Happy birthday.
So here's the song. Listen to it while you read. Over and over again if you need to. Pay attention to the lyrics - they're important.
I'll tell the story as closely as I can, but it's been a few years, so I can't promise perfect accuracy.
When I was in early high school, I threatened suicide a few times, holding knives to my throat and screaming at my mom until she would break down crying and have to lock herself in her room.
Needless to say, my parents - although divorced at the time - were worried.
They got together and agreed at least long enough to send me off to a rehab center in south central Oregon - right about here, to be exact.
I was there for just short of a year. I think I talked to my mom on the phone for the first time since leaving right around the second month - the staff had to forcibly end the call when I made her cry, if I remember right. I think it took another month or so to get to the point where I was able to get to the end of a complete phone call with her.
She came down from the Portland area to celebrate my 15th birthday with me in the reception office.
A while later, I had my first visit with my dad, and eventually, they even let me go off-campus.
The whole thing was an educational experience, to say the least.
Pray that you never have to see your best friend carve obscenities half an inch deep into their forearms with pieces of shattered obsidian.
Pray that you never have to see your roommate and surrogate little brother put his hand through a double paned window, and then break every bone left in the mutilated hand by repeatedly punching walls until staff members wrestle him to the floor and restrain him.
Pray that you never have to worry for days about your surrogate sister after she swallows a full bottle of Tylenol and gets rushed to the hospital in the middle of the night.
Pray that you never have to see one roommate beat another unconscious with a lead pipe or choke another nearly to death with a length of chain.
Pray that you never have to listen to a 17 year old boy's story of stabbing another boy 40 plus times over a drug deal gone bad and leaving him bleeding in the street, never knowing his fate...and then go to sleep in the same room as the first boy that night.
Pray that you never have to help wrestle your closest friend to the ground when he has a nightmare of his time in the high-risk psychiatric ward of a mental hospital, and takes one boy and two fully grown men to restrain him until he calms down.
Pray that you never have to wipe the tears off that same boy's face until he can be trusted to get back up again without harming himself or others.
Pray that you never have to run a mile over uneven ground in a Southern Oregon heatwave to save the life of a boy dying of dehydration after running away.
Pray that you never have to hold your best friend's wrists shut until the paramedics arrive.
Pray that you never have to stand between your violently paranoid 17 year old drug addict roommate with a knife and the unarmed staff members he wants to kill, hoping to God your friendship with him will be enough to keep him from going through you to get to them.
There are other stories, other memories. Most of them are ugly...but as always, there are a few good ones that make it all worth it. There's a lot of friendship, a lot of pain, and a lot of love. There's also a lot of learning.
Long story short, though, I came home at the end of the tenth month. I've still got the "graduation present" I got from my mom - it's actually sitting on the bookshelf in my bedroom here in California as I type this.
It's the CD single for "I Hope You Dance" by Lee Ann Womack, and the illustrated hardcover booklet with the lyrics. It's probably one of the most meaningful gifts I've ever recieved - the only thing that even comes close is my black belt.
I've been broke, I've been homeless, I've been addicted, I've been a cutter, I've been beaten up, I've been abused, I've been ostracized and isolated, I've been robbed, I've been suicidal (even tried it a few times), I've been hopeless, I've been friendless...
But whenever I get down...well, what the hell. There's no harm in dancing one last time.
Right?
I Hope You Dance, by Lee Ann Womack.
I hope you never lose your sense of wonder
You get your fill to eat
But always keep that hunger
May you never take one single breath for granted
God forbid love ever leave you empty handed
I hope you still feel small
When you stand by the ocean
Whenever one door closes, I hope one more opens
Promise me that you'll give fate a fighting chance
And when you get the choice to sit it out or dance
I hope you dance
I hope you dance
I hope you never fear those mountains in the distance
Never settle for the path of least resistance
Living might mean taking chances
But they're worth taking
Lovin' might be a mistake
But it's worth making
Don't let some hell-bent heart
Leave you bitter
When you come close to selling out
Reconsider
Give the heavens above
More than just a passing glance
And when you get the choice to sit it out or dance
I hope you dance
(Time is a wheel in constant motion always)
I hope you dance
(Rolling us along)
I hope you dance
(Tell me who)
I hope you dance
(Wants to look back on their years and wonder where those years have gone)
I hope you still feel small
When you stand by the ocean
Whenever one door closes, I hope one more opens
Promise me you'll give faith a fighting chance
And when you get the choice to sit it out or dance
Dance
I hope you dance
I hope you dance
(Time is a wheel in constant motion always)
I hope you dance
(Rolling us along)
I hope you dance
(Tell me who wants to look back on their years and wonder)
I hope you dance
(Where those years have gone)
(Tell me who)
I hope you dance
(Wants to look back on their years and wonder where those years have gone)
----------------
Now playing: Lee Ann Womack - I Hope You Dance
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Friday, February 8, 2008
Shift happens.
The video, I think, speaks for itself - what will the world be like in 10 years? 50? 100? 500?
Even the changes I've witnessed in my lifetime alone would've struck the scientists of one hundred years ago as inconceivable - what will the scientists of millions, or even billions, of years in the future think (if they think in a way that we would even recognize as such) of us today?
Will we even exist in a recognizably human form millions of years in the future? Where will evolution, natural or deliberate, take us?
What lies in humanity's future?
Friday, February 1, 2008
Philosophical Convergence (pt 2)
An approach similar to the last, but this time to the Buddhist concept of Anatman/Anatta (the lack of self).
Enjoy!
First of all...I - yes, I, despite the fact that I still hold I doesn't know what it is in the first place - have to admit that I find Buddhism satisfying and always have.
My dad has always told me it's just because I love mind games and always have.
Philosophically speaking, though, he's a pretty materialistic sorta guy. If he can't see/hear/feel/taste/smell it, it probably doesn't exist.
Philosophically speaking, I fall closer to the path of the skeptic than anything else. In order to arrive at the most accurate statement possibly concerning my philosophical beliefs, solve the following equation:
(I may know nothing but that)+[(I'm not sure that)n]+(I know nothing), where n equals infinity.
I also think that math is a wonderful language for skeptics. Using absolutes to express possibilities of non-absolutes can be great fun.
I'm getting off-topic, though.
Post a thread on the idea that you should have no self and how that might affect one's actions in the world.
I should have no self? First of all, stating that "I" should have no "self" is a bit of an oxymoron. Self, if I understand correctly, is understood by Buddhist thought to be merely an illusion. This, as discussed in my earlier post on Hinduism, is, as I understand it, held by Buddhist doctrine to be Truth with a capital "T".
Putting aside for now the argument that not everybody recognizes it as such, and so it cannot be, if this doctrine is actually universal truth, any statement including individual pronouns are, strictly speaking, rendered inaccurate. For if there is no self, there can be no "I" to ponder the fact that there is no self.
Actually, with this in mind, the doctrine that there is no self is self-contradictory. Let us establish a list of ideas that, for the sake of argument, we shall accept as fact (contrary - perhaps - to skeptical thinking):
1. The doctrine that self is illusion, if true, must be true for all.
2. There is currently in existence a certain doctrine of human thought which holds that there is no self.
3. Some humans consciously know of this doctrine.
4. Some humans don't.
5. Some humans consciously agree with this doctrine.
6. Some don't.
7. In order for those who don't know of or agree with this doctrine to gain knowledge of it, it must be communicated.
8. Communication requires a transmitter and a receiver.
9. A transmitter, when transmitting, cannot receive, nor can a receiver, when receiving, transmit.
10. Holding concepts #8 and #9 to be true, in order for communication to take place, there must be a transmitter of some sort which is separate from the receiver which it is transmitting to, and vice versa.
11. Holding concept #10 to be true, in order for one who has no knowledge of the idea that there is no self to gain such knowledge, two selves of some sort must exist: one to transmit, and one to receive.
12. Holding concepts #3 and #4 to be true (note the word "conscious"), it is impossible for the concept that self is illusion to be true, for at some point, at least one self must exist to communicate to at least one other self that no selves exist.
Got it?
Okay, here's the breakdown: It's true that there are conscious, thinking beings who aren't aware of the idea that self is illusion, right?
Well, how do they learn it?
One could say it's an internal realization, but if it is, they still have to think about it at some point, and thinking about a self - even if it's concerning the lack of one - first requires a self of some sort to do the thinking.
If it's an external realization, then one must accept the fact that a self had to exist to give them the information that there is no self, and another self had to exist to receive the information that there is no self.
In addition to all the mental gymnastics above, one has to take into account the nature of Truth and Oneness (yes, those are capitalized for a reason). In order to be universal, Truth, as discussed in the post about Hinduism, must indeed be universal - instantly recognizable and undeniable to anyone. If there is no self, only a single One, then that One, as a single collective entity, must be capable of instantly and undeniably recognizing said Truth when presented with it.
Now let us say that there is no self, that all is One.
If this all-encompassing One was presented with Truth (as defined above), it - all of it, given the above definition of Truth - would instantly and undeniably recognize and acknowledge it as such.
In addition to that, in order for the Truth to be Truth in the first place, the One doing the recognizing and affirming would have to be a single entity - even if it's a collective one - rather than just part of it.
You see where the problems lie? How can all be One and Truth remain Truth if part of One recognizes Truth when presented with it while another does not?
For that matter, even if all is One, One is a non-zero concept. One has substance. One has singleness.
One - even a collective one - is still individual. A collective self is still a self.
Yet another problem - if a Buddhist admits that we have not consciously discovered the entirety of physical existence, the possibility remains that sentient non-human life exists. What happens to the doctrine of "all is one" if this particular individual collective One encounters another collective One? What is there to say for certain that this collective One is the only collective One in existence?
How does one deny self altogether while affirming that all individual human beings are part of a greater collective?
First of all, one has to affirm individual human beings - if only in conceptual form - in order to form this equation. Secondly, is not a greater self still a self? How could part of a non-self have any concept of its own existence? For that matter, if all is One, then any idea belonging to a single human, being that self is illusion, must at its root belong to the One, and with that in mind, given that self is illusion, how could the One have knowledge of its own existence (given that its own existence - or self - wouldn't be there to have knowledge of in the first place) to doubt if it had no self?
With all that said, it should be fairly obvious by now that the little bit of the One writing this post has some questions concerning the idea that there is no self that it wants answered before it acknowledges the idea that it doesn't exist as an individual.
I do, however, like the monistic tendencies inherent in the statement. The doctrine of "all which exists, exists" seems to make sense to me, and when you get right down to it, "all is One" isn't that much of a stretch from there.
As for how the doctrine of "all is one" could affect actions in the real world...it shouldn't. Quite simply, if all is One, there should be no motivation for behavior of any sort, since motivation requires a self to be motivated.
Let us take a simple idea to demonstrate: harm.
In all seriousness, if all is One, there is no reason for part of the One to wish harm upon another part, for what harms the One harms all of the One, and if one harms one part, one harms all parts.
Given that self-preservation (...) tends to run strong in humanity, one should not harm anything, because if one harms anything, one harms everything, including oneself.
Of course, this raises the question of why exactly harm is bad. Usually, harm is bad because it means immediate chances of survival are somehow decreased (i.e. pain being the body's method of letting the CNS know that it's injured). If the self is merely illusion, though, and all is One, self-preservation by the individual self should no longer be in any way relevant, since only the One should be motivated by self-preservation, given that all other selves are simply illusion and thus incapable of being motivated in the first place. Of course, for the One to have motivating factors for behavior, the One would need a self to be motivated...but since there is no self and all is One, there should be no motivation for any behavior, ever, self preservation included.
To put it another way, consider this:
For the following equation, consider the following to be true.
factor that is doing=A, factor that is being done to=B, All=C, and action done=X. A=C, therefore C=A. B=C, therefore C=B. A=C and B=C, therefore A=B.
If A=C and B=C, any X done by A to B is also done to C, since B=C. Since A=C as well, any X done by A to B is also done to A. Thus, no value of X should be harmful, for harm done by any value of A to any value of B is immediately done to A as well, and is thus undesirable.
Of course, the problem here lies with the fact that neither A nor B actually exist, since they are both really C, rendering the equation as follows:
No value of X should be harmful, for any X done to C by C is done to C.
With this in mind, any X done by A to B should be completely irrelevant, since neither A nor B exist to do or be done to in the first place and C, if it wishes to do harm to itself, since, being All, cannot by its nature actually be correct or incorrect (given that it wholly encompasses both concepts), should be free to do so.
This is usually the part where logic apologizes for making a mess on the carpet and goes to sit quietly in its corner again.
In conclusion?
One should not ponder the nature and/or existence of selfhood, including real-world consequences, while driving, pregnant, or capable of coherent thought. Possible side effects may include headaches, nausea, double vision, difficulty breathing, neural implosion, spontaneous combustion, insanity, and/or sudden and unexpected lack of existence.
Use with caution.
Enjoy!
First of all...I - yes, I, despite the fact that I still hold I doesn't know what it is in the first place - have to admit that I find Buddhism satisfying and always have.
My dad has always told me it's just because I love mind games and always have.
Philosophically speaking, though, he's a pretty materialistic sorta guy. If he can't see/hear/feel/taste/smell it, it probably doesn't exist.
Philosophically speaking, I fall closer to the path of the skeptic than anything else. In order to arrive at the most accurate statement possibly concerning my philosophical beliefs, solve the following equation:
(I may know nothing but that)+[(I'm not sure that)n]+(I know nothing), where n equals infinity.
I also think that math is a wonderful language for skeptics. Using absolutes to express possibilities of non-absolutes can be great fun.
I'm getting off-topic, though.
Post a thread on the idea that you should have no self and how that might affect one's actions in the world.
I should have no self? First of all, stating that "I" should have no "self" is a bit of an oxymoron. Self, if I understand correctly, is understood by Buddhist thought to be merely an illusion. This, as discussed in my earlier post on Hinduism, is, as I understand it, held by Buddhist doctrine to be Truth with a capital "T".
Putting aside for now the argument that not everybody recognizes it as such, and so it cannot be, if this doctrine is actually universal truth, any statement including individual pronouns are, strictly speaking, rendered inaccurate. For if there is no self, there can be no "I" to ponder the fact that there is no self.
Actually, with this in mind, the doctrine that there is no self is self-contradictory. Let us establish a list of ideas that, for the sake of argument, we shall accept as fact (contrary - perhaps - to skeptical thinking):
1. The doctrine that self is illusion, if true, must be true for all.
2. There is currently in existence a certain doctrine of human thought which holds that there is no self.
3. Some humans consciously know of this doctrine.
4. Some humans don't.
5. Some humans consciously agree with this doctrine.
6. Some don't.
7. In order for those who don't know of or agree with this doctrine to gain knowledge of it, it must be communicated.
8. Communication requires a transmitter and a receiver.
9. A transmitter, when transmitting, cannot receive, nor can a receiver, when receiving, transmit.
10. Holding concepts #8 and #9 to be true, in order for communication to take place, there must be a transmitter of some sort which is separate from the receiver which it is transmitting to, and vice versa.
11. Holding concept #10 to be true, in order for one who has no knowledge of the idea that there is no self to gain such knowledge, two selves of some sort must exist: one to transmit, and one to receive.
12. Holding concepts #3 and #4 to be true (note the word "conscious"), it is impossible for the concept that self is illusion to be true, for at some point, at least one self must exist to communicate to at least one other self that no selves exist.
Got it?
Okay, here's the breakdown: It's true that there are conscious, thinking beings who aren't aware of the idea that self is illusion, right?
Well, how do they learn it?
One could say it's an internal realization, but if it is, they still have to think about it at some point, and thinking about a self - even if it's concerning the lack of one - first requires a self of some sort to do the thinking.
If it's an external realization, then one must accept the fact that a self had to exist to give them the information that there is no self, and another self had to exist to receive the information that there is no self.
In addition to all the mental gymnastics above, one has to take into account the nature of Truth and Oneness (yes, those are capitalized for a reason). In order to be universal, Truth, as discussed in the post about Hinduism, must indeed be universal - instantly recognizable and undeniable to anyone. If there is no self, only a single One, then that One, as a single collective entity, must be capable of instantly and undeniably recognizing said Truth when presented with it.
Now let us say that there is no self, that all is One.
If this all-encompassing One was presented with Truth (as defined above), it - all of it, given the above definition of Truth - would instantly and undeniably recognize and acknowledge it as such.
In addition to that, in order for the Truth to be Truth in the first place, the One doing the recognizing and affirming would have to be a single entity - even if it's a collective one - rather than just part of it.
You see where the problems lie? How can all be One and Truth remain Truth if part of One recognizes Truth when presented with it while another does not?
For that matter, even if all is One, One is a non-zero concept. One has substance. One has singleness.
One - even a collective one - is still individual. A collective self is still a self.
Yet another problem - if a Buddhist admits that we have not consciously discovered the entirety of physical existence, the possibility remains that sentient non-human life exists. What happens to the doctrine of "all is one" if this particular individual collective One encounters another collective One? What is there to say for certain that this collective One is the only collective One in existence?
How does one deny self altogether while affirming that all individual human beings are part of a greater collective?
First of all, one has to affirm individual human beings - if only in conceptual form - in order to form this equation. Secondly, is not a greater self still a self? How could part of a non-self have any concept of its own existence? For that matter, if all is One, then any idea belonging to a single human, being that self is illusion, must at its root belong to the One, and with that in mind, given that self is illusion, how could the One have knowledge of its own existence (given that its own existence - or self - wouldn't be there to have knowledge of in the first place) to doubt if it had no self?
With all that said, it should be fairly obvious by now that the little bit of the One writing this post has some questions concerning the idea that there is no self that it wants answered before it acknowledges the idea that it doesn't exist as an individual.
I do, however, like the monistic tendencies inherent in the statement. The doctrine of "all which exists, exists" seems to make sense to me, and when you get right down to it, "all is One" isn't that much of a stretch from there.
As for how the doctrine of "all is one" could affect actions in the real world...it shouldn't. Quite simply, if all is One, there should be no motivation for behavior of any sort, since motivation requires a self to be motivated.
Let us take a simple idea to demonstrate: harm.
In all seriousness, if all is One, there is no reason for part of the One to wish harm upon another part, for what harms the One harms all of the One, and if one harms one part, one harms all parts.
Given that self-preservation (...) tends to run strong in humanity, one should not harm anything, because if one harms anything, one harms everything, including oneself.
Of course, this raises the question of why exactly harm is bad. Usually, harm is bad because it means immediate chances of survival are somehow decreased (i.e. pain being the body's method of letting the CNS know that it's injured). If the self is merely illusion, though, and all is One, self-preservation by the individual self should no longer be in any way relevant, since only the One should be motivated by self-preservation, given that all other selves are simply illusion and thus incapable of being motivated in the first place. Of course, for the One to have motivating factors for behavior, the One would need a self to be motivated...but since there is no self and all is One, there should be no motivation for any behavior, ever, self preservation included.
To put it another way, consider this:
For the following equation, consider the following to be true.
factor that is doing=A, factor that is being done to=B, All=C, and action done=X. A=C, therefore C=A. B=C, therefore C=B. A=C and B=C, therefore A=B.
If A=C and B=C, any X done by A to B is also done to C, since B=C. Since A=C as well, any X done by A to B is also done to A. Thus, no value of X should be harmful, for harm done by any value of A to any value of B is immediately done to A as well, and is thus undesirable.
Of course, the problem here lies with the fact that neither A nor B actually exist, since they are both really C, rendering the equation as follows:
No value of X should be harmful, for any X done to C by C is done to C.
With this in mind, any X done by A to B should be completely irrelevant, since neither A nor B exist to do or be done to in the first place and C, if it wishes to do harm to itself, since, being All, cannot by its nature actually be correct or incorrect (given that it wholly encompasses both concepts), should be free to do so.
This is usually the part where logic apologizes for making a mess on the carpet and goes to sit quietly in its corner again.
In conclusion?
One should not ponder the nature and/or existence of selfhood, including real-world consequences, while driving, pregnant, or capable of coherent thought. Possible side effects may include headaches, nausea, double vision, difficulty breathing, neural implosion, spontaneous combustion, insanity, and/or sudden and unexpected lack of existence.
Use with caution.
Philosophical Convergence (pt 1)
This is taken word for word from my response to a discussion in my philosophy course - just some Q&A on my perspective as a rational Christian approaching Hinduism.
1. There is great tolerance in Hinduism. Two phrases that are associated with Hinduism are: "Any road to the summit of the mountain is a good road", and "The truth is one, but the wise speak of it in many ways". The belief is that if something is truly important, there must be more than one of them.
In this particular case, I find myself wholly agreeing. By definition, "Truth" with a capital T, so to speak, must be whole, unalterable, and immune to interpretation. It must be all that it is and unrecognizable as anything else.
With this in mind, however, it must still be capable of being recognized by all, should they wish to take the time and thought to do so. Truth is outside of petty human struggles or hierarchies - a universal constant, whether viewed through a dualistic or monistic lens. Even the great skeptics admitted that Truth, at some point, must exist.
The problem, in this case, is finding it.
Here, I find the two quotes mentioned to be wholly accurate - if truth is, indeed, truth, it is not to be a narrow thing, for not all living beings are identical, nor will all living beings be capable of the same thought processes. They must, however, all be capable of at some point recognizing truth for what it is, should they wish to do so. With this in mind, I must conclude that in a sense, truth is simply too big to find upon a narrow road.
From an admittedly unusual Christian point of view, this simply re-affirms and broadens the definition of God - omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent (to this day I don't why we don't simply call God Omni - it'd make far more sense).
If this Christian definition of God is true, then God is beyond any and all human comprehension, for God cannot be held within any number of human minds, for they are human.
With this in mind, no human, nor any number of humans, can ever fully understand God. Indeed, under Christianity, claiming to do so would be perilously close to the sin that Jesus himself was accused of - claiming Godhood. For by the Christian definition, to understand God, one must be God.
Understanding this, the Christian must admit that their road to God cannot, by their definition, be the only one.
Yet there is a problem here - this is a conclusion arrived at by reason. According to the Bible, there is only one way to God, and that is through Jesus Christ. But if a Christian believes in what the Bible implies about God - namely, the infinite nature beyond any mortal comprehension - they must admit the conclusion I've arrived at above as well.
I suppose in this case I am more Hindu than Christian, for I certainly fall far more comfortably within the confines of the former than the latter...but then, I hold to a definition of God implied by reason as well as the Bible, and would thus have to admit that this Hindu belief would fit quite comfortably with what Christianity has to say about God, and that perhaps with this in mind, God Itself is far more comfortable with being worshiped by all at the end of whatever road they find It on than being pinned to a single highway by a circle of televangelists' limos.
Poses some questions, doesn't it?
2. The goal of the religions is to achieve Moksha which is spiritual liberation. It is achieved by becoming one with Brahman which is the base of all things and being itself, or unconditional reality.
I see very little wrong with this, either. Although I must admit that it does appeal to my monistic tendencies, God being much like the advanced technology of Clarke's Third Law in that it/s/he (pardon for the confusing order, but putting the last first here, in addition to satisfying my contrary tendencies, avoids an unintentional bit of near-profanity) is not separate from our existence, but rather permeating it and not yet within the scope of our current understanding.
I can, indeed, understand the desire to understand that which is real beyond any doubt, that which is the very foundation of reality, which gives it structure, is its very essence.
I can also see that the transcendence to that point where the ultimate basis of reality is understood is also that point at which the mortal being becomes one with whatever label one wishes to give that basis in order to give it form during the course of their mortal (or limited) life.
I must confess that I would agree to this as well - perhaps not in those exact terms, but the underlying concept resonates, to me, of truth.
3. We need to be liberated from Samsara which is the worldly cycles of birth and rebirth. This is a world of ignorance, suffering, and bondage to matter which we need to transcend.
Here, perhaps, I differ. I tend to be a monistic rather than a dualistic sort of fellow, and thus to see any separation of God from earth as vaguely suspicious.
In my mind, if God truly is God as we've suspected that it is, then there is no way that our world and God can be anything but inseparable - for God, in God's infinite nature, could not help but to contain/surround/permeate the very fabric of reality, the earth included.
I do agree, however, that the fabric of reality is not dissimilar to an exceptional piece of art, possessing infinite depths of beauty and complexity. The deeper you look - or go - the more you find. And when you truly understand the fabric of the fabric - the space, the molecules, all the infinitely complex structures of which the art is made - at that point, you have achieved an understanding of the art so intimate and so deep as to be indistinguishable and inseparable from that which you have studied.
With this said, I would agree that the earth as we understand it is a place of ignorance, suffering, and bondage to matter. I would even agree with a concept including cycles of death and rebirth, for isn't it a relatively recently discovered truth that matter and energy are never destroyed or created, but merely change form?
I would also agree that when one comes to that point where understanding of the underlying fabric is complete, one would become one with - or indistinguishable and inseparable from - the fabric being understood. In short, to understand the fabric of reality, one must be the fabric of reality.
This actually, I believe, relates to Christianity rather well. Is not transcendence to Heaven or a fall to Hell a sort of rebirth? And does not the eventual prophesied return and opening of heaven's doors to all lost souls make a sort of mass rebirth or transcendence? And isn't going to Heaven or "being (one) with God" more or less equivalent to transcending the mortal plane, or liberating oneself from Samsara?
I may be marking myself as a black sheep indeed among the Christian faith, but it doesn't seem to me that there are any incompatible concepts here.
4. The key moments of possible release are our deaths. However, we generally reincarnate or transmigrate based on our Karma. We can move closer or farther away from Moksha with each rebirth.
Makes sense to me. We reap what we sow, the longer we live, the more we learn, and nobody ever said the road to God was an easy or a short one.
This seems to me to simply be a way of stating that what goes around comes around in a very final sort of way - not entirely unlike the Christian Heaven or Hell, except much more open-ended.
Do good, good will come to you. Do bad, bad will come to you. View something as good, it will be good. View something as bad, it will be bad.
Perception defines much, and there are consequences to every action. While I wouldn't agree that living beings reincarnate as other beings, retaining usable knowledge (even on the unconscious level) from lives as other beings, as stated above, matter and energy are never created or destroyed - merely changed. With this in mind, it's not inconceivable that the matter which is a human being here and now will be a cockroach, a tree, and/or a dolphin at some point in the future. It's also not inconceivable that the person's behavior, beliefs, or other unmeasurable facets may well affect the matter and energy they're composed of in as of yet unobservable, and therefore unmeasurable ways.
As far as the Christian effect on these ponderings? More or less discarded with the idea that we Christians have got Heaven and Hell already. Taking into account the idea I've already stated that there's no possible way by our own definition of God that we've got a monopoly on the truth, I really don't see how it's all that more or less likely to be one than it is to be the other. Maybe it's even that the two viewpoints are just different perspectives of the same thing. Might be, might not be...either way, I don't know yet and likely won't until I get there.
5. Karma is the universal law of cause and effect - as ye sow, so shall ye reap. It rules all of life, like gravity, including the lives of the gods and the demons. It dictates our rebirth.
See above. At this point, I honestly don't see any way this can be ruled out as a viable possibility. Whatever it is in the end, I do believe in Karma, Natural Consequences, or whatever you want to call it - what goes around, comes around.
As explained above, given that we're acknowledging some sort of unmeasurable and unobservable force (in that there are consequences to our actions, they do happen, and we don't yet have a universal reason as to why or how), it's not inconceivable - some might even say it's likely - that it has an unobservable, unmeasurable effect on the matter and energy we're composed of.
As far as Christianity goes, I think this is my major point of difference and always has been. I disagree with the concept of a narrowly defined set of 'sins' based on things which were relevant to survival of humanity as a species two thousands years ago, but are relevant no longer. On the other hand, I think that the concept of inevitable consequences for our thoughts and actions, whether good, bad, or indifferent, is not only wholly reasonable, but timeless and eternally relevant as well.
6. Our Karma is created by how well we follow our dharma. Dharma is our sacred duty or moral order or proper action. It depends on our caste, our gender, our age, and many other factors.
Karma being created by the degree of fulfillment of 'sacred duty' or 'moral order' I can agree with. These things being dictated by our caste, gender, age, etc - namely, things we have no power over even if we wanted to - I don't agree with.
I think that the concept of Karma being created by Dharma is a very sensible one indeed. I think that the idea of Dharma being governed by anything other than the choices one makes and the results of those choices, ad infinitum, is really a slightly silly one, being based more or less upon the concept that some humans beings possess a degree of natural superiority (or difference in the challenges they are called to face) based upon things that were determined before they were even capable of conscious thought. I, personally, don't believe they do. People are people are people, and although they are not born equal, they ought to be given the chance to fulfill what potential they have, regardless of such fixed and unchangeable factors as gender or accident of birth.
In this case, I think I tend to lean more towards typical Christian thinking than Hindu, in that 'all are equal in the eyes of the lord'. Namely, no one human ought to assume false pride over any other. Some are stronger than others, some are more intelligent than others, some have different colored or different proportioned bits and pieces of anatomy than others. These do not necessarily translate to superiority or inferiority in a spiritual sense - merely to difference in a physical one that may or may not have physical consequences.
All in all, though, I must admit this is a doctrine absorbed more from the works of Ayn Rand, Frank Herbert, and Robert Heinlein than scholars of centuries gone by.
Not quite Christian or Hindu - something else entirely, rather, springing from a view of humanity not based in a need for domination over others, but a desire for a mutually advantageous coexistence with those others, instead.
Hindus do not have a problem with western thinking; they just think it has a critical weakness. That weakness is that it mistakes part of the truth for the entire truth.
This, now - this I can stand fully in agreement with regardless of religious or philosophical leanings. No matter the individual religious or philosophical opinions, mistaking part of the truth for the whole truth can, in my humble opinion, be said without exception to be a flaw, and quite an impressive one at that.
From a Christian perspective, claiming to know the Truth with a capital T is claiming to be on equal ground with God, and coming out of left field from my philosophically skeptical leanings, claiming to know the absolute Truth is claiming to know something that, by its very nature, cannot be known absolutely.
I must, I admit, view anyone who claims to know the absolute truth with a great deal of sudden and intense doubt - for Truth, as stated above, must be absolute. Truth must be recognizable to all. Truth must be so true that it is not capable of being doubted...and so far, there is nothing I have learned that fulfills that last requirement. Given, this is not to say I will never learn something that does, but it has not happened yet, and so far as I can tell, not to anyone else throughout the course of recorded history.
Part of the truth, indeed, is a far cry from truth in its whole and unblemished entirety, and it would be a shame indeed to deny the entire sky for a single star.
1. There is great tolerance in Hinduism. Two phrases that are associated with Hinduism are: "Any road to the summit of the mountain is a good road", and "The truth is one, but the wise speak of it in many ways". The belief is that if something is truly important, there must be more than one of them.
In this particular case, I find myself wholly agreeing. By definition, "Truth" with a capital T, so to speak, must be whole, unalterable, and immune to interpretation. It must be all that it is and unrecognizable as anything else.
With this in mind, however, it must still be capable of being recognized by all, should they wish to take the time and thought to do so. Truth is outside of petty human struggles or hierarchies - a universal constant, whether viewed through a dualistic or monistic lens. Even the great skeptics admitted that Truth, at some point, must exist.
The problem, in this case, is finding it.
Here, I find the two quotes mentioned to be wholly accurate - if truth is, indeed, truth, it is not to be a narrow thing, for not all living beings are identical, nor will all living beings be capable of the same thought processes. They must, however, all be capable of at some point recognizing truth for what it is, should they wish to do so. With this in mind, I must conclude that in a sense, truth is simply too big to find upon a narrow road.
From an admittedly unusual Christian point of view, this simply re-affirms and broadens the definition of God - omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent (to this day I don't why we don't simply call God Omni - it'd make far more sense).
If this Christian definition of God is true, then God is beyond any and all human comprehension, for God cannot be held within any number of human minds, for they are human.
With this in mind, no human, nor any number of humans, can ever fully understand God. Indeed, under Christianity, claiming to do so would be perilously close to the sin that Jesus himself was accused of - claiming Godhood. For by the Christian definition, to understand God, one must be God.
Understanding this, the Christian must admit that their road to God cannot, by their definition, be the only one.
Yet there is a problem here - this is a conclusion arrived at by reason. According to the Bible, there is only one way to God, and that is through Jesus Christ. But if a Christian believes in what the Bible implies about God - namely, the infinite nature beyond any mortal comprehension - they must admit the conclusion I've arrived at above as well.
I suppose in this case I am more Hindu than Christian, for I certainly fall far more comfortably within the confines of the former than the latter...but then, I hold to a definition of God implied by reason as well as the Bible, and would thus have to admit that this Hindu belief would fit quite comfortably with what Christianity has to say about God, and that perhaps with this in mind, God Itself is far more comfortable with being worshiped by all at the end of whatever road they find It on than being pinned to a single highway by a circle of televangelists' limos.
Poses some questions, doesn't it?
2. The goal of the religions is to achieve Moksha which is spiritual liberation. It is achieved by becoming one with Brahman which is the base of all things and being itself, or unconditional reality.
I see very little wrong with this, either. Although I must admit that it does appeal to my monistic tendencies, God being much like the advanced technology of Clarke's Third Law in that it/s/he (pardon for the confusing order, but putting the last first here, in addition to satisfying my contrary tendencies, avoids an unintentional bit of near-profanity) is not separate from our existence, but rather permeating it and not yet within the scope of our current understanding.
I can, indeed, understand the desire to understand that which is real beyond any doubt, that which is the very foundation of reality, which gives it structure, is its very essence.
I can also see that the transcendence to that point where the ultimate basis of reality is understood is also that point at which the mortal being becomes one with whatever label one wishes to give that basis in order to give it form during the course of their mortal (or limited) life.
I must confess that I would agree to this as well - perhaps not in those exact terms, but the underlying concept resonates, to me, of truth.
3. We need to be liberated from Samsara which is the worldly cycles of birth and rebirth. This is a world of ignorance, suffering, and bondage to matter which we need to transcend.
Here, perhaps, I differ. I tend to be a monistic rather than a dualistic sort of fellow, and thus to see any separation of God from earth as vaguely suspicious.
In my mind, if God truly is God as we've suspected that it is, then there is no way that our world and God can be anything but inseparable - for God, in God's infinite nature, could not help but to contain/surround/permeate the very fabric of reality, the earth included.
I do agree, however, that the fabric of reality is not dissimilar to an exceptional piece of art, possessing infinite depths of beauty and complexity. The deeper you look - or go - the more you find. And when you truly understand the fabric of the fabric - the space, the molecules, all the infinitely complex structures of which the art is made - at that point, you have achieved an understanding of the art so intimate and so deep as to be indistinguishable and inseparable from that which you have studied.
With this said, I would agree that the earth as we understand it is a place of ignorance, suffering, and bondage to matter. I would even agree with a concept including cycles of death and rebirth, for isn't it a relatively recently discovered truth that matter and energy are never destroyed or created, but merely change form?
I would also agree that when one comes to that point where understanding of the underlying fabric is complete, one would become one with - or indistinguishable and inseparable from - the fabric being understood. In short, to understand the fabric of reality, one must be the fabric of reality.
This actually, I believe, relates to Christianity rather well. Is not transcendence to Heaven or a fall to Hell a sort of rebirth? And does not the eventual prophesied return and opening of heaven's doors to all lost souls make a sort of mass rebirth or transcendence? And isn't going to Heaven or "being (one) with God" more or less equivalent to transcending the mortal plane, or liberating oneself from Samsara?
I may be marking myself as a black sheep indeed among the Christian faith, but it doesn't seem to me that there are any incompatible concepts here.
4. The key moments of possible release are our deaths. However, we generally reincarnate or transmigrate based on our Karma. We can move closer or farther away from Moksha with each rebirth.
Makes sense to me. We reap what we sow, the longer we live, the more we learn, and nobody ever said the road to God was an easy or a short one.
This seems to me to simply be a way of stating that what goes around comes around in a very final sort of way - not entirely unlike the Christian Heaven or Hell, except much more open-ended.
Do good, good will come to you. Do bad, bad will come to you. View something as good, it will be good. View something as bad, it will be bad.
Perception defines much, and there are consequences to every action. While I wouldn't agree that living beings reincarnate as other beings, retaining usable knowledge (even on the unconscious level) from lives as other beings, as stated above, matter and energy are never created or destroyed - merely changed. With this in mind, it's not inconceivable that the matter which is a human being here and now will be a cockroach, a tree, and/or a dolphin at some point in the future. It's also not inconceivable that the person's behavior, beliefs, or other unmeasurable facets may well affect the matter and energy they're composed of in as of yet unobservable, and therefore unmeasurable ways.
As far as the Christian effect on these ponderings? More or less discarded with the idea that we Christians have got Heaven and Hell already. Taking into account the idea I've already stated that there's no possible way by our own definition of God that we've got a monopoly on the truth, I really don't see how it's all that more or less likely to be one than it is to be the other. Maybe it's even that the two viewpoints are just different perspectives of the same thing. Might be, might not be...either way, I don't know yet and likely won't until I get there.
5. Karma is the universal law of cause and effect - as ye sow, so shall ye reap. It rules all of life, like gravity, including the lives of the gods and the demons. It dictates our rebirth.
See above. At this point, I honestly don't see any way this can be ruled out as a viable possibility. Whatever it is in the end, I do believe in Karma, Natural Consequences, or whatever you want to call it - what goes around, comes around.
As explained above, given that we're acknowledging some sort of unmeasurable and unobservable force (in that there are consequences to our actions, they do happen, and we don't yet have a universal reason as to why or how), it's not inconceivable - some might even say it's likely - that it has an unobservable, unmeasurable effect on the matter and energy we're composed of.
As far as Christianity goes, I think this is my major point of difference and always has been. I disagree with the concept of a narrowly defined set of 'sins' based on things which were relevant to survival of humanity as a species two thousands years ago, but are relevant no longer. On the other hand, I think that the concept of inevitable consequences for our thoughts and actions, whether good, bad, or indifferent, is not only wholly reasonable, but timeless and eternally relevant as well.
6. Our Karma is created by how well we follow our dharma. Dharma is our sacred duty or moral order or proper action. It depends on our caste, our gender, our age, and many other factors.
Karma being created by the degree of fulfillment of 'sacred duty' or 'moral order' I can agree with. These things being dictated by our caste, gender, age, etc - namely, things we have no power over even if we wanted to - I don't agree with.
I think that the concept of Karma being created by Dharma is a very sensible one indeed. I think that the idea of Dharma being governed by anything other than the choices one makes and the results of those choices, ad infinitum, is really a slightly silly one, being based more or less upon the concept that some humans beings possess a degree of natural superiority (or difference in the challenges they are called to face) based upon things that were determined before they were even capable of conscious thought. I, personally, don't believe they do. People are people are people, and although they are not born equal, they ought to be given the chance to fulfill what potential they have, regardless of such fixed and unchangeable factors as gender or accident of birth.
In this case, I think I tend to lean more towards typical Christian thinking than Hindu, in that 'all are equal in the eyes of the lord'. Namely, no one human ought to assume false pride over any other. Some are stronger than others, some are more intelligent than others, some have different colored or different proportioned bits and pieces of anatomy than others. These do not necessarily translate to superiority or inferiority in a spiritual sense - merely to difference in a physical one that may or may not have physical consequences.
All in all, though, I must admit this is a doctrine absorbed more from the works of Ayn Rand, Frank Herbert, and Robert Heinlein than scholars of centuries gone by.
Not quite Christian or Hindu - something else entirely, rather, springing from a view of humanity not based in a need for domination over others, but a desire for a mutually advantageous coexistence with those others, instead.
Hindus do not have a problem with western thinking; they just think it has a critical weakness. That weakness is that it mistakes part of the truth for the entire truth.
This, now - this I can stand fully in agreement with regardless of religious or philosophical leanings. No matter the individual religious or philosophical opinions, mistaking part of the truth for the whole truth can, in my humble opinion, be said without exception to be a flaw, and quite an impressive one at that.
From a Christian perspective, claiming to know the Truth with a capital T is claiming to be on equal ground with God, and coming out of left field from my philosophically skeptical leanings, claiming to know the absolute Truth is claiming to know something that, by its very nature, cannot be known absolutely.
I must, I admit, view anyone who claims to know the absolute truth with a great deal of sudden and intense doubt - for Truth, as stated above, must be absolute. Truth must be recognizable to all. Truth must be so true that it is not capable of being doubted...and so far, there is nothing I have learned that fulfills that last requirement. Given, this is not to say I will never learn something that does, but it has not happened yet, and so far as I can tell, not to anyone else throughout the course of recorded history.
Part of the truth, indeed, is a far cry from truth in its whole and unblemished entirety, and it would be a shame indeed to deny the entire sky for a single star.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
