Watched the Passion of the Christ two nights ago
reflected on the message of Jesus, that sign of anti-establishmentarianism
persecuted by corrupt Jewish leaders, colonised by Romans
Pontius Pilate, the Roman executioner, is depicted in Mel Gibson's film as a sympathetic character,
while the Jews are depicted as swivelling, irrational masses...
the exceptions, of course, being Jesus himself, mother Mary, Mary Magdelene, and Paul the Beloved
I am supposed to understand this story, because it is famous.
Reflecting on Mel Gibson's decision to portray the agent of empire (Pontius Pilate) as a sympathetic character, displaying his compassion and ambivalence about sentencing Jesus to torturous crucifixion.
Reflecting on the "benevolence" of the agents of empire...
the "Good Cops"...
Reflecting on Mel Gibson's anti-Semitism, elsewhere displayed
Reflecting on the story of Jesus, who begs his Father to forgive all who have betrayed Him, for they do not know what they do, what they have done
Father, the vengeful God, not only all-knowing, all-loving, all-forgiving,
but also Punishing...
destroys the Temple.
God the Punisher.
Everywhere, people are suffering unspeakable horrors of injustice, everywhere Jesus is alive in the crucifixion of innocence
in asylum seekers banished to indefinite imprisonment off of Australian shores
but I wonder if I can maintain faith in any Resurrection
when there is too much suffering still being inflicted in Jesus' name
"God, why hath Thou forsaken me?"
Are these the days of martyrs? Can there be any martyrs left? and in whose name shall they act?
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Monday, April 21, 2014
Friday, February 1, 2013
Friday, January 4, 2013
For What We Are About To Receive
Not eating sugar, or even eating it in moderation, in the U.S. is a challenge. This is a society geared towards pushing sugar (especially refined sugar) on people. According to a document from the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services, "Two hundred years ago, the average American ate only 2 pounds of sugar a year. In 1970, we ate 123 pounds of sugar per year. Today, the average American consumes almost 152 pounds of sugar in one year. This is equal to 3 pounds (or 6 cups) of sugar consumed in one week!"
Part of how this plays out is the cultural demarcation of certain, usually extremely sugary, foods as "treats" (with the implication that all other food is dull drudgery). Once this demarcation is accomplished, all food-related discourse takes on a moral dimension, whether one is trying to avoid treats (penance, asceticism); having a treat as a "reward" for some other kind of food-related or exercise-related success (justice); "allowing" oneself a treat in difficult or stressful times (mercy); having a treat because one deserves it just for being you (goodness); or having a treat with self-consciously no justification (moral failure, self-indulgence).
I am curious if it is possible, through the forswearing of sugar, to break from even the "penance/asceticism" model of eating, and instead re-imagine one's relationship to all other food. Just as the former or potential drug addict may want to re-construct herself as being "high on life," perhaps there is a way of thinking of ALL food as a treat, and all nourishment as a delight.
On a related note, here's an old Guardian blog piece asking if there's a secular way to say grace.
Thursday, December 13, 2012
Butterflies and Cocoons
Somehow we're going to have to relearn that the deep things of God don't come suddenly"
- Sue Monk Kidd, from "When the Heart Waits"
Friday, July 29, 2011
Religion 'versus' Rationalism
a Response to Sam Harris' piece "Killing the Buddha"
Creating a Kalachakra Sand Mandala in Kathmandu
Killing the Buddha requires us first to have a concept of "Buddha." While "Buddha" is expedient, tentative (like the raft we use to cross the river of suffering), and is yet another concept to be abandoned, it is nonetheless an important exercise in humility to pay homage to our teachers.
I must admit that I am ambivalent about the idea that we should abandon religion, or perhaps, more violently, 'Kill Buddhism,' in the way that Sam Harris has written about it. It is not that I do not find this metaphor powerful, compelling, perhaps even 'correct,' in its own way and on its own terms.
Rather, the problem lies precisely here: That I must accept these very terms... As Harris has written, "While it may be true enough to say (as many Buddhist practitioners allege) that “Buddhism is not a religion,” most Buddhists worldwide practice it as such, in many of the naive, petitionary, and superstitious ways in which all religions are practiced. Needless to say, all non-Buddhists believe Buddhism to be a religion—and, what is more, they are quite certain that it is the wrong religion."
There is a peculiar arrogance in assuming that all devotional practice or adherences to non-rational doctrines are somehow inferior in quality to the rationalist and materialist approach(es) espoused by Harris. It is also somewhat ironic (though completely understandable) that he is so pained by others' negative views of Buddhism because of its religious associations, given that he is so quick to eschew association with Buddhism itself, for the sake of a non-sectarian, rationalist project.
However, as per any discourse on the emancipation either of minoritarian, marginalised and/or misunderstood communities, is incredibly problematic to assume that, simply because "all non-Buddhists believe Buddhism to be a religion," that it is therefore somehow strictly Buddhists' responsibility to correct these (mis-)perceptions. To be sure, to the extent that there ARE misperceptions about the MANY presentations of Buddhism 'proper,' it should indeed be the co-responsibility of Buddhist and non-Buddhist persons alike to engage and disspell these misperceptions. One option, which is the one Harris is suggesting (wise on its own terms), is to disconnect Buddhism (or the Buddha's teachings) from "religion," thus killing "Buddhism" per se.
Another option, which is one I would like to propose, is to question the way that Harris erroneously attributes certain characteristics to "religion" itself: Dogmatism, close-mindedness, irrationality, naivete etc.
It seems to me that the problem with religions (including religious Buddhists) has more to do with grasping onto doctrines/ritualism as it has anything to do with what the doctrines/rituals are themslves. But this problem is as much rife in the cultures of religious traditionalists and tribal/mythic-membership cultures, etc. as it is in rationalist cultures (particularly the one espoused by Harris, and the one he most certainly belongs to) whose worldviews are rooted in in a post-Abrahamic, secular physics and cosmology (in this case, the doctrine of the world ONLY as material, without transcendental substrate, and the heavily policed, anti-phenomenological rituals of rational debate).
In response to this problem, I employ a quintessentially Buddhistic dialectic.
The Buddha may well have taught: For those attached to irrationality, I teach rationality.
For those attached to rationality, I teach Crazy Wisdom (or the employing of trans-rational means in order to jolt one into understanding, beyond rational argument).
(and, just for fun: For those attached to crazy wisdom, "Who is it who is attached to what wisdom?")
The distinction that Harris delineates, between contemplative science/rationality and religion, is illusory, particularly when we consider his criticism of religious people's/institution's dogmatism, a dogmatism shared by scientific materialist "leaps of faith", in the assumption that phenomenological events are reducible to material causes. At the height of a Buddhistic, "post-structuralist" rationalism, we can only conclude that all meditative/psychological/spiritual phenomena are at best, highly correlated with material conditions (rather than causes)... This is an important dialectical distinction which is, unfortunately by definition, absent from a reductive scientific materialist worldview... Many babies lost along with the bathwater here.
The distinction between science/rationality and religion is especially misleading when we consider Buddhism in its multiple forms, either preceding contact or contemporaneous with Western rationalism. This distinction may be especially dangerous if we consider the Buddhist goal of the emancipation of all living beings from suffering, a goal shared by Harris. I would agree that, given our current global cultural and historical climate, scientific and rational methodologies are some of the most superior (and indeed, powerful) ways of elucidating the truth of the way things are. I would suggest that all phenomena should indeed be subject to scientific methodological validation and rational scrutiny. However, I would simultaneously suggest that while scientific and material explanations for phenomena are important arbiters of any route to truth, they are methodologically distinct from the realm of ethics, phenomenology and hermeneutics, and that the conclusions derived from all the latter are best integrated into scientific study, rather than summarily dismissed. The dismissal would not be either the most effective, developmentally appropriate, nor wise way for all peoples at all times across all of history to engage the Truth of the way things are.
Sure, some folks may believe that Guru Rinpoche, or this or that Bodhisattva was literally born in a Lotus, and that these views may leave a whole lot to be desired... but 'literalism' is itself an invented demon of rationalism, perhaps a shadow of its own repressed drive to transcendence. It is important to note that a lot of secular, rational-minded folks also believe a whole ton of garbage from popular science writing, political manipulation, and unexamined privilege.
To reiterate: Dogma and ignorance are no more exclusively in the province of religious tribal/traditionalist/mythic-membership societies as they are in secular scientific/rationalist ones.
The problem here is Dogma itself, and the corrupt institutions that sustain dogmatism, in all their guises; Rationality is one of the best tools for slicing through dogma, of course, but it can sometimes also be one of the ways that we reify dogmatic and oppressive systems in the name of ideology, particularly when we lack psychological and spiritual insight (think: the ‘logic’ of free markets, the slavery that is demanded from an aggressive and unfettered global capitalism, the violent Communist regimes of the Eastern bloc, the racist rationalism underpinning Nazism, etc. etc.).
I see the kind of Rationality that Harris heralds as similar to Nuclear Power. Developmentally, it is AWESOME as the most sophisticated route to knowledge/power in the whole history of humanity. In a sense, it has ‘always existed’ as potential, but we have lacked the necessary social and cultural foundations for it to become far more normative.
However, just like for Nuclear Power, it will take a while yet before we will be ready to understand the implications of wielding the power of Rationalism.
Rationalist institutions are young. And their members, like many young people, are full of a vigour, intellect, passion, and vision that is as admirable as it is (apparently) unsurpassable. But, if we compare this membership to those of the many institutions such as Buddhist monastic sanghas, erected over hundreds of generations in the wisdom traditions, rationalist institutions are barely in their infancy.
To extend the metaphor, on the one hand, I am in favour of youth empowerment. On the other hand, as an adult, I also see the ways that young people need to be socialised into spaces which help generate their own inherent wisdom to become leaders of their communities. This process of socialisation MAY involve the abolition of superstructures created by generations of Adults. Just as plausibly, it will also involve collaboration, synthesis, and mutual growth... What eventuates, inevitably, in that collaboration which is the joint project of young people and adults, is an order that will likely look nothing like what either of them had envisioned.
So I agree: "Buddhists" would best let go of the "Buddhism" or "Religion" we once knew, in allowance of the tremendous power and growth potential enabled by scientific and rational thinking. But Harris might want to note that what eventuates from this historic encounter may not look anything like the dogma of Rationalism he clings so tightly onto either.
Creating a Kalachakra Sand Mandala in Kathmandu
Killing the Buddha requires us first to have a concept of "Buddha." While "Buddha" is expedient, tentative (like the raft we use to cross the river of suffering), and is yet another concept to be abandoned, it is nonetheless an important exercise in humility to pay homage to our teachers.
I must admit that I am ambivalent about the idea that we should abandon religion, or perhaps, more violently, 'Kill Buddhism,' in the way that Sam Harris has written about it. It is not that I do not find this metaphor powerful, compelling, perhaps even 'correct,' in its own way and on its own terms.
Rather, the problem lies precisely here: That I must accept these very terms... As Harris has written, "While it may be true enough to say (as many Buddhist practitioners allege) that “Buddhism is not a religion,” most Buddhists worldwide practice it as such, in many of the naive, petitionary, and superstitious ways in which all religions are practiced. Needless to say, all non-Buddhists believe Buddhism to be a religion—and, what is more, they are quite certain that it is the wrong religion."
There is a peculiar arrogance in assuming that all devotional practice or adherences to non-rational doctrines are somehow inferior in quality to the rationalist and materialist approach(es) espoused by Harris. It is also somewhat ironic (though completely understandable) that he is so pained by others' negative views of Buddhism because of its religious associations, given that he is so quick to eschew association with Buddhism itself, for the sake of a non-sectarian, rationalist project.
However, as per any discourse on the emancipation either of minoritarian, marginalised and/or misunderstood communities, is incredibly problematic to assume that, simply because "all non-Buddhists believe Buddhism to be a religion," that it is therefore somehow strictly Buddhists' responsibility to correct these (mis-)perceptions. To be sure, to the extent that there ARE misperceptions about the MANY presentations of Buddhism 'proper,' it should indeed be the co-responsibility of Buddhist and non-Buddhist persons alike to engage and disspell these misperceptions. One option, which is the one Harris is suggesting (wise on its own terms), is to disconnect Buddhism (or the Buddha's teachings) from "religion," thus killing "Buddhism" per se.
Another option, which is one I would like to propose, is to question the way that Harris erroneously attributes certain characteristics to "religion" itself: Dogmatism, close-mindedness, irrationality, naivete etc.
It seems to me that the problem with religions (including religious Buddhists) has more to do with grasping onto doctrines/ritualism as it has anything to do with what the doctrines/rituals are themslves. But this problem is as much rife in the cultures of religious traditionalists and tribal/mythic-membership cultures, etc. as it is in rationalist cultures (particularly the one espoused by Harris, and the one he most certainly belongs to) whose worldviews are rooted in in a post-Abrahamic, secular physics and cosmology (in this case, the doctrine of the world ONLY as material, without transcendental substrate, and the heavily policed, anti-phenomenological rituals of rational debate).
In response to this problem, I employ a quintessentially Buddhistic dialectic.
The Buddha may well have taught: For those attached to irrationality, I teach rationality.
For those attached to rationality, I teach Crazy Wisdom (or the employing of trans-rational means in order to jolt one into understanding, beyond rational argument).
(and, just for fun: For those attached to crazy wisdom, "Who is it who is attached to what wisdom?")
The distinction that Harris delineates, between contemplative science/rationality and religion, is illusory, particularly when we consider his criticism of religious people's/institution's dogmatism, a dogmatism shared by scientific materialist "leaps of faith", in the assumption that phenomenological events are reducible to material causes. At the height of a Buddhistic, "post-structuralist" rationalism, we can only conclude that all meditative/psychological/spiritual phenomena are at best, highly correlated with material conditions (rather than causes)... This is an important dialectical distinction which is, unfortunately by definition, absent from a reductive scientific materialist worldview... Many babies lost along with the bathwater here.
The distinction between science/rationality and religion is especially misleading when we consider Buddhism in its multiple forms, either preceding contact or contemporaneous with Western rationalism. This distinction may be especially dangerous if we consider the Buddhist goal of the emancipation of all living beings from suffering, a goal shared by Harris. I would agree that, given our current global cultural and historical climate, scientific and rational methodologies are some of the most superior (and indeed, powerful) ways of elucidating the truth of the way things are. I would suggest that all phenomena should indeed be subject to scientific methodological validation and rational scrutiny. However, I would simultaneously suggest that while scientific and material explanations for phenomena are important arbiters of any route to truth, they are methodologically distinct from the realm of ethics, phenomenology and hermeneutics, and that the conclusions derived from all the latter are best integrated into scientific study, rather than summarily dismissed. The dismissal would not be either the most effective, developmentally appropriate, nor wise way for all peoples at all times across all of history to engage the Truth of the way things are.
Sure, some folks may believe that Guru Rinpoche, or this or that Bodhisattva was literally born in a Lotus, and that these views may leave a whole lot to be desired... but 'literalism' is itself an invented demon of rationalism, perhaps a shadow of its own repressed drive to transcendence. It is important to note that a lot of secular, rational-minded folks also believe a whole ton of garbage from popular science writing, political manipulation, and unexamined privilege.
To reiterate: Dogma and ignorance are no more exclusively in the province of religious tribal/traditionalist/mythic-membership societies as they are in secular scientific/rationalist ones.
The problem here is Dogma itself, and the corrupt institutions that sustain dogmatism, in all their guises; Rationality is one of the best tools for slicing through dogma, of course, but it can sometimes also be one of the ways that we reify dogmatic and oppressive systems in the name of ideology, particularly when we lack psychological and spiritual insight (think: the ‘logic’ of free markets, the slavery that is demanded from an aggressive and unfettered global capitalism, the violent Communist regimes of the Eastern bloc, the racist rationalism underpinning Nazism, etc. etc.).
I see the kind of Rationality that Harris heralds as similar to Nuclear Power. Developmentally, it is AWESOME as the most sophisticated route to knowledge/power in the whole history of humanity. In a sense, it has ‘always existed’ as potential, but we have lacked the necessary social and cultural foundations for it to become far more normative.
However, just like for Nuclear Power, it will take a while yet before we will be ready to understand the implications of wielding the power of Rationalism.
Rationalist institutions are young. And their members, like many young people, are full of a vigour, intellect, passion, and vision that is as admirable as it is (apparently) unsurpassable. But, if we compare this membership to those of the many institutions such as Buddhist monastic sanghas, erected over hundreds of generations in the wisdom traditions, rationalist institutions are barely in their infancy.
To extend the metaphor, on the one hand, I am in favour of youth empowerment. On the other hand, as an adult, I also see the ways that young people need to be socialised into spaces which help generate their own inherent wisdom to become leaders of their communities. This process of socialisation MAY involve the abolition of superstructures created by generations of Adults. Just as plausibly, it will also involve collaboration, synthesis, and mutual growth... What eventuates, inevitably, in that collaboration which is the joint project of young people and adults, is an order that will likely look nothing like what either of them had envisioned.
So I agree: "Buddhists" would best let go of the "Buddhism" or "Religion" we once knew, in allowance of the tremendous power and growth potential enabled by scientific and rational thinking. But Harris might want to note that what eventuates from this historic encounter may not look anything like the dogma of Rationalism he clings so tightly onto either.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Extremism and Fundamentalism
Ah... quoted by the beautiful Jay Smooth, or "Illdoc" (Ill Doctrine), an incredibly sexy, progressive, mix-race African American New York-based hip hop radio host and political commentator...
My deepest condolences to those of us who victimise with or are victimised by false extremisms, which co-opt our spirit in service of the closed, the dualistic and the ethnocentric over and above the porous, the integrative and the trans-communal.
What kind of extremism is needed in today's day and age?
What kind of extremists will we be?
Slavoj Zizek's take on fundamentalism
"...are the terrorist fundamentalists, be they Christian or Muslim, really fundamentalists in the authentic sense of the term? Do they really believe? What they lack is a feature that is easy to discern in all authentic fundamentalists, from Tibetan Buddhists to the Amish in the U.S.: the absence of resentment and envy, the deep indifference towards the non-believers' way of life. If today's so-called fundamentalists really believe they have found their way to truth, why should they feel threatened by non-believers, why should they envy them? When a Buddhist encounters a Western hedonist, he hardly condemns him. He just benevolently notes that the hedonist's search for happiness is self-defeating. In contrast to true fundamentalists, the terrorist pseudo-fundamentalists are deeply bothered, intrigued, fascinated by the sinful life of non-believers. One can feel that, in fighting the sinful Other, they are fighting their own temptation. These so-called Christian or Muslim fundamentalists are a disgrace to true fundamentalism."
- Slavoj Zizek from "Violence"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)