, the single unifying tenet of all love-based faith:
"Love your neighbor as you would yourself." Lev 19:18
Enough said.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
On Dov Baer of Mezritch
Can it be that the favored son of rabbinical Hasidism could be a closet Buddhist? A Hindi? An Upanishad? More on that later...
"When you gaze at an object, you bring blessing to it. For through contemplation, you know it is absolutely nothing without the divinity that permeates it. By means of this awareness, you draw greater vitality to that object from the divine source of life, since you bind that thing to absolute nothingness."
Let me first say that as I understand it, there are really two types of religionists: the first are those who believe all existence is God, of God, a part of God, a manifestion taking place within God; the second type, primarily Judeo-Christian-styled sects, believe (although not so explicitly) that God creates anew, meaning man and all other physical forms are separate and under God's watchful eye. This allows for wonderful stories of intervention, chosen-ness, sacrifice, and punishment.
As I read this selection, I get the impression Dov Baer sees the world through a similar lens to mine--that God is merely a word used to describe a concept. I fully expected to read methods of prostration, obedience, and identification. Instead, I was pleasantly surprised to see a man of Religion propound God as nothingness, divinity as vitality. To hear that viewing any object as separate cuts that object from its truthful nature is satisfying, yet I think it doesn't go quite far enough. I need one more sentence added to the end, to the effect of:
"To view oneself as separate from that object in fact separates him from the divine source of life."
Moving forward, yet within the same concept, Baer speaks of ego, my favorite subject (pun intended). To liberate oneself from the ego, and in doing so become silent is a lofty goal. Indeed, how can one possibly hear the voice of the universe if that person can still hear the single voice from inside himself? "The moment you begin to hear what you yourself are saying, you must stop." Although Dov relates this to prayer, how appropriate does this message seem to any situation.
How can I hear the voice of the universe if I can only hear the voice of ego? How can I hear the voice of my friends, if I can still hear the mumbling din of my own self monologue? How can I possibly learn anything if my mind questions everything?
Aha.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus I return to the first sentence of this post, in which I wonder if Baer is not truly Hasidic, by saying he is none of the above. Although most men of faith and/or enlightened thinking tend to be boxed into one particular faith, all men who practice spirituality based in love, tolerance, honesty, humility, and serenity are more than simple religionists. These are men who raise the consciousness of all they come into contact with, and through words not dissimilar, display reverence in thought and deed. The man who respects other men as parts of the same whole, and who recognizes he cannot know the unknowable, rises above human classification and religious order. This is the man of true reason, and not religion. This is the voice of the God.
"When you gaze at an object, you bring blessing to it. For through contemplation, you know it is absolutely nothing without the divinity that permeates it. By means of this awareness, you draw greater vitality to that object from the divine source of life, since you bind that thing to absolute nothingness."
Let me first say that as I understand it, there are really two types of religionists: the first are those who believe all existence is God, of God, a part of God, a manifestion taking place within God; the second type, primarily Judeo-Christian-styled sects, believe (although not so explicitly) that God creates anew, meaning man and all other physical forms are separate and under God's watchful eye. This allows for wonderful stories of intervention, chosen-ness, sacrifice, and punishment.
As I read this selection, I get the impression Dov Baer sees the world through a similar lens to mine--that God is merely a word used to describe a concept. I fully expected to read methods of prostration, obedience, and identification. Instead, I was pleasantly surprised to see a man of Religion propound God as nothingness, divinity as vitality. To hear that viewing any object as separate cuts that object from its truthful nature is satisfying, yet I think it doesn't go quite far enough. I need one more sentence added to the end, to the effect of:
"To view oneself as separate from that object in fact separates him from the divine source of life."
Moving forward, yet within the same concept, Baer speaks of ego, my favorite subject (pun intended). To liberate oneself from the ego, and in doing so become silent is a lofty goal. Indeed, how can one possibly hear the voice of the universe if that person can still hear the single voice from inside himself? "The moment you begin to hear what you yourself are saying, you must stop." Although Dov relates this to prayer, how appropriate does this message seem to any situation.
How can I hear the voice of the universe if I can only hear the voice of ego? How can I hear the voice of my friends, if I can still hear the mumbling din of my own self monologue? How can I possibly learn anything if my mind questions everything?
Aha.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus I return to the first sentence of this post, in which I wonder if Baer is not truly Hasidic, by saying he is none of the above. Although most men of faith and/or enlightened thinking tend to be boxed into one particular faith, all men who practice spirituality based in love, tolerance, honesty, humility, and serenity are more than simple religionists. These are men who raise the consciousness of all they come into contact with, and through words not dissimilar, display reverence in thought and deed. The man who respects other men as parts of the same whole, and who recognizes he cannot know the unknowable, rises above human classification and religious order. This is the man of true reason, and not religion. This is the voice of the God.
Friday, September 12, 2008
On Ramana Maharshi
As there are just too many understandings from this reading, I am going to focus on a few of the selections that really spoke to me.
-------------
"How can one real-ize or make real that which alone is real? All we need to do is to give up our habit of regarding as real that which is unreal." Then, "When we stop regarding the unreal as real, then reality alone will remain, and there will be that."
Sounds similar to the Upanishad "Perfect comes from perfect. Take perfect from perfect and the remainder is perfect." Only in the letting go of Maya is Atman free of identification with what is seen, and instead is identified as nothing more nor less than a part of wholeness, or, "the pristine state."
To place it more modern terms, Ramana Maharshi states, "Reality is simply the loss of the ego. Destroy the ego by seeking its identity."
"We keep seeking reality though in fact we are reality." As I have come to understand, the ego is my defense mechanism, brought about as my interpretive filters developed. As the world rose in front of me, and others exerted their will over me, my vulnerability prompted the forging of a shield wall, a protective cocoon, devised of separation, superiority, and loathing.
As I was not met with the type of love I felt I deserved or was entitled to, the ego was given room to blossom. The more I continue to think that I am any different (better or worse, than anyone else, the more I fan the flames of an egoic wildfire. The point is this: regardless of any view I may take of myself, I am still a part of all things, and thus connected to God-consciousness.
I am reminded of a fellow who once told me, "I have known many men who have told me their stories. Many of them say they have found a distance growing between themselves and God and I always ask them, 'Which of you moved?'"
Ultimately, I believe, it comes down to one choice: do I have the desire to find peace and "break free from life's sorrow?" Am I willing to grow along spiritual lines, to "long for the supreme spiritual bliss?" Am I willing to be the student?
-------------
"How can one real-ize or make real that which alone is real? All we need to do is to give up our habit of regarding as real that which is unreal." Then, "When we stop regarding the unreal as real, then reality alone will remain, and there will be that."
Sounds similar to the Upanishad "Perfect comes from perfect. Take perfect from perfect and the remainder is perfect." Only in the letting go of Maya is Atman free of identification with what is seen, and instead is identified as nothing more nor less than a part of wholeness, or, "the pristine state."
To place it more modern terms, Ramana Maharshi states, "Reality is simply the loss of the ego. Destroy the ego by seeking its identity."
"We keep seeking reality though in fact we are reality." As I have come to understand, the ego is my defense mechanism, brought about as my interpretive filters developed. As the world rose in front of me, and others exerted their will over me, my vulnerability prompted the forging of a shield wall, a protective cocoon, devised of separation, superiority, and loathing.
As I was not met with the type of love I felt I deserved or was entitled to, the ego was given room to blossom. The more I continue to think that I am any different (better or worse, than anyone else, the more I fan the flames of an egoic wildfire. The point is this: regardless of any view I may take of myself, I am still a part of all things, and thus connected to God-consciousness.
I am reminded of a fellow who once told me, "I have known many men who have told me their stories. Many of them say they have found a distance growing between themselves and God and I always ask them, 'Which of you moved?'"
Ultimately, I believe, it comes down to one choice: do I have the desire to find peace and "break free from life's sorrow?" Am I willing to grow along spiritual lines, to "long for the supreme spiritual bliss?" Am I willing to be the student?
Thursday, September 11, 2008
On The Upanishads
I am often surrounded by people of varying faiths in an environment that encourages by its tenets the dependance on a higher power, as each member understands his or her higher power. I find that during these assemblies, and despite the numerous differences in opinion from one person to the next, that all men of faith who practice as fully as possible the principles of joy, kindness, and charity, and who seek serenity by smashing the ego, can raise the "God-consciousness" of an entire group.
Through the years, I have stumbled from faith to faith because I somehow came to the conclusion that man's first job in this manifestation is to find out why he is here, and none really seemed to have an answer that made sense. Not ironically, attempting to develop a higher power that suits my egoic consciousness has mostly led to failure as I use the word 'I' in the context of a limited, identified self.
Then comes the Upanishad.
I first read these words in a time that I was not ready to understand or accept the non-linear. But today I am older and the idea of the Self and the self I can handle. I am reminded of the Beatles', "I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together," and how that relates whatever "truth" may exist universally. I exist only as long I identify that I exist. I am truly not I, but i, a manifestation of I clouded by a self-defense mechanism called ego. The Upanishad ask, "How can a wise man, knowing the unity of life, seeing all creatures in himself, be deluded or sorrowful?" Easily, it turns out.
The self seeks to separate itself from the Self. The i wishes to be greater than, or independent from, the I. "Proud as you are of your own life," sums it up perfectly. I am reminded of something I heard Alan Watts say, and I am sure he was quoting someone else, that "if you look into the mirror, and see anything other than the face of Buddha staring back at you, your ego still lies to you." The Upanishad mirror this statement, albeit indirectly, in forwarding, "When you see that God acts through you at every moment, in every movement of mind and body, you attain true freedom." They do not specify what one gains freedom from, but I think I get it...
In the sake of openness and sharing, I offer you my meditation mantra--the words that bring me serenity daily:
i am a part of all things. All things are part of one thing. That one thing is God. i am a part of God. I is God.
I may be changing those words though, to this selection from the reading:
"That is perfect. This is perfect. Perfect comes from perfect. Take perfect from perfect, the remainder is perfect."
Post script.
I understand the ultimate futility of this rant because the more I wish to seek and understand, the less I will. "The ignorant think that God can be grasped by the mind." Humility and the intellect can coexist, provided humility comes first.
Through the years, I have stumbled from faith to faith because I somehow came to the conclusion that man's first job in this manifestation is to find out why he is here, and none really seemed to have an answer that made sense. Not ironically, attempting to develop a higher power that suits my egoic consciousness has mostly led to failure as I use the word 'I' in the context of a limited, identified self.
Then comes the Upanishad.
I first read these words in a time that I was not ready to understand or accept the non-linear. But today I am older and the idea of the Self and the self I can handle. I am reminded of the Beatles', "I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together," and how that relates whatever "truth" may exist universally. I exist only as long I identify that I exist. I am truly not I, but i, a manifestation of I clouded by a self-defense mechanism called ego. The Upanishad ask, "How can a wise man, knowing the unity of life, seeing all creatures in himself, be deluded or sorrowful?" Easily, it turns out.
The self seeks to separate itself from the Self. The i wishes to be greater than, or independent from, the I. "Proud as you are of your own life," sums it up perfectly. I am reminded of something I heard Alan Watts say, and I am sure he was quoting someone else, that "if you look into the mirror, and see anything other than the face of Buddha staring back at you, your ego still lies to you." The Upanishad mirror this statement, albeit indirectly, in forwarding, "When you see that God acts through you at every moment, in every movement of mind and body, you attain true freedom." They do not specify what one gains freedom from, but I think I get it...
In the sake of openness and sharing, I offer you my meditation mantra--the words that bring me serenity daily:
i am a part of all things. All things are part of one thing. That one thing is God. i am a part of God. I is God.
I may be changing those words though, to this selection from the reading:
"That is perfect. This is perfect. Perfect comes from perfect. Take perfect from perfect, the remainder is perfect."
Post script.
I understand the ultimate futility of this rant because the more I wish to seek and understand, the less I will. "The ignorant think that God can be grasped by the mind." Humility and the intellect can coexist, provided humility comes first.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
On Sa-Go-Ye-Wat-Ha
I recall being about seven or eight years old and asking my parish priest, "If God only created two people, Adam and Eve, and then stopped, where did all the rest of the people come from?" The great questions of God and faith often come from the simplest minds, those less complicated by passion, dogma, or exposure. This is what I was reminded of while reading this selection.
The speaker brilliantly summarizes the invasion by the Europeans, focusing equally on the native kindess of the numerous tribes and the burgeoning foreign imposition of settlers in need of land and resources. The real brilliance of the presentaion arises in the childlike inquisition of Christianity. Questions and statements which cannot be answered make for tantalizing response, and I can only imagine the bitterness that must have brewed in the minds of the missionaries while listening to the Chief speak. I know that Father Balker (appropriate name for a man who couldn't answer my queries either!) must have been just as frustrated by my own observations, some of which run parallel with Sagoyewatha's:
"...your religion is written in a book. If it was meant for us as well as for you, why hasn't the Great Spirit given it to us?"
"If there is only one religion, why do you white people differ so much about it? Why don't you all agree, since you can all read the book?"
"How can we know what to believe, when we have been lied to so often by the white people?"
I especially appreciate the inclusion of the greatest philosophical question ever posed, "You say that you are right and that we are lost. How do you know this is true?"
The poison that teems from organized religion is easily recognizable to children and the uninitiated (though being confounded by adults), maybe because it's members often behave like spoiled toddlers themselves. From Mitchell's introduction, the details of the events surrounding this rebuttal speech and the response of the missionaries it was intended for, were deplorable. Not liking what was heard, the Christian emmisary refused to shake hands and share a not-so-uncommon faith with Chief Sagoyewatha, thus condeming the indiginous tribesman and his clan to eternal damnation.
In effect: I'm taking my toys and going home.
The speaker brilliantly summarizes the invasion by the Europeans, focusing equally on the native kindess of the numerous tribes and the burgeoning foreign imposition of settlers in need of land and resources. The real brilliance of the presentaion arises in the childlike inquisition of Christianity. Questions and statements which cannot be answered make for tantalizing response, and I can only imagine the bitterness that must have brewed in the minds of the missionaries while listening to the Chief speak. I know that Father Balker (appropriate name for a man who couldn't answer my queries either!) must have been just as frustrated by my own observations, some of which run parallel with Sagoyewatha's:
"...your religion is written in a book. If it was meant for us as well as for you, why hasn't the Great Spirit given it to us?"
"If there is only one religion, why do you white people differ so much about it? Why don't you all agree, since you can all read the book?"
"How can we know what to believe, when we have been lied to so often by the white people?"
I especially appreciate the inclusion of the greatest philosophical question ever posed, "You say that you are right and that we are lost. How do you know this is true?"
The poison that teems from organized religion is easily recognizable to children and the uninitiated (though being confounded by adults), maybe because it's members often behave like spoiled toddlers themselves. From Mitchell's introduction, the details of the events surrounding this rebuttal speech and the response of the missionaries it was intended for, were deplorable. Not liking what was heard, the Christian emmisary refused to shake hands and share a not-so-uncommon faith with Chief Sagoyewatha, thus condeming the indiginous tribesman and his clan to eternal damnation.
In effect: I'm taking my toys and going home.
On Chief Seattle
Since you, my classmates and professor, don't know me yet, I should tell you that this speech hits home for me. As a reformed Catholic, too much of the Christian dogma, practice, and record of historical abuse leave me with a sour taste in my mouth. Despite having found a "higher power" for my own life, one that gives me serenity when I seek it, I still am prone to judge those who attempt selfishly to force, coerce, or sway others into buying what is being sold.
Thus, I found it difficult to read this selection without sensing real sarcasm on behalf of Seattle. Of course, my impression may be completely wrong, but as a cynical bastard I am quick to spot my own kind. Granted, Seattle speaks from a darker place than I can imagine, having witnessed the genocide of his own tribe and hundreds of others across the rapidly settled American continent. Still, the blatant "you are mistaken about God" response is both beautiful and biting:
"But how can that ever be? Your God loves your people and hates mine. He puts his strong arm around the white man and leads him by the hand, as a father leads his little boy. He has abandoned his red children."
"No, the white man's God cannot love his red children or he would protect them."
"Your God is prejudiced."
These statements are cunning and fierce; they can only be received coldly. Seattle knowingly stabs a ceremonial dagger into the heart of those who believe that the Christian God is loving and tolerant. He makes an argument that a loving God, by any name, should support all mankind and never play favorites. God is in the land, the sea, and the wind, treats all men fairly and equally, lives in mystery and can only be tested in love--yet some choose to place their faith in a God of hate, a God who separates race from destiny, a God who chooses some to be loved more than others.
Seattle recognizes the destruction of his ancestry and the limitation of his progeny by settlers bent on destruction and domination, then grudgingly accepts the relegation of his peoples to isolated, desolate reservation lands, yet he still musters one final offensive salvo. I use my own interpretation here, with some misgiving, but this is what I hear in the desperate closing lines: Sleep well, hypocrites, and know that death begets death--and the dead never sleep.
Thus, I found it difficult to read this selection without sensing real sarcasm on behalf of Seattle. Of course, my impression may be completely wrong, but as a cynical bastard I am quick to spot my own kind. Granted, Seattle speaks from a darker place than I can imagine, having witnessed the genocide of his own tribe and hundreds of others across the rapidly settled American continent. Still, the blatant "you are mistaken about God" response is both beautiful and biting:
"But how can that ever be? Your God loves your people and hates mine. He puts his strong arm around the white man and leads him by the hand, as a father leads his little boy. He has abandoned his red children."
"No, the white man's God cannot love his red children or he would protect them."
"Your God is prejudiced."
These statements are cunning and fierce; they can only be received coldly. Seattle knowingly stabs a ceremonial dagger into the heart of those who believe that the Christian God is loving and tolerant. He makes an argument that a loving God, by any name, should support all mankind and never play favorites. God is in the land, the sea, and the wind, treats all men fairly and equally, lives in mystery and can only be tested in love--yet some choose to place their faith in a God of hate, a God who separates race from destiny, a God who chooses some to be loved more than others.
Seattle recognizes the destruction of his ancestry and the limitation of his progeny by settlers bent on destruction and domination, then grudgingly accepts the relegation of his peoples to isolated, desolate reservation lands, yet he still musters one final offensive salvo. I use my own interpretation here, with some misgiving, but this is what I hear in the desperate closing lines: Sleep well, hypocrites, and know that death begets death--and the dead never sleep.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Bienvenudos!
This is just a brief hello to all of my classmates for the coming semester. I look forward to learning with, and from, you as we delve into topics substantial and controversial.
If I can ever be of assistance to any of you, please do not hesitate to ask!
Woody Laughnan III
If I can ever be of assistance to any of you, please do not hesitate to ask!
Woody Laughnan III
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
