This entry is in response to WanderingThinker's question from my first entry:
"Out of curiosity, do you hold more faith in Catholicism now then you did back then in high school? (your tense left me unsure) Or do you hold beliefs in line with a different particular religion or more of a view separate from any particular faith given your studies of religions?"
The question of what my beliefs are has more and more become a difficult thing to answer, especially because of my studies in religion and philosophy. But I'll do my best to answer in a cohesive way...
Long story short, no, I do not hold more faith in Catholicism than I did in high school, but I embrace the practices and ethical teachings of Catholicism more so than before, and I find Catholicism to be a beautiful religion. I also embrace and find beauty in the practices and teachings from other religions, namely Soto Zen. As a result, I've come to form my own "religion," which evolves as I evolve. But here is the long story, anyway:
Taken from Paul Brockelman, Mark C. Taylor, and other postmodern religious scholars, I believe that religion is a person's narrative, or interpretation, of the world. How does the world work? What is valuable in the world, and why? What are people, animals, plants, *life*... and how do they operate and affect me? With this definition of religion, essentially all conscious human beings are religious, for in the act of being conscious, one interprets the world in which he or she lives. In the wake of globalization and the realization of multiple languages, religions, cultures, political-economic systems, scientific theories, and so on, there is no absolute truth, and being trapped in our linguistic reality (Heidegger, Derrida), we are unable to refer to or assert the reality of a translinguistic or transcendental Other (read: in Western language, "God").
Despite this limitation, the possibility of a transcendental being itself is still in the air. We just cannot firmly assert one way or another its existence; our assertions at this point rely on our faith, our individual interpretation or narratives of the world.
That said, I loved studying and practicing Soto Zen Buddhism in Japan last year. I cannot say that I'm an official "practitioner" of Soto Zen because I find many of their requirements to living the detached life too difficult, haha. Frankly, I get bored meditating for so long and so regularly, and I rather enjoy material things, pursuing my desires, and dressing nicely (though I'm not obsessed). I also am quite attached to the idea that I have a self, an ego. But I do like the philosophy a lot, especially the idea of the interconnectedness of all beings, and I highly recognize the benefits of meditation and moderating the chasing of my desires. I very much like the Eightfold Path, which Buddhists believe is the way to end one's suffering.
When I am very upset and there's no one around to comfort me, I remember my days in Japan when my classmates and I would chant the Heart Sutra in Japanese every morning. Please take a look at it here. Its multiple contradictions echo the limitation of language, encourage freedom from desire (for desire is the cause of our suffering, as well as our happiness), and insightful truths in our (self-contradicting) world. Now, as I said, I would chant this in Japanese, and the Japanese itself is unintelligible because it is based off of the sounds of the Chinese characters from which they derive (in other words, even a native Japanese speaker wouldn't know what I'm saying). But this act of almost sheer "mindlessness" in chanting gives me a soothing feeling. My mind clears because I am not thinking of anything; I am just chanting.
I get a similar feeling of mindlessness when I am at Catholic Mass. At Mass, Catholics and the priest recite almost the same darn things every time, and it feels like a script. For most of my life, I found this ritual incredibly boring, and I loathed it. But now I am calmed by its habituation, and the fact that everyone around me is doing it (especially when we are singing--I really like singing) as well is powerful. I am also comforted in being in a place where I have been to my whole life. Now, I think the priest would actually want me to think about what I am saying and *mean* it when I respond with, "Amen" or "Glory to you, oh Lord." But oh well, I will privately get from Mass what I want. :)
I also enjoy the sermons by the priest. I may not believe in the resurrection of Jesus or the persona of the Lord, but I do like the weekly contemplations on ethics and the virtuous way of living. They keep me actively reflecting on my day-to-day actions.
Soooo, I take from these religions (and others) various practices and philosophies to help me live a calm, virtuous, examined life. Remember what Socrates said, after all! As for my "dogma," I believe that all life forms are interconnected, constantly affecting one another. We are continuously creating ourselves and each other. To steal from a Zen monk's interpretation of reincarnation, we are continuously being reborn in other people, and vice versa, by the way we affect each other. [An even more powerful metaphor is the Hindu belief that all beings are personas of God, and thus the utmost reverence and respect for people should be given.] There is a spiritual force within all of nature, the universe, and ourselves, but I don't see that force as being like the Father figure of Christian Catholicism. But because that force exists, I think that there is no fate, that whatever happens is dictated by what is decided in the present, and that no one thing is in control--which, at the same time, means that all life forces are in control.
To recognize this non-dualism, this impermanence and dynamism of life, is to see things "as they are" (to sound Buddhist again), to accept things as they are, to seize this fact and take responsibility for your life, and to respect all beings, as well as yourself. My increased "knowledge" (which is also an interpretive endeavor) in economics, political science, religion, etc. and especially natural science (with the wake of string theory, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, and Einstein's energy equation) increase my reverence for and fascination with the dynamics of life.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
That's quite an interesting approach. Taking concepts and practices from several religions to create one's own approach to living life. And if you go by Taylor's take on religion, then this approach is in strong accordance with religion being a person's (consciousness-driven) interpretation of the world. Instead of conforming, or restricting oneself in a sense, to solely the practices and beliefs of one religion, you essentially forge a personal hybrid religion.
ReplyDeleteAnd I think it's very important that you pointed out that we cannot firmly prove or disprove the existence of a transcendental being. It is definitely a matter of faith, at least at this point.
I think that there is great beauty within and great notions to take from the beliefs/practices of Buddhism and Hinduism. The concept of rebirth, in Buddhism or Hinduism (granted, both have different manners in which this concept is fleshed out), where the actions or deeds of an individual's current life influence the individual's next life (or in the case of Hinduism, a body less subtle than the soul but more subtle than physical one retains "impressions" of the individual and carries them over into the next life), or reincarnation, leads the individual to think about how he or she lives his or her current life and what he or she does.
And I find it interesting in Buddhism the idea of craving, or desiring, causing suffering (yet also being the cause of happiness). It can be difficult to stop oneself from clinging to a certain sense of selfhood (or the ego, the idea you said you find yourself quite attached to) and the things we consider to be the source of happiness and unhappiness. But I can understand Buddhism's approach to ending suffering by eliminating self-delusion, or the craving of a certain state of affairs that does not exist. We do tend to delude ourselves, and want things that sometimes cannot simply happen (although, I do think an individual can sometimes achieve a certain state of affairs with effort and determination).
The Eightfold Path is also an interesting way of guiding oneself. There is much that one can take from it without being a dedicated practitioner of the relgiion itself, such as from the fourth principle (Right Action):
"...1. to abstain from harming sentient beings, especially to abstain from taking life (including suicide) and doing harm intentionally or delinquently, 2. to abstain from taking what is not given, which includes stealing, robbery, fraud, deceitfulness, and dishonesty, and 3. to abstain from sexual misconduct..." (cont)
One can take this in a strict or general form. Going with the general sense, one can follow principles such as those just laid out, and if they do so with the right intention and mindset (not just a mindless, habitual adherance to), they appear to be on the right path to living a virtuous life. These principles sound very much like those laid out in other religions, including Christianity (the first thought that came to mind was "Thou shall not kill" and "Thou shall not covet thy neighbor's ass"). This generality I find can be used to argue for the generality of these values and guiding principles, and how there is similarity among many of the world's religions and how these interpretations end up answering the question of how one should live one's life in similar fashion.
ReplyDeleteAlso, while the truths sought out are different in some senses, I like thinking of the practice of religion and the exercise of scientific inquiry (the natural sciences, etc.) as both working together to make sense of this universe and our place within it. Both create a complete picture of human life and how it fits into the bigger scheme of the universe. Scientific inquiry and method helps us to understand the environment we live in and the properties and laws that it follows (as well as understanding how we work, biologically and chemically, and how we interact with our environment), while religion helps us to understand how we can act and live with others of our kind, and how to live in such an environment.
And I can spot how you apply several ideas of the eightfold path to your personal interpretation of the world, such as accepting things the way they are and taking responsibility, which partially comes from the 7th principle of Right Mindfulness, which emphasizes (or has the individual developing) the mental ability to see things as they are.
And I recognize the benefits of the Heart Sutra (as well as the soothing mindlessness of the collective repetition, and in singing form, of Catholic mass practices or Christian collective prayers). These types of chants or collective prayers also can seem to create a sense of unity among those praying, an interconnectedness among fellow humans (bringing us close together in those moments).
(cont)
ReplyDeleteAnd I really like the Hindu belief that you point out, that we are all personas of God, and this requires us to respect each other. Thinking of fellow human beings in such a high sense could go a long way in how we treat one other in these modern times. And like I mentioned earlier, thinking of our actions as impacting possible future incarnations of ourselves (if one chooses to accept the notion of reincarnation) would go a long a way in getting the individual to consider how they are currently living his or her life (not to say that they are not other practices that encourage similar thought).
I do find it interesting though that you find yourself attached to the idea of a self, given how you developed the idea of impernanence and dynamism of life towards the end of your entry. FOr example, what gives you reason to think you have a self or the want to hold onto such a notion? The individual, using notions you developed, is impacted on a fraction-of-a-second basis by the forces (those of the universe and within ourselves, etc.), and thus the individual (his or her personality and traits, desires, and memories) is changing throughout the course of his or her life. The one thing you could say about the individual is that they have their set of experiences/moments that occurred to them, in the particular manner that it did occur to them even if they cannot remember it correctly. So perhaps there is something that can be attached to the individual that is unique the indvidual, but the "self" is constantly changing. At the end of a year, one is clearly not the same as they were at the start of that year. Events and moments impact the individual, and change his or her tastes and feelings. However, the attachment to the idea of a self is quite common.
(cont)
ReplyDeleteThinking (and filtering different views). That I think is the true way to live one's life. Certainly, conforming to a specific religious practice or relgion and purely accepting the notions and words of others is one manner in which one can choose to live, however, I find that it is the active thinking and questioning of what one is told and what one reads that helps the individual figure out how he or she should live his or her life, and develop one's own personal interpretation of the world he or she lives in (or one's own unique religion, referring to Taylor again). The idea of taking specific practices and ideas from many religions is a great way for fully developing one's way of seeing and understanding the world, and developing one's own values and principles. Some things can be better addressed by practices of one religion, and some things by another. By having an open mind, and examining and understanding the concepts and ideas developed from many religions and schools of thought, one can perhaps reach those truths we seek. I think it is a life-long endeavor of seeking and researching and contemplation. However, the life of contemplation and intellect (and inquisitiveness and curiosity) is not novel, for it is a very ancient idea (well, with respect to some particular Greek thinkers).
I think it would be almost utopic if everyone opened up their minds (rather than closing them and dogmatically and blindly accepting and defending specific points of view) and studied the practices and ideas of many schools of thought to develop their own personal view (or at least find the optimal view they feel encompasses their interpretation best, and not just solely accept the religion or school of thought that they have practice since youth). Your view appears to be very carefully developed (enforced by important life experiences): "...to see things "as they are...to accept things as they are, to seize this fact and take responsibility for your life, and to respect all beings, as well as yourself". Particularly taking responsibility for one's life and respecting others and onself seem most easily generalizable, and notions that I wish the majority would put into practice.
(sorry for the segmented comment, but there is a character cap, and I had a lot to say)
Hi, there. I'm really sorry for not responding--it's almost been a month, what a shame. Going back to school kills a lot of time, academically and socially.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you can appreciate this potpourri of thought. I'll just address some things:
I certainly agree with you that effort and determination can bring about great things. We see this reality with immigrants and poor people who started with little and end up "successful." The wisdom that Buddhism adds is that, should that effort and determination *not* bring about the things you desire, learn to accept this reality and not dwell on it/suffer from it. I recognize that this notion is incredibly difficult to put into practice, considering much "failure" can be in the form of not being able to support one's family or save a person's life. But then again, the Buddha would say, please accept that you are not in control and that things always change. This is the dynamism of life.
Although there are egregious differences among the world's religions, you are right that many principles can be interpreted similarly. Traditionally these principles have developed and been practiced with vastly different implications, and it is important to acknowledge these differences in order to understand various cultures. But there are efforts today to place more emphasis on the similarities of thought in order to work towards a global ethics and world peace, of which I'm very much a proponent.
I don't remember when I alluded to your science and religion comment, but I agree that their coexistence is possible and in no way needs to privilege one over the other. I would extend this notion to all other academic disciplines (economics, political science, etc.). Integrating these disciplines so that they can positively critique and develop each other will lead us to more developing ideas and understanding of the interrelatedness of life itself.
As for my attachment to the self, I just feel a comfort, as many others do, in believing that I have one. Perhaps it is egotism. I like to attribute my talents, thoughts, loved ones, and so on to my own self, not some conglomerate of always-changing parts. I like to think that the people who love me, love some permanent and pure essence of me. I like to think that the person I am in love with is, indeed, another soul who is somehow destined to be with me or made for me. My intellectual side tells me this all makes no sense because of all the points you mentioned (we are continuously changing beings) and because life itself is contingent--in many ways, the people I meet and the person I fall in love with are due to certain circumstances and arbitrary decisions. But simply put, I just find a comfort in believing that I have an ego/self.
At the same time, there is great comfort in dismissing this idea because you then reorient your mind to that of a humble person who thrives in the influences of others and the interconnectedness of all things, and who literally does not let your ego (because you haven't one) get in the way of decision making or attaching yourself to things you can't have (at all or forever).
Can both ideas coexist? I'm not sure how to argue it all in a way that makes sense, but I strive to maintain both thoughts in my head to live a humble and peaceful life that, at the same time, is ignited with "passion."
I really enjoy your comments and thoughtfulness. Thanks for your patience in my response times, and I'll try to be more regular with blog posts during this winter break of mine.
Well, in following Buddhism, I think that even in the case where you cannot support your family, by accepting that you cannot control everything, the worry could be that one would give up in supporting the family since there is nothing he or she can do. However, I tend to think that excercising an acceptance of the things one cannot control can lead to a peace of mind, especially when it comes down to those situations where one works and works but cannot overcome certain external circumstances.
ReplyDeleteAnd I agree that your reasons for attachment to the idea of the self are very much the same as many other people. It is comforting to think that there is some core "essence" that defines you. And your notion of love (for that "person I am in love with" as an example, whether you meant it as a specific or in-general example) is quite a beautiful, romantic (in some sesne pertaining to the word/concept developed from the Middle Ages) one.
Though, I think such a view would disappear in embracing the "non-ego" kind of thinking. So, depending on how one views attachment and love (whether as hindrances or benefits), I wonder if something, something valuable and important, is lost by completely embracing the idea that there is no self (and by completely removing the notion of attachment)...So, love, as we know it, could not exist. There is some level of attachment associated with the emotional connection (i.e. if you can't get attached to something, then you would not even care if you lost a loved one or if the loved one left you, or you would not see anything wrong in leaving the loved one). I just wonder...at least there would a lot less suffering in that case. No emotional pain or agony. Just moving on from person to person (everyone each other's, no commitments). It appears to be somewhat dystopian in my view, but perhaps that is just simply because I cannot conceive of what it would mean to truly embrace a pure and complete "non-ego" style of thinking, and a life of no attachment at all.
Thank you for the interesting blog posts, and no problem about the delay. I hope that you find time to write more.
Aaaagh, I don't know where my comment went! Okay, I'll try to rewrite it.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it seems Buddhism's main goal is to end suffering, to achieve that peace of mind, to attain "enlightenment" and smile as calmly as the Buddha himself. The common analogy for Buddhism is that the Buddha is a doctor who has prescribed humanity with the disease of suffering, and he has offered us the Eightfold Path to enlightenment in order to cure us of this disease.
A Buddhist would tell you that a world in which all people sincerely embraced the idea of no-self is also one in which universal love is fully realized. I'd imagine that this selfish, romantic love we speak of would indeed not exist. It would be replaced by an egalitarian love for all living things. Instead of being attached to particular things, we are detached and therefore attached to all things. These contradictions again display the limitation of language, but hopefully you see what I mean? And yeah, I'd imagine this world *would* be free from suffering, this "emotional pain" and "agony."
In one sense, this is great for working towards a global ethics, world peace, and a healthy ecosystem. In realizing that we have no self and are therefore part of all beings (in a way, our "selves" are conglomerates of other selves), we find kinship, interconnectedness, universal love for all.
In another sense, many things as we know it would break down or at least drastically change. Capitalism--gone (good or bad? :)). Traditional family system--gone. The entire idea of property and ownership--gone. Or at least we would say, all things belong to all people, and we are one big family. I don't know.
While I'm all for world peace and green living, I'm still highly attached to the notion of romantic love, family structure, property ownership (within reason), and other things that help our world function the way it currently does. I recognize these attachments have brought me great suffering throughout my life, but I cannot ignore the great happiness they have also brought me. And, as one Buddhist monk (transcribed from the podcast Zencast) asked his master,
"If humans know how to end suffering, why do they continue to suffer?"
"Because they LIKE it."
I'll never forget that. :)
But at least *some* further realization of how interconnected we are and how irresponsible and selfish we have become with treating our environment and each other would be a great improvement.
And thank you for your kind words.