There is a temptation with this type of introspective bloggery to think all these ideas and concepts will fit into a system, or logical tapestry. And when that tapestry has been conceived new ideas that may or may not be congruent with the tapestry are now considered within the context of the tapestry rather than on their own unique merits. Of course the tapestry makes things more efficient and easier to understand and there is value with that, however, a question remains. Is the tapestry reflective of reality? If it is then great. If the tapestry is false, however, then its chief value lay in its ability to generate an illusory sense of security. It could be argued that an illusory sense of security is better than no sense of security at all. However, the thing about illusions is that they eventually fade away and cause suffering if they are relied upon and there is nothing to replace them. So what then? Is the answer to reject all tapestries and take in everything on its own merits? That seems cumbersome. Perhaps the answer is to adopt a tapestry but be open to the possibility that it might be false. This option does not seem to provide the same security as a tapestry in which one is fully invested.
So then why not become fully invested in a tapestry rather than to hold it at arms length? This brings me back to the post I made entitled "The Magic of Rigid Dogma". In that post I talked about an Evangelical Christian friend of mine who fully believed (or appeared to believe) that he was right and all those who believed differently were not only wrong, but damned. This tapestry of his certainly delivered to him a sense of comfort and security. But really, the only way for that tapestry to have the power to deliver security is to become fully invested in it. If the tapestry is correct then all is well. But maybe, even if the tapestry is false all is well as well. What I mean is, perhaps the security of the tapestry is enough. Or perhaps fully investing in a tapestry is a vehicle to get to a higher level. But then again, perhaps the idea that security is what is needed in the first place is false. If true then there is no need for a tapesty and perhaps there is security in that.
Showing posts with label Religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Religion. Show all posts
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Morality, Meditation and Anxiety
Morality causes anxiety. When the mind perceives that a moral code has been broken then punishment must be meted out in the form of anxiety. Under normal circumstances the self and the mind are one so that when the mind produces anxiety the self feels it. Meditation (on the other hand) alleviates anxiety by putting distance between the self and the mind whereby the mind cannot so easily infect the self with anxiety. Now, it could be said that an anxious self tends to act immorally. For example, one reaction to anxiety is to take action to get rid of anxiety. The most common tactic is to distract the self in some way and the most effective distractions are typically the most destructive. Alcohol comes to mind here. Another reaction to anxiety is to become irritable and to lash out at other people. So, from this perspective, meditation is a moral act even though its immediate effect is to insulate the self from the punishment it seemingly deserves. In the long run (theoretically) the act of meditating will promote moral behavior by reducing anxiety. So in a round about way, meditation produces moral behavior by avoiding the punishment for imoral behavior. Or something like that. This reminds me of the wheel of suffering or samsara. Perhaps it is a miniature version.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Your Father Who Sees in Secret
But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you. (Matt 6:6)
There is a sense in Christianity that thoughts matter and "improper" thoughts (e.g., coveting and lust) are sinful and morally wrong. Now, my understanding of Buddhism (and I make no claim to be an authority on the subject) is that thoughts are random and unavoidable and it is best not to get caught up in them. So, under one system these thoughts are crimes requiring a system of justice to mete out punishment and under the other, the thoughts themselves are in a sense their own punishment. Is there some way to reconcile these two positions?
I've often thought that the external, personal deity of Christianity is a metaphor for the actual thing. On one level this makes sense because God being outside of creation is probably not bound by the rules of creation and any attempt to define Him would probably define Him as an entity less than He actually is. This reminds me of a statement my freshman year roommate made to justify his non belief in an omnipotent god. "Can God make a rock so heavy that he can't lift it?" This question, I think, points out the limited nature of speech to describe the divine more than it offers an insight into the divine. So, what we cannot define with words, we describe with symbols.
The question then becomes, who is this Father that sees in secret? Is it an external entity sitting on a throne? Is it a deeper part of the self? Is it something else entirely? I think the answer to this question might serve to reconcile the Christian and Buddhist concepts of thought. But I really can't be any more specific than that. It's a cop out, I know.
There is a sense in Christianity that thoughts matter and "improper" thoughts (e.g., coveting and lust) are sinful and morally wrong. Now, my understanding of Buddhism (and I make no claim to be an authority on the subject) is that thoughts are random and unavoidable and it is best not to get caught up in them. So, under one system these thoughts are crimes requiring a system of justice to mete out punishment and under the other, the thoughts themselves are in a sense their own punishment. Is there some way to reconcile these two positions?
I've often thought that the external, personal deity of Christianity is a metaphor for the actual thing. On one level this makes sense because God being outside of creation is probably not bound by the rules of creation and any attempt to define Him would probably define Him as an entity less than He actually is. This reminds me of a statement my freshman year roommate made to justify his non belief in an omnipotent god. "Can God make a rock so heavy that he can't lift it?" This question, I think, points out the limited nature of speech to describe the divine more than it offers an insight into the divine. So, what we cannot define with words, we describe with symbols.
The question then becomes, who is this Father that sees in secret? Is it an external entity sitting on a throne? Is it a deeper part of the self? Is it something else entirely? I think the answer to this question might serve to reconcile the Christian and Buddhist concepts of thought. But I really can't be any more specific than that. It's a cop out, I know.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Day Twenty Three - The Magic of Rigid Dogma
Believers in rigid dogma ("Rigid Constructionists") have to believe that they are right in order for their form of worship to be effective for them. In order to be right, however, it is necessary for all those who believe otherwise to be wrong. To people who are less rigid in the way they view religion this appears to employ a sort of doublethink whereby the believer believes their rigid dogma to be true even in the face of obvious contradictions. I have recently had a dialogue with an old friend of mine who has made the transition from Roman Catholicism to Evangelicalism. When I tried to discuss an interview I listened to with Bart Ehrman (a Biblical scholar, ex-evangelical and current agnostic) who discusses obvious contradictions between the four synoptic gospels of the Bible, he (my friend) responded that he was "disappointed" in me. He said this in reaction to my mentioning that I had listened to this interview. As far as I could tell, he did not listen to the interview but even if he did I am sure that he would have no problem rejecting its content no matter how cogent the arguments were. I found this response interesting and it got me to thinking. I have no doubt there is a power to Rigid Constructionism. I believe that this power can allow the Rigid Constructionist to experience an authentic religious experience. I do not believe, however, that it is the only way to have an authentic religious experience. But the rub is this, (I think) the only way for this mode of thought to be effective is that the believer must also believe that everyone else is wrong. Now, I imagine an advantage to being a rigid constructionist is that it can make life simpler and manageable. The disadvantage is that a Rigid Constructionist must be at odds with most other people. On the other hand, the advantage of being a Non-Rigid Constructionist is that the he need not jump through disingenuous hoops to convince himself that what he believes is actually true. This is not to say that all Rigid Constructionists jump through disingenuous hoops. I have no doubt that many believe what they believe and do not question, but I suspect there is a segment of their population that harbors lingering doubts. Of course it is also easier for a Non-Rigid Constructionist to accommodate those with differing views. The disadvantage is that life has the potential to become more complex and bewildering. Perhaps the Rigid Constructionist adopts his viewpoint as a means of controlling the world around him. For, to categorize and label something (even if you adopt the labels of another) is a form of control. Just a thought.
Link to Bart Ehrmans's Interview : http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101389895
Link to Bart Ehrmans's Interview : http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101389895
Day Twenty - Half Way (Sort of)
If Lent were 40 days long today would be the halfway point. Lent, however, is not 40 days but is 47 days from Ash Wednesday to Easter. Here are some passages from the Catholic Encyclopedia on the subject:
(http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09152a.htm)
Duration of the fast
In determining this period of forty days the example of Moses, Elias, and Christ must have exercised a predominant influence, but it is also possible that the fact was borne in mind that Christ lay forty hours in the tomb. On the other hand just as Pentecost (the fifty days) was a period during which Christians were joyous and prayed standing, though they were not always engaged in such prayer, so the Quadragesima (the forty days) was originally a period marked by fasting, but not necessarily a period in which the faithful fasted every day. Still, this principle was differently understood in different localities, and great divergences of practice were the result. In Rome, in the fifth century, Lent lasted six weeks, but according to the historian Socrates there were only three weeks of actual fasting, exclusive even then of the Saturday and Sunday and if Duchesne's view may be trusted, these weeks were not continuous, but were the first, the fourth, and sixth of the series, being connected with the ordinations (Christian Worship, 243). Possibly, however, these three weeks had to do with the "scrutinies" preparatory to Baptism, for by some authorities (e.g., A.J. Maclean in his "Recent Discoveries") the duty of fasting along with the candidate for baptism is put forward as the chief influence at work in the development of the forty days. But throughout the Orient generally, with some few exceptions, the same arrangement prevailed as St. Athanasius's "Festal Letters" show us to have obtained in Alexandria, namely, the six weeks of Lent were only preparatory to a fast of exceptional severity maintained during Holy Week. This is enjoined by the "Apostolic Constitutions" (V.13), and presupposed by St. Chrysostom (Hom. xxx in Gen., I). But the number forty, having once established itself, produced other modifications. It seemed to many necessary that there should not only be fasting during the forty days but forty actual fasting days. Thus we find Ætheria in her "Peregrinatio" speaking of a Lent of eight weeks in all observed at Jerusalem, which, remembering that both the Saturday and Sunday of ordinary weeks were exempt, gives five times eight, i.e., forty days for fasting. On the other hand, in many localities people were content to observe no more than a six weeks' period, sometimes, as at Milan, fasting only five days in the week after the oriental fashion (Ambrose, "De Elia et Jejunio", 10). In the time of Gregory the Great (590-604) there were apparently at Rome six weeks of six days each, making thirty-six fast days in all, which St. Gregory, who is followed therein by many medieval writers, describes as the spiritual tithing of the year, thirty-six days being approximately the tenth part of three hundred and sixty-five. At a later date the wish to realize the exact number of forty days led to the practice of beginning Lent upon our present Ash Wednesday, but the Church of Milan, even to this day, adheres to the more primitive arrangement, which still betrays itself in the Roman Missal when the priest in the Secret of the Mass on the first Sunday of Lent speaks of "sacrificium quadragesimalis initii", the sacrifice of the opening of Lent...
From what has been said it will be clear that in the early Middle Ages Lent throughout the greater part of the Western Church consisted of forty weekdays, which were all fast days, and six Sundays.
(http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09152a.htm)
Duration of the fast
In determining this period of forty days the example of Moses, Elias, and Christ must have exercised a predominant influence, but it is also possible that the fact was borne in mind that Christ lay forty hours in the tomb. On the other hand just as Pentecost (the fifty days) was a period during which Christians were joyous and prayed standing, though they were not always engaged in such prayer, so the Quadragesima (the forty days) was originally a period marked by fasting, but not necessarily a period in which the faithful fasted every day. Still, this principle was differently understood in different localities, and great divergences of practice were the result. In Rome, in the fifth century, Lent lasted six weeks, but according to the historian Socrates there were only three weeks of actual fasting, exclusive even then of the Saturday and Sunday and if Duchesne's view may be trusted, these weeks were not continuous, but were the first, the fourth, and sixth of the series, being connected with the ordinations (Christian Worship, 243). Possibly, however, these three weeks had to do with the "scrutinies" preparatory to Baptism, for by some authorities (e.g., A.J. Maclean in his "Recent Discoveries") the duty of fasting along with the candidate for baptism is put forward as the chief influence at work in the development of the forty days. But throughout the Orient generally, with some few exceptions, the same arrangement prevailed as St. Athanasius's "Festal Letters" show us to have obtained in Alexandria, namely, the six weeks of Lent were only preparatory to a fast of exceptional severity maintained during Holy Week. This is enjoined by the "Apostolic Constitutions" (V.13), and presupposed by St. Chrysostom (Hom. xxx in Gen., I). But the number forty, having once established itself, produced other modifications. It seemed to many necessary that there should not only be fasting during the forty days but forty actual fasting days. Thus we find Ætheria in her "Peregrinatio" speaking of a Lent of eight weeks in all observed at Jerusalem, which, remembering that both the Saturday and Sunday of ordinary weeks were exempt, gives five times eight, i.e., forty days for fasting. On the other hand, in many localities people were content to observe no more than a six weeks' period, sometimes, as at Milan, fasting only five days in the week after the oriental fashion (Ambrose, "De Elia et Jejunio", 10). In the time of Gregory the Great (590-604) there were apparently at Rome six weeks of six days each, making thirty-six fast days in all, which St. Gregory, who is followed therein by many medieval writers, describes as the spiritual tithing of the year, thirty-six days being approximately the tenth part of three hundred and sixty-five. At a later date the wish to realize the exact number of forty days led to the practice of beginning Lent upon our present Ash Wednesday, but the Church of Milan, even to this day, adheres to the more primitive arrangement, which still betrays itself in the Roman Missal when the priest in the Secret of the Mass on the first Sunday of Lent speaks of "sacrificium quadragesimalis initii", the sacrifice of the opening of Lent...
From what has been said it will be clear that in the early Middle Ages Lent throughout the greater part of the Western Church consisted of forty weekdays, which were all fast days, and six Sundays.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Day Nineteen - The Vanity of Endurance
If one looks at Lent as an endurance test I think it then becomes a vanity. That is, Lent becomes something to merely strengthen the ego. Since the ego is doomed to death, the benefits of such an endeavor are likewise doomed to death and if the ego is all there is, then this is the best we can do. But if there is something more and that something survives the ego then surely Lent is about that. In this way Lent is about bringing forth fundamental change by chipping away at the ego so that the soul - the true self can emerge. Self sacrifice has its place and is not a bad thing in itself, but when it is used to build up the ego - when the self says I am good because I have done this and I haven't done that or I feel guilty because I have done this or neglected to do that, this is a vanity and serves to add another layer of ego over an already encrusted soul. It makes sense then, that self sacrifice must be done first with no thought to the outcome. It should be done for its own sake without thinking about the past or future where the ego tends to exist. This then starves the ego and allows the soul to emerge. This may explain why when Lent is viewed as an endurance test it becomes easier to lose heart and give up on the discipline, because it lacks soul (because it is ego). However, when self sacrifice is done for its own sake without a thought for the ego this perhaps gets to the heart of Lent.
In writing this it occurs to me that I am preaching. The next thought is by what authority do I preach. The answer of course is by no authority. This is merely a thought that occurred to me. It seems right to me but in truth what seems right to me might not seem right to everyone or possibly anyone. The thought now is that this second paragraph seems to be concerned with the thoughts of others and the hope that I might not be misconstrued or generally look bad. This of course is just the same kind of vanity discussed in the first paragraph. It is a vanity that I am particularly (I think) prone to. All the more reason for me to practice this discipline I suppose.
In writing this it occurs to me that I am preaching. The next thought is by what authority do I preach. The answer of course is by no authority. This is merely a thought that occurred to me. It seems right to me but in truth what seems right to me might not seem right to everyone or possibly anyone. The thought now is that this second paragraph seems to be concerned with the thoughts of others and the hope that I might not be misconstrued or generally look bad. This of course is just the same kind of vanity discussed in the first paragraph. It is a vanity that I am particularly (I think) prone to. All the more reason for me to practice this discipline I suppose.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Day Sixteen - Hope
I've been buying lottery tickets lately, no more than $2 per week. The idea struck me that this is an exercise in hope. It is not that I believe that I will win the lottery. But for some reason having the lottery ticket in my wallet allows me to relax a bit. I feel like there is an iron in the fire somehow and that makes a difference. This I think is the power of hope. It is not a knowledge of iminent pay off. Nor is it a desire for the possibility of payoff. It is the possession of the possibility. I tried to explain this to someone once but I did not feel like I was getting the idea across. He kept rephrasing my idea as "buying a lottery ticket with the idea that I was going to win." That's not it. That's not it. There is a peacefulness that is achieved with hope and it does not have much to do with the end result. Faith, hope and love.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Day Six - You Can Lead a Horse to Water...
I'm feeling good about making it through the first weekend. Actually I really have not been tempted in anyway so far and enjoying the sobriety. I had some gastrointestinal issues last week that seemed to have almost completely resolved so I believe I am over the first hump of my body adjusting to the new routine.
I've been thinking about the following statement, "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink." Morpheus in the Matrix gives Neo a similar instruction, "I can only show you the door. You have to walk through it" (or something like that). I've been thinking about this idea within the context of a dialogue I've been having with an acquaintance of mine who made the transition from Roman Catholicism to Evangelicalism. I have discussed with him some of the problems I've been having in my life and he has suggested that I talk to a "Christian" (i.e., evangelical) counselor. I expressed some misgivings and he made the statement "you can lead a horse to water..." Now, the way I initially interpreted this statement is that the horse is too ignorant to drink the water. But after thinking about this for a while I have come to a new interpretation. It's not that the horse is ignorant necessarily but that the horse does not know if the water is in fact water. Perhaps it is poison. I am beginning to see that all of the struggles in my life tend to boil down to one common denominator - for whatever reason I subordinate my own wants and needs to those of others. There is a sense that I am not entitled to enjoy the fruits of life that everyone else is. One result of this mindset is that I have a strong motivation to look good in the eyes of others and to avoid looking bad. When I perceive that I look bad it has historically hit me hard. So now back to the horse at the water. I want to make sure that I really want to drink the water because I know it is good for me and not to drink it because I think that the person who has led me to the water would want that.
--GJC
I've been thinking about the following statement, "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink." Morpheus in the Matrix gives Neo a similar instruction, "I can only show you the door. You have to walk through it" (or something like that). I've been thinking about this idea within the context of a dialogue I've been having with an acquaintance of mine who made the transition from Roman Catholicism to Evangelicalism. I have discussed with him some of the problems I've been having in my life and he has suggested that I talk to a "Christian" (i.e., evangelical) counselor. I expressed some misgivings and he made the statement "you can lead a horse to water..." Now, the way I initially interpreted this statement is that the horse is too ignorant to drink the water. But after thinking about this for a while I have come to a new interpretation. It's not that the horse is ignorant necessarily but that the horse does not know if the water is in fact water. Perhaps it is poison. I am beginning to see that all of the struggles in my life tend to boil down to one common denominator - for whatever reason I subordinate my own wants and needs to those of others. There is a sense that I am not entitled to enjoy the fruits of life that everyone else is. One result of this mindset is that I have a strong motivation to look good in the eyes of others and to avoid looking bad. When I perceive that I look bad it has historically hit me hard. So now back to the horse at the water. I want to make sure that I really want to drink the water because I know it is good for me and not to drink it because I think that the person who has led me to the water would want that.
--GJC
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
