For Your Sake, Oppose Religion

The problem with organized religion is that it opposes all questioning of its revered belief-statements even if the questioner seeks for Truth. You see you can tell if the questioner is a truth seeker or someone who resents religion and therefore seeks its destruction. Which one are you?

Let us say that you are a truth seeker, then you ask questions the way an innocent child asks out of natural curiosity. No malice towards anyone. Just the burning desire to know the truth.

If a religion is to have any meaningful purpose, then it must serve the curiosity of an innocent child, who has no intention other than to seek the truth. His quest is spiritual, religious and philosophical.

Unfortunately, organized religion is anti-spiritual, anti-religious, and anti-philosophical. Organized religion relies heavily on submissive individuals, who will wage pyschological or physical war against those who are perceived as 'enemies'. The child is not yet an enemy. So, he must be indoctrinated before he does anymore harm with his innocent questions.

The innocence and the natural curiousity of a child, ironically, seeks a religion, an ethics that promotes both self development (of the spirit, the mind, and the body) and the recognition of a transcendence that is beyond the human ego.

That, for me, is true religion.

How to face the Uncertainty: Be Ethical

I used to live out the philosophy of Rene Descartes. As a Cartesian follower, I always wanted to be sure that I had the correct way of thinking about things that are fundamentally important. It was not enough that I had the right statements about the status of things. It was important that the way I think, the way I thought about them must also be true.

What appears as the truth could be false. What if my premises and assumptions about the world are false? What if I was not aware of their falsehoods and sincerely believed in them? I would then be made to believe that a conclusion logically arrived at from these false premisses is true, when in fact it is horribly false.

In other words, I wanted to know "How do I know that what I know is true?" and "How would I know that how I know is the truth?

Like myself, Rene Descartes was afraid of uncertainty.

Being uncertain about anything is a scary thing. Being uncertain about your relationship with the significant other can drive you crazy. And, being uncertain about your future can be disastrous and make you want to become a pleasure seeker. But, being afraid to face the Uncertainty is the scariest of them all.

You could do the opposite of what Descartes yearned for, and be careless and unmindful. Either way, it's the same attitude towards the Uncertainty: it hides itself from facing the Uncertainty. Uncertainty is here to stay. That is for sure. The reality is that no one can know for certain of anything, even if he plans to be sure.

Yet, I think there is a way to deal with the Uncertainty. However it is not by way of epistemology or the study of knowledge. I think the proper way of dealing with, facing, and embracing the Uncertainty of life is to develop a moral character.

Be morally truthful to yourself and to the other. Live as though there's no tomorrow. To live - and I don't mean just to survive - is to know what to die for. If you can stand firmly on moral grounds, then I think, you can face the inevitability of the Uncertainty any time. It is called death.

Why do some people commit suicide? How are they similar to fatalists?

Although Catholic-born, I have no intention of judging those who chose to end their lives. To be honest, I have no reason to think that committing suicide is a sin - unless you want to play the ‘religion’ card. There is no evidence - as far as I know - stating that suicide is wrong. We only believe that it is wrong. I will take another route: I would like to imagine how those who at least attempted to commit suicide viewed their being human, their being who or what they are. I hypothesize that there is a link between how they view their time here, and how they view themselves in essence.

Reasons to commit suicide vary from shame to the unbearable, financial burden. Hence, they see no reason to continue on living since life has lost its meaning.

I think the underlying reason for all their reasons is the view that there is no way out of their present situation.

There is no way out for them because they believe that the future is (or, will be) no different from what they had experienced (in the past).

In other words, like fatalists who believe that they have no control over future events, they have imprisoned themselves to their past actions by defining themselves completely by what they had done and what had been done to them. (note: Fatalists commit spiritual suicide by giving up on trying to improve their lives)

By allowing themselves to be defined by the past, they become prisoners of the past. And, as prisoners of the past, they view their future to be no different from the past.

That is a belief. It is not based on facts. It’s not even a fact.

The fact, however, is that tomorrow is ‘another’ day - a chance to be different from what you were yesterday. A chance to create yourself. That is Hope.

Does a Detached Person lack commitment?

Some of you asked me if a person who practices detachment would be without commitment to anything to which he is detached. If we were to let go of things, there would be no passion, no commitment, just indifference.

In my two previous posts, I have been talking about attachment and detachment. But, what is attachment? What are we to let go of when we practice attachment? Let’s take some examples of attachment.

Some Examples of Being Attached
When you wake up in the morning, and you utter these words, “Oh, God, it’s Monday.” This implies that this new day is like no different from other Mondays before it. And, this new day promises nothing new.

You had experienced that gave you pain. You decide to be afraid of it and therefore will want to avoid it at all cost.

You had encountered something in the past that gave you much positive experience. Subsequently, you want to relive the past experience in the present as well as in the future. You search for a similar situation, and you expect the same experience.

The problem with treating every Monday as though it is no different from past Monday is that you don’t give the present and yourself a chance to experience something new. Instead, you bring along the image of past Mondays and paste it on the new day. The term ‘Monday’ is just a word that we attach to a certain day. But the day itself, the present itself, is always something new.

While you may have experienced something in the past that caused you pain, physical or otherwise, fear - which is different from pain itself - is produced when you wish to avoid it. Ironically, by attempting to avoid the pain, fear intensifies.

Enjoying something in the past and wanting to have the same experience in the future are two different moments. In your very first encounter, you did not expect or anticipate that you were going to receive a positive experience. To expect it to happen again is a form of attachment that produces ‘pleasure’.

Detachment
In all of these cases, attachment is an act of indifference towards the present moment ‘where’ something new always happens. Attachment is act of repeating the past in the present and in the future. And, when reality ‘bites’- surely, it will - the result is one of disappointment and despair.

The person who practices ‘detachment’ does not forget the past, but neither is he attached to it. While he is aware that today is marked as Monday, he bears himself to the ‘new’ day and so is receptive to new things that arise during that day.

While the ‘detached’ person has experienced pain in the past, of which he remembers, he is not ruled by fear. A detached person therefore faces what caused him pain so he may understand it, embrace it. Consequently, he lives without fear. (Yes, it is possible and attainable.)

We must remember that the Buddha, who practiced detachment, was compassionate, loving and understanding. A detached person, therefore, is one who is far more committed to learning new things, and treating people as absolute values.

Attachment, therefore, avoids commitment because commitment requires that one lives in the ‘now’.

Philosophical Cause Of Suffering and Injustice

When you adopt a certain way of making sense of reality, you stick to it as long as you can.  There may be several notions of truth about the self and life in general. But, you have chosen to believe in a certain notion of truth. Why? Because it is your need to believe that there is only one way of making sense of yourself and the world. It is comfortable. It protects you from certain beliefs that you can't get yourself to accept. They cause great discomfort when the world won't agree with your understanding of how the world should be.

This is your understanding of what reality is, what your place is in this world, how the other should relate to you, how you relate to your joys and fears. Seriously questioning your understanding is almost as good as giving up on life. For some, they decide to end their lives.

I think that the most destructive way of thinking about yourself and the world is to place yourself as the center of Reality. In this scenario, you are the arbiter of what is true and what is false, what is good and what is wrong. I am not just talking about being selfish. I am referring to a kind of thinking that runs so deep that it is very hard to notice that you have actually promoted yourself to being the center of reality.

Take for instance the philosophy of Rene Descartes. Descartes was looking for the truth. In fact he was yearning for something that was beyond absolute doubt. During his investigation, he doubted the senses and anything that the senses tell him about the world. He doubted God’s existence and morality (eventually, he was able to restore God in his philosophy). He doubted science. There was, however, one thing that he couldn’t doubt. And that was his existence. The fact that he is thinking, he exists. The fact that he exists, he is thinking. His existence and as a thinking thing were so intertwined, like inseparable Siamese twins, that neither of them could exist without the other. What sort of thinking did he believe defined his existence? It was reason. Or the way he understood reason: whatever rational arguments or conclusions he formed, they must first and foremost satisfy and comfort his self. They must keep him protected from further confusion, doubt, discomfort. That is, whatever he undertakes to understand, ‘it’ must make sense to him. If ‘it’ cannot acquiesce to his way of understanding things, then ‘it’ will be discarded. ‘It’ will be treated as though it is irrational, worse, false.

Let us step back from this scenario, and ask these important questions:

• Is it fair to force reality to make sense to you? 
• Just because something does not make sense to you, is it fair to say that it is false or morally wrong? 
• If you always want to see your partner not as he or she is, but as what he or she is for you, is that fair? 
• Just because it is logical for you, but not logical for the other, is it fair to judge him or her as being wrong and hard headed?