The other evening I watched (on YouTube) President Obama's eulogy for Rev. Pinckney and the others gunned down in Charleston, and although I admired it as an example of rhetoric, there were obviously (and, in the event, occult) references to religious as well as cultural matters that were unfamiliar to me. [Disclosure: although I grew up in a nominally Christian culture, I never could make sense of Christianity or similar religions and in my youth found a far better--for me--way to make sense of myself and the world around me (what might be called a "common man" variety of Buddhism brought to the US by Japanese immigrants in the 19th Century)]. Last night I read an article by James Fallows in The Atlantic:
that was most helpful in understanding the context and occult allusions in the eulogy. But what was immediately obvious from the eulogy itself was the best explanation of the Christian concept of God's grace that I have encountered. It was an excellent example of how people can arrive at much the same point of view within very different frames of reference. It does aid understanding, although I find it nearly incredible that people would go through such a fantastically convoluted process to get there. By not emphasizing the complications of the frame of reference and the logical gymnastics, but going fairly straight to the end result, Mr. Obama greatly clarified it for me (and presumably for others unfamiliar with the technicalities of Christianity). Bravo!
Lawrence Lessig's observation that relying on small donors is like "bringing a knife to a gunfight" reminds me of Wild Bill Hickock's answer when asked how he won so many gunfights: "Make sure the muzzle of your gun is firmly planted in your opponent's ribs before pulling the trigger." At that range a knife is also very effective.
Grillary Clinton: campaign merchandise turns up the heat [Click] "Hillary Clinton is making money and gleaning valuable information about her supporters with her barbecue accessories range – and Rand Paul is not far behind."
Good God--If this sort of nonsense isn't enough to sink HRC's campaign, what is?
Alan, Christianity has always seemed simple and straightforward to me. But then, I grew up Catholic, so it would. The backstory gets a bit convoluted, as backstory often does, and sometimes the trimmings rather obscure the simple, elegant fact at the heart. But that heart is: God became Man and died, taking Man's sins upon Himself, to save Man from the true death, that is Hell or eternal separation from God. I suppose, absent the concept of a Creator, this idear doesn't make much sense. I'm pretty sure there is the concept of Creation in Hinduism... Doesn't that idear exist in Buddhism too? Or do Buddhists hold that the universe is eternal, without beginning or end? Now, that's a concept I have trouble with, rather like the Steady State Theory, especially since Physics has proven that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Whether it will have an ending and if so what kind, or whether it goes through an eternal cycle of Big Bangs and Big Crunches is hotly debated and something I am not equipped to express an opinion about. But, remarkably, the poet of Genesis Chapter 1 got it all pretty much right, which as far as I'm concerned is a big point in favor of Genesis and the Big Bang Theory (in some form) both. But, again, that's just me. I wouldn't want you to mistake my clumsy attempts at explanation for proselytizing!
Without pretending to be an expert on Buddhism or its different varieties (at least as many as there are varieties of Christianity), I don't think Buddhists consider the origin or non-origin of the universe a matter particularly worthy of thought. It doesn't affect what we need to do to achieve grace.
No proselytizing perceived and no offense taken, Cat--this is just a (rare) safe place where friends can talk about such things. No proselytization meant below, either--hopefully just a little of my back story and some idea of how different frames of reference can guide people to agreement. (This post may need to be divided; it's long. Pardon.)
--AlanI clearly remember thinking when I was very young that there must be some SIMPLE explanation for everything--a truth that was true always and everywhere, indeed beyond time and space; and that it was probably far too simple for the human mind to grasp. I didn't hear that coming from any of the folks at churches we attended or which I investigated. I remember attending sunday school at a church away from home once to get attendance credit at our regular one, and the preacher went on at length and in detail about how all other varieties of Christianity were wrong or at least unsatisfactory, only their kind was true. The vision that popped into my head was of a circle of various kinds of priests and preachers in a circle, pointing at one another and saying "You're all wrong." I though to myself, "OK, I can't tell whether one is right, much less which one, so I will just take their combined opinion that all of them are wrong." I realized (though not at first) that being anti-Christian just tied me closer to it, and that I needed to find a different frame of reference. So, well aware that many people had tried and failed, I set out to see if I could do it for myself. I made a little progress. Then I encountered people who were saying, and had been saying for millennia, some of the things I had been thinking but had never heard from preachers; never heard at sunday school. And somehow, they seemed to have knitted it together with some other things, and to have a calm, clear and happy view of life, themselves and others, even in the face of great adversity. I simply HAD to investigate further, and I did. Starting first with logic, then progressing to experience. Buddhism is a mystic [not to be confused with occult] philosophy/religion--that is to say, it maintains that valid knowledge can be had directly--no books and no teachers are necessary, indeed one MUST understand the truth by oneself or not at all. No holy books. No authorities. (Although you might encounter people who can suggest things.) Since there are no holy books, it can also be classed as an esoteric religion/philosophy [in contradistinction to exoteric ones]. As for the question of where the world came from, that we cannot know and need not. An old parable illustrates the idea:
A man was walking along a path when he was shot with an arrow by someone unseen. His companions got him to a doctor in time, and as the doctor was preparing to remove the arrow and save his life, the man suddenly told the doctor to stop; to tell him who had shot the arrow? Why--was it a mistake, or if not, was it because he had done the man any wrong? What wrong? What kind of bow did he use? Who made the arrow? What kind of head did the arrow have? And so forth.
Obviously the questions are foolish; the man would die before any of them could be answered. So let us deal with the world as we find it, see what we can gather from it, and go from there. For one thing, nothing happens without a cause and a necessary condition. That we can see. Nothing we see lasts forever. There are a few other things we can observe, but that's a beginning. There is no need to posit an intermediary intelligence or being between cause and effect; there is no need to posit an individual and immortal soul; in fact, those ideas can cause trouble.
So very simple--no no deity, no soul; no complicated mythologies. Understand the truth by direct experience, and test it against what you can see and understand with your thinking mind. If you harm another, you harm yourself--DIRECTLY. No intermediary. No possibility of evasion. That's a good basis for morality.
I will readily admit that if one has acquired the conviction that one's person is centered in an individual and enduring soul, to give up that idea is going to be downright terrifying--it is psychological suicide. But if one goes through that and comes out the other side, it is just the opposite--if one should have a passing thought that s/he might have an individual and immortal soul, it is very much terrifying--maybe I should say horrifying. There goes the basis of all our relations, there goes morality, there goes hope. BTW, it should be obvious that we receive far more than we deserve, without any consideration of whether we deserve it or not. And it should be obvious that evil is necessary in the world to illuminate goodness. Like Obama said in Charleston.
Indian philosophy has a huge range, and Buddhism is obviously part of that range--certain high-toned varieties of Vedanta and Buddhism are virtually indistinguishable beyond certain superficialities such as formally accepting or rejecting the Vedas as a source of knowledge. Shakyamuni (the historical Buddha) said that he had established nothing new--he sought merely to reestablish the way of the true Brahmin. (Oh, and it doesn't matter whether such a person really existed or not--because we have his teaching. Easy!).
The austere, high-toned varieties are all very well, and very important, but the down-to-earth types are more my style. If I were going to be a follower of a more modern Indian religion, I would surely be a devotee of Mother Kali. Of course I would give Lord Ganesh his due as well. I recall seeing a photo--I think it was in the National Geographic Magazine, of a commercial sculptor's yard in NE India, and they had a truly marvelous sculpture of a figure that combined aspects of Durga and Kali. More like Durga, but with some obvious elements of Kali Ma. I also remember an unusual Japanese figure of Kannon , the embodiment of Compassion. Usually he is depicted as a kind, mild-mannered young man--and sometimes as adrogynous or even feminine, particularly in China. But sometimes Compassion is not sweet and mild--sometimes the most compassionate thing you can do for someone is to scare the bejezus out of them (pardon the expression). This figure depicted Kannon as a horse-headed demon, with huge, bulging muscles, aggressive stance, big veins standing out, and a horse's head with flaring nostrils, lips peeled back to show frightening teeth, and wild eyes. I think he had a cudgel and lasso as well--not the lotus and bottle of amrita or wishing jewel of his benevolent form. Wow!
In the context of a bronze age tribe of nomads, who once a year place their sins on a goat, and then kill (and eat?) the goat, Christianity makes perfect sense.
If, instead, you posit an all knowing/all powerful Source, then it's possible to posit the decision not only to give the "created" free will, but enough chances to learn that all, given enough time (which Source does have), will have time/chances to come round right. . . .
Did God know that Adam and Eve Would tell him to take a hike? The Christian sed~~ Sure. He could have made them different.~~
And didn't. He was tired of the endless Yessssing of the angels. The incredible whitness of wings, Goldness of horns and haloes, The sticky sweetness of praise. Bored, indeed. Looking for a little lightliness, in search of something a little interesting. Widen the scope: To have an occasion to laugh, To be charmed, To weep
I'm reminded of a story I read years ago, though both title and author escape me. The jist was that God kept creating worlds and people to inhabit them, and he kept setting the same rule...and the people kept obeying. Until, at last, He created a world where they didn't obey. And when they broke the rule He wept and embraced them. And he said, "At last I have children, not slaves!" I found it very powerful.
Dean is First and Bernie is right there too!
ReplyDeleteThe other evening I watched (on YouTube) President Obama's eulogy for Rev. Pinckney and the others gunned down in Charleston, and although I admired it as an example of rhetoric, there were obviously (and, in the event, occult) references to religious as well as cultural matters that were unfamiliar to me. [Disclosure: although I grew up in a nominally Christian culture, I never could make sense of Christianity or similar religions and in my youth found a far better--for me--way to make sense of myself and the world around me (what might be called a "common man" variety of Buddhism brought to the US by Japanese immigrants in the 19th Century)]. Last night I read an article by James Fallows in The Atlantic:
ReplyDeleteWhy Obama gave a Christian speech without naming Christ [Click]
that was most helpful in understanding the context and occult allusions in the eulogy. But what was immediately obvious from the eulogy itself was the best explanation of the Christian concept of God's grace that I have encountered. It was an excellent example of how people can arrive at much the same point of view within very different frames of reference. It does aid understanding, although I find it nearly incredible that people would go through such a fantastically convoluted process to get there. By not emphasizing the complications of the frame of reference and the logical gymnastics, but going fairly straight to the end result, Mr. Obama greatly clarified it for me (and presumably for others unfamiliar with the technicalities of Christianity). Bravo!
---Alan
'Grassroots movement working': Bernie Sanders gains on the Clinton machine [Click] "The Vermont senator is winning over progressive voters and has raised millions in small donations. Could this underdog campaign have a fighting chance?"
ReplyDeleteLawrence Lessig's observation that relying on small donors is like "bringing a knife to a gunfight" reminds me of Wild Bill Hickock's answer when asked how he won so many gunfights: "Make sure the muzzle of your gun is firmly planted in your opponent's ribs before pulling the trigger." At that range a knife is also very effective.
--Alan
Grillary Clinton: campaign merchandise turns up the heat [Click] "Hillary Clinton is making money and gleaning valuable information about her supporters with her barbecue accessories range – and Rand Paul is not far behind."
ReplyDeleteGood God--If this sort of nonsense isn't enough to sink HRC's campaign, what is?
--Alan
Love the kitties out front.
ReplyDeleteAlan, Christianity has always seemed simple and straightforward to me. But then, I grew up Catholic, so it would. The backstory gets a bit convoluted, as backstory often does, and sometimes the trimmings rather obscure the simple, elegant fact at the heart. But that heart is: God became Man and died, taking Man's sins upon Himself, to save Man from the true death, that is Hell or eternal separation from God. I suppose, absent the concept of a Creator, this idear doesn't make much sense. I'm pretty sure there is the concept of Creation in Hinduism... Doesn't that idear exist in Buddhism too? Or do Buddhists hold that the universe is eternal, without beginning or end? Now, that's a concept I have trouble with, rather like the Steady State Theory, especially since Physics has proven that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Whether it will have an ending and if so what kind, or whether it goes through an eternal cycle of Big Bangs and Big Crunches is hotly debated and something I am not equipped to express an opinion about. But, remarkably, the poet of Genesis Chapter 1 got it all pretty much right, which as far as I'm concerned is a big point in favor of Genesis and the Big Bang Theory (in some form) both. But, again, that's just me. I wouldn't want you to mistake my clumsy attempts at explanation for proselytizing!
Cat~~
DeleteWithout pretending to be an expert on Buddhism or its different varieties (at least as many as there are varieties of Christianity), I don't think Buddhists consider the origin or non-origin of the universe a matter particularly worthy of thought. It doesn't affect what we need to do to achieve grace.
No proselytizing perceived and no offense taken, Cat--this is just a (rare) safe place where friends can talk about such things. No proselytization meant below, either--hopefully just a little of my back story and some idea of how different frames of reference can guide people to agreement. (This post may need to be divided; it's long. Pardon.)
Delete--AlanI clearly remember thinking when I was very young that there must be some SIMPLE explanation for everything--a truth that was true always and everywhere, indeed beyond time and space; and that it was probably far too simple for the human mind to grasp. I didn't hear that coming from any of the folks at churches we attended or which I investigated. I remember attending sunday school at a church away from home once to get attendance credit at our regular one, and the preacher went on at length and in detail about how all other varieties of Christianity were wrong or at least unsatisfactory, only their kind was true. The vision that popped into my head was of a circle of various kinds of priests and preachers in a circle, pointing at one another and saying "You're all wrong." I though to myself, "OK, I can't tell whether one is right, much less which one, so I will just take their combined opinion that all of them are wrong." I realized (though not at first) that being anti-Christian just tied me closer to it, and that I needed to find a different frame of reference. So, well aware that many people had tried and failed, I set out to see if I could do it for myself. I made a little progress. Then I encountered people who were saying, and had been saying for millennia, some of the things I had been thinking but had never heard from preachers; never heard at sunday school. And somehow, they seemed to have knitted it together with some other things, and to have a calm, clear and happy view of life, themselves and others, even in the face of great adversity. I simply HAD to investigate further, and I did. Starting first with logic, then progressing to experience. Buddhism is a mystic [not to be confused with occult] philosophy/religion--that is to say, it maintains that valid knowledge can be had directly--no books and no teachers are necessary, indeed one MUST understand the truth by oneself or not at all. No holy books. No authorities. (Although you might encounter people who can suggest things.) Since there are no holy books, it can also be classed as an esoteric religion/philosophy [in contradistinction to exoteric ones]. As for the question of where the world came from, that we cannot know and need not. An old parable illustrates the idea:
Discourse continued to its conclusion...
DeleteA man was walking along a path when he was shot with an arrow by someone unseen. His companions got him to a doctor in time, and as the doctor was preparing to remove the arrow and save his life, the man suddenly told the doctor to stop; to tell him who had shot the arrow? Why--was it a mistake, or if not, was it because he had done the man any wrong? What wrong? What kind of bow did he use? Who made the arrow? What kind of head did the arrow have? And so forth.
Obviously the questions are foolish; the man would die before any of them could be answered. So let us deal with the world as we find it, see what we can gather from it, and go from there. For one thing, nothing happens without a cause and a necessary condition. That we can see. Nothing we see lasts forever. There are a few other things we can observe, but that's a beginning. There is no need to posit an intermediary intelligence or being between cause and effect; there is no need to posit an individual and immortal soul; in fact, those ideas can cause trouble.
So very simple--no no deity, no soul; no complicated mythologies. Understand the truth by direct experience, and test it against what you can see and understand with your thinking mind. If you harm another, you harm yourself--DIRECTLY. No intermediary. No possibility of evasion. That's a good basis for morality.
I will readily admit that if one has acquired the conviction that one's person is centered in an individual and enduring soul, to give up that idea is going to be downright terrifying--it is psychological suicide. But if one goes through that and comes out the other side, it is just the opposite--if one should have a passing thought that s/he might have an individual and immortal soul, it is very much terrifying--maybe I should say horrifying. There goes the basis of all our relations, there goes morality, there goes hope. BTW, it should be obvious that we receive far more than we deserve, without any consideration of whether we deserve it or not. And it should be obvious that evil is necessary in the world to illuminate goodness. Like Obama said in Charleston.
Indian philosophy has a huge range, and Buddhism is obviously part of that range--certain high-toned varieties of Vedanta and Buddhism are virtually indistinguishable beyond certain superficialities such as formally accepting or rejecting the Vedas as a source of knowledge. Shakyamuni (the historical Buddha) said that he had established nothing new--he sought merely to reestablish the way of the true Brahmin. (Oh, and it doesn't matter whether such a person really existed or not--because we have his teaching. Easy!).
Alan, it all sounds very clean and logical. It wouldn't satisfy me, but I can certainly see where it might satisfy some, even many.
DeleteThe austere, high-toned varieties are all very well, and very important, but the down-to-earth types are more my style. If I were going to be a follower of a more modern Indian religion, I would surely be a devotee of Mother Kali. Of course I would give Lord Ganesh his due as well. I recall seeing a photo--I think it was in the National Geographic Magazine, of a commercial sculptor's yard in NE India, and they had a truly marvelous sculpture of a figure that combined aspects of Durga and Kali. More like Durga, but with some obvious elements of Kali Ma. I also remember an unusual Japanese figure of Kannon , the embodiment of Compassion. Usually he is depicted as a kind, mild-mannered young man--and sometimes as adrogynous or even feminine, particularly in China. But sometimes Compassion is not sweet and mild--sometimes the most compassionate thing you can do for someone is to scare the bejezus out of them (pardon the expression). This figure depicted Kannon as a horse-headed demon, with huge, bulging muscles, aggressive stance, big veins standing out, and a horse's head with flaring nostrils, lips peeled back to show frightening teeth, and wild eyes. I think he had a cudgel and lasso as well--not the lotus and bottle of amrita or wishing jewel of his benevolent form. Wow!
Delete--Alan
In the context of a bronze age tribe of nomads, who once a year place their sins on a goat, and then kill (and eat?) the goat, Christianity makes perfect sense.
ReplyDeleteIf, instead, you posit an all knowing/all powerful Source, then it's possible to posit the decision not only to give the "created" free will, but enough chances to learn that all, given enough time (which Source does have), will have time/chances to come round right. . . .
Did God Know?
ReplyDeleteDid God know that Adam and Eve
Would tell him to take a hike?
The Christian sed~~ Sure.
He could have made them different.~~
And didn't.
He was tired of the endless
Yessssing of the angels.
The incredible whitness of wings,
Goldness of horns and haloes,
The sticky sweetness of praise.
Bored, indeed.
Looking for a little lightliness,
in search of something a little
interesting.
Widen the scope:
To have an occasion to laugh,
To be charmed,
To weep
And, as usual, succeeded
Julie Li
12.30.03
Fine poem, Puddle!
DeleteI'm reminded of a story I read years ago, though both title and author escape me. The jist was that God kept creating worlds and people to inhabit them, and he kept setting the same rule...and the people kept obeying. Until, at last, He created a world where they didn't obey. And when they broke the rule He wept and embraced them. And he said, "At last I have children, not slaves!" I found it very powerful.