If there is a God, why is there so much evil?

The question assumes certain things about man’s notion of God. Let me list them:

1. God, being the creator of the universe, existed before the universe did. God and the universe, therefore, are distinguishable from each other.
2. God is an all powerful being (omnipotent) and is all good (omnibenevolent). And, he is also all present (omnipresent) and all knowing (omniscient)
3. That God has a plan for the beginning and the end of the universe. He had that plan even before the universe was created.


Now, it is a fact that there is suffering and evil. Many religious believer believe that:

1. Satan is the instigator, the seducer
2. Man is free, and therefore has the choice to do what is good, and to avoid what is evil
3. Man suffers from two kinds of evil: from natural disasters and from other fellow human beings.


Many religious believers also believe that God allowed evil so man can choose the good and learn from the experiences of evil. Many would argue that evil in human history is a step towards the better good. For instance, some race had to suffer from slavery in order for humankind to realize how wrong slavery was. Today, slavery is a crime. There are no slaves. Evil is necessary for humankind to learn from it like a child who learns how to balance upright after he undergoes the pain of tripping, and falling, and of getting hurt as a result. Parents punish their children so that the children may learn the value of self-discipline and moral values.

Perhaps, the problem of evil would not have arisen if the problems encountered by humans were as simple as the examples above. If there were no holocaust, no genocide, no murder, etc – none of those heinous crimes; then it would be irrelevant to ask the why there is evil if God is all powerful, who knows what is going to happen before it happens, and is so good that there is a valid reason for his allowing evil to happen.

But the problem of evil, unfortunately, had to be asked not because there is suffering and evil, but because there are some sufferings that should have been avoided. Like the holocaust. Six millions Jews systematically killed. There were other genocides. But the holocaust was the worst for the fact that it was planned systematically. The evil was just downright too much.

Now, let us imagine a scenario. Suppose you went out for a walk in the park and you saw some children playing soccer. They were around 8 years old. One boy kicked the ball so hard that the ball rolled out into the busy streets. There was a truck. It was going 60kph. A boy runs after the ball. You can see before it happens: the boy is unaware of the truck, neither is the truck driver aware of the boy. Boy steps into the street, in the path of the truck. You can see it happening. You feel in your guts that you have ample time to run after the boy and grab him to safety without having to sacrifice yourself. You know it’s the right thing to do. You chose to act and the boy was saved.

If God had devised a plan for the universe and everything in it before the universe was created, then He would have foreseen this incident of the boy and the truck thousands of years ago. You prevented it from happening because you knew it was the right thing to do. Even if you were to fail, at least you tried. But, if God is infinitely good, and we're not, why didn’t God prevent the holocaust from happening?

Jesus does not sit on his hands

People who claim to know the truth or who believe that they’re on the right, truthful path with Jesus, Allah, or the Buddha, seem, to me, to be complacent. They behave as though there’s nothing more to learn. They read the bible or the Koran, and they see the same message over and over again. They become stagnant in their knowledge and actions. They become mired with biases and prejudices.

But are Jesus, Lao Tzu, Confucius, Socrates, to name a few of these spiritual thinkers, as complacent as their so called followers? Has knowing THE truth made them as dumb as their followers? Has knowing THE truth made them as biased and prejudiced, and stupid?

When you are on the right path, when you feel that this is what you have to do, destined to do – be it in science, art, literature, philosophy, architecture, social work, medicine, etc – you could feel yourself expanding in knowledge. You want to know more although you have, being driven by passion for what you do, feel that you have learned a lot. It is never enough. There is always something, you say to yourself, that waits to be discovered. It’s a never ending process of knowing. That is why you are always searching. You never stop searching, and being ON the right path is what motivates you to move on. You are never complacent; yet you are most happy.

If you want to emulate these people of passion, then you should not idolize them.

Philosopher: The misunderstood being, but a happy one.

Colin McGinn, in his Philosophy By Another Name, does not like to be called a philosopher anymore. He wants to change his title to 'onticist.

It is a valid concern that I, too, had dealt with a long time ago when I taught philosophy. My concern with this issue was more of what do philosophers really do.

I like science. It would not be wise to ignore science and its discoveries of the world in which we live. But, I would be cautious to not use a particular science as a model for philosophizing. Philosophy had once committed the mistake of trying to model after the physical science. And, that to me, was the beginning of Western philosophers' identity crisis in the last 500 years.

I like literature because the novelists write about the universal conditions of human existence. Philosophers would be wisely advised to take up literature.

Where does philosophy come into the picture?

This is not the right place to write an exhaustive treatise on what philosophy is and what it has to do with science and literature. Nonetheless, I will to spell out a general outline as to what I think philosophy is.

Colin McGiinn is right in saying that philosophy is the only discipline that deals with the general nature of being. Recall the great metaphysicians like Plato, Aristotle, Heidegger and, may I add, Derrida and Levinas (I know that some of you who are acquainted with the last two may disagree with me), and in the East, Lao Tzu.

They all deal with the nature of being: that is, they explore the original relationship between consious being and Being.

Let us put it this way: scientists have devised a way to approach and study the world. It is called the scientific method. Novelists feel more and are very self consious of their feelings and the experiences of the others. This is why they write about love, suffering, the meaning of life.

Scientists adapt a certain mode of thinking that formulated the scientific method. What scientists do not consider to be part of their study is their very mode of thinking that hides and is determined by their fundamental assumptions about being.

Novelists, too, have a fundamental attitude towards Being (themselves and their fellow human beings and nature). However, they do not study the nature of that fundamental attitude that determines their approach and their relationships with themselves and their fellow human being.

The study of these fundamental approaches and attitudes, to me, is that concern that properly belongs to philosophy (or, in the words of Colin MGinn, 'ontics'). And, to best understand 'the general nature of being' the philospher (i.,e onticist), must, in the words of Plato, be interested in everything, from science and literature. Philosophers must stay in touch with these discplines. Otherwise they would be studying empty shells of Being.

Question: why do you philosophize?

Faith and Analytical Thinking: A misunderstanding of the meaning of Faith?

UBC social psychologists Will Gervais and Ara Norenzayan conducted an experiment among 650 subjects to determine the relaitonship between analytical thinking and belief. The experiment were conducted in two stages. In the initial stage, they asked the subjects to rate on a scale how important their beliefs were on God or angels. Once done, the subjects proceeded to the next stage and were asked to perform some "mathematical computations, answered questions posed in "hard-to read fonts" and were shown a photo of Rodin's sculpture of a man in a reflective position."

While the researchers had no intention of promoting atheism or degrading religion, their study indicated that analytical thinking weakens the subjects' faith.

***

You wonder if St. Augustine or St. Thomas or any religious thinkers would have their faith weakened by thinking analytically on the tenets of their faith. You wonder whether their faith and the understanding of what faith is similar to that of the subjects. I am not on the side of the believers, but you need to ask yourself, in a critical way, whether they are talking about faith or a belief that is based on hearsay. A belief that is based on hearsay, a probability at best, can easily be weakened. It is quite obvious that that is not faith for St. Thomas Aquinas. Faith, to him, is a rational assent.

Analytical thinking is a tool. Two different persons could have a different purpose for using analytical thinking. The use of analytical thinking lies  would depend on the subjects' pre-understanding of their relationship with the world at large. Logically, if two persons hold 2 different or opposing world perspectives, then they wouldn't not apply analytical thinking in the exact manner.

From one perspective, the study shows that analytical thinking weakens the subjects' faith. However, it could also have revealed the weak or the shallow understanding of the subjects' faith.

What do you think?

Ann Barnhardt and Sam Harris: Cut From The Same Cloth

Watch Ann Barnhardt burn the 'Quran'. She claims that Islam is a religion of evil. She argues that Christians wouldn't feel bad if their Bible was burned, but would feel bad and therefore pray for those whose hearts are filled with evil and hatred. Yes, she would probably pray, but she went on to burn the Quran. So much for Christian forgiveness.

Sam Harris, the author of The End of Faith*, does not burn the Quran or the Bible, for he has a better idea. He does it philosophically. He argues that it is dangerous to uphold any beliefs that have no evidence or is hostile towards any empirical evidence that could prove once and for all the truth or falsity of such beliefs. These beliefs, if they were to be strictly followed, would entice fundamentalists to wage war - physically and mentally - against those who do not open their eyes and bow down to their superior beliefs. For as long as the people of faith insist on holding irrational and unreasonable tenets of faith, there would be no chance for understanding, dialogue, and good will among people.

If Sam Harris intended to change people's minds and hearts, especially those of the people of faith, then he's in for a surprise. It just won't work. It would work only on those who have already decided on their own to not believe in any or all the tenets of faith. Their numbers may or may not be growing. But, certainly, his criticisms of any religion would give the believers another reason for holding their ground.

I am reminded of a story of two different kind of truth sayers who took different approaches to teaching the people. Their story went this way: One of them went to the townspeople and told them outright that their beliefs and knowledge were very wrong. They killed him. The other person went to the townspeople, adapted to their ways, and respected their ways of doing things. Eventually, the people learned to trust, respect and even to love him. It was then that the people agreed to listen carefully and respectfully when he decided that it was time to teach them the right ways of living and doing.

If you intend to change people's lives, you first have to respect them, and follow up with genuine actions of respect and understanding.

But, I have you know that it's a tough act to follow.



*You can read the summary of 'The End of Faith". But I suggest that you read the book (pdf).

In The Name Of All The Jealous Gods ...

Let us pause for a moment, and reflect on two unusual moments in the life of Jesus Christ, whose teachings have been glossed over and mostly ignored, especially by those who professed to be his followers. Let us reflect on ‘love thy enemy’ and the act in which Jesus cleaned the feet of the people.

These acts are the purest expressions of love and compassion towards those who are different and who may harbor opposing views.

Now, reflect on the statements found in 3 major religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. They all state that God is a jealous being, who demands your pledge and allegiance, and who claims to be the Truth. So, for those who do not believe in Him shall rot in hell. These statements are drummed into every member of these religions. Whether the members are fundamentalists or moderates (whatever that term means), they see no conflict between believing in such a God and being taught ‘love’ and compassion. They reason that one should in fact love and be compassionate only to those who are willing to follow their jealous God. See how they perennially and selectively forget about the two unusual moments of Jesus (or any religious person for that matter, be he Lao Tzu, Gandhi, etc).

Love and compassion defies any religion that wages war on behalf of the jealous God. Love and compassion, therefore, is disruptive and subversive in the eyes of the members of organized religion.

It is no wonder that Jesus had to be silenced.

Except for some moments in history, love and compassion have been successfully crucified - in the name of a jealous God.

Should One Regret For Choosing Not To Believe In God?

When is regret a regret? When you see there is an opportunity - whether in business, personal relationships, or in being genuinely honest about something - and you don't grab it, you begin to regret.

It is not just an opportunity lost. It is an opportunity in which you know that taking it is the right thing to do. It is an opportunity in which doing something good for yourself or for the others is better than not taking it. For not to take this opportunity, nothing arises. You're still stuck in base one. You have not moved on. You became too complacent, wanting too much security. You became afraid. You chickened out.

It is an opportunity that could have gotten you to a better place, to become a better 'you'. But, it also opens up to the chance of falling short. Yet, if you don't grab that opportunity, one thing's for sure: nothing will change. And, you will be haunted by the heavy and pain inducing feeling of 'what would have happened if I had chosen otherwise?' You would never know because you never had the guts to find out for yourself.

For those who were brought up in a society that spoke of God's existence or non existence, the case of whether to believe in a God could mean immortality or eternal damnation in hell. It would have been very easy for many to believe in God because they have always wanted to be saved.

But what if you were serious about this case? What if you cherish intellectual honesty? What if, assuming there is a God, you want to tell Him that you needed to be true to yourself so to better present yourself as a substantial gift to Him? If God so too values intelletual honesty, then He would appreciate you as a gift even though you don't, honestly, believe in Him.

If He truly exists, but you had believed in saving yourself more than in Him, wouldn't that be a cause for great regret? If He were to truly exist, would he not be able to see your heart that had been darkened with selfishness and cowardice?

On the other hand, what if He were not to exist? Would you still regret for being honest to yourself?

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?

Attachment: the cause of Insecurity and Selfishness

David Hume, a British philosopher of the 18^th century, argues that as much as we want to believe that we have a self, there is no empirical evidence. All that we have are mental impressions that are banded together by memory. Because of the constant conjunction of these mental impressions, a mental habit of connecting these impressions, coupled with the belief that every effect has a cause, has led to the belief that there is something that is thinking these mental impressions. We give it a name: the self. But the self, by itself, is not an impression.

Grammar may also have contributed to the belief in the existence of the self. Take, for example, “Peter is running”. This is the simple 'subject – predicate' form, which has it that the predicate refers to the subject. The predicate, in this case, is the action, and the subject is the acting agent. But, what about 'It is raining'? The predicate is 'raining' and the subject is the 'it'. What is this 'it” that rains? Grammar imposes its structure on reality.

Some may argue that there is a true self that lies behind the mental impressions; or that there is a true self that is different from the empirical self that consists of mental impressions (memory). The feeling that there has to be something does not guarantee that there in fact is a some thing.

In other words, we want so much to believe that something of us, the soul, will live forever, after resigning ourselves to the fact that something of us, the body, will die and turn into ashes. We crave for immortality.

It is this belief in the indestructibility of the self (or, the soul if you wish to call it) and the experience of pain and suffering, that makes us insecure. Centered on this insecurity, we plan our lives for the purpose of surviving.

Wanting so much to believe that we can and must live forever makes it very difficult for us to appreciate the value of compassion and love, and our responsibility towards the well being of the others. We cannot love the others because we are comfortable with our being insecure. We act aggressively towards those who rile up our comfort zone.

Until we let go of the illusion of the 'true' self, we will stay selfish and live in fear.

Insignificant Suffering vs. Significant Suffering (preview)

Life is Suffering
One of Buddhism’s Four Noble Truths states that life is suffering. This does not mean that you have to resign yourself to it. The proper attitude is one of acceptance. Resignation and acceptance are two totally different attitude. Resignation implies that you believe that no matter what you do, your actions lead to suffering. And, since your actions lead to suffering, you commit an erroneous belief that life is bereft of significant meaning. Without meaning, life then is not worth living. More erroneous is the accompanying belief that life is not worth living because nothing makes sense without you there to participate in total pleasure. Such is the resignation attitude: Suffering negates you. Life is suffering because you can’t accept that life can be enjoyable without you being there.

On the other hand, acceptance of life as suffering enables you to embrace both suffering and joy of living. By accepting it, you adopt an objective and realistic stand on the status of life. This affords you to inquire into two kinds of suffering. I will differentiate them into two categories: the insignificant and the significant kinds of suffering. First of all they are both necessary. Experiencing the insignificant one is necessary in that experience allows you to differentiate the significant from the insignificant. It also allows you to realize that, without first experiencing the insignificant, you would not be able to appreciate the significant kind of suffering, which is a kind of joy.

Insignificant Suffering
Because every human being is self centered, he naturally desires to satisfy himself. Once he satisfies himself, he yearns for the same experience in the future as he had in the past. He expects to make the future a replicate of the past. But, reality has another plan in mind. It frustrates every human being who expects reality to do his bidding. As a result of not getting what he wants, he suffers. Yet, he strives on, changing his plans by replacing the failed means with another. Consequently, he suffers, and suffers needlessly. Changing the means changes nothing for as long as the end of desire, which is himself, remains unchanged.

And this is what he must realize if he is to transcend his ego. Holding on to the belief in the ego imprisons him in the cage of unnecessary forms of suffering - a possible life sentence.

Significant Suffering
Life is suffering. If you are stuck in it with your belief in the ego intact, you will suffer unnecessarily. However, by transcending the ego boundaries, life is lived to the fullest and with significant meaning despite suffering that comes along with human living. How is this so?

Stuck in the prison of self centeredness, he is selfish. He behaves selfishly: he yearns for attention. He feels selfishly: he is ever conscious of how he feels, not of how the others feel. He thinks selfishly: that is, he cooks up an intellectually closed system that humans and nonhumans have to conform to.

In a social relation, he treats the other human being as a means to his satisfaction. However, by transcending the ego, he reaches beyond towards the other as a human being, a being with intrinsic value. Then, he learns the true meaning of love. He becomes passionate, sensitive to, and caring for, the well being of the other. When the other suffers, he suffers. When the other dies, he grieves. He grieves not for his loss, but grieves because he realizes the absolute intrinsic value that is the other. He extols the other to his rightful place in the universe. He grieves, he suffers. And, he suffers necessarily, significantly. As the Christians would say, there is ‘joy in suffering’.

You don't have to be a Buddhist to be Buddhist

You can still maintain your belief in Christianity, Islam, Judaism or any other religions, and still be a Buddhist. To be a Buddhist in the way Siddartha - the most famous of all the Buddhas -has it, is to realize the simplest truths about behaving, feeling, thinking, and living, and relating to human and non-human beings. Unlike other faiths, the Buddhist attitude does not cling to a set of beliefs; nor does it pass judgement on the beliefs of other religions. The Buddhist attitude has no quarrel with anyone who chooses to believe in any set of beliefs. The Buddhist attitude is primarily concerned with how one believes in, and practices, beliefs of his choice.

When Siddartha abandoned his princely life and headed for the hills to find the truth, it took him six long years to finally get on to the path of true living and being. During those six  long years, he had experimented on the different ways of living and thinking, and believing. Each time, he failed and failed miserably. He must have had dabbled with what was described  Philosophy. He may have had dabbled with the different sets of beliefs. Each time, he failed and failed miserably. After six years of failure, he finally discovered the path. He set foot on that path. The path was long. To stay on that path, the Buddha was required to question himself, his biases and prejudices, his ego centric ways, his long held philosophical beliefs. In other words, he had to question almost everything he had held dearly. In the end, he was rewarded.

Of the several fundamental truths about living, behaving, feeling, thinking and associating with human and non human beings, he discovered The Eightfold Path. These truths are not exclusively Buddhist because not only did he not create these truths, these truths apply to any human being, whether he be a member of a religion, an atheist, or a secularist.

Take some time to go over The Eightfold Path, and The Four Noble Truths.

Are you "Lucas"?

The handcuff between the oppressors and the oppressed is cemented in fear. That is, the ‘bond’ exists for as long as the oppressors are allowed, by the oppressed, to instill fear and guilt in them; and the oppressed need their protection from hostile forces. The oppressor can be anyone: a manipulative politician, a self conscious manager, a self righteous teacher, an insecure priest, or your father. This relationship usually begins with your father or an authority figure when you are most vulnerable and malleable. And, it lingers on long after you leave home.

Not all fathers are authoritarian or oppressors. But, for those who are, they only hear their voices. They speak loud and rough. They use their eyes to transmit their messages secretly and threateningly; while they use their hands and arms for making sure that the others got their messages. So much for a meeting of minds and hearts. Dialogue is a threat to the rule of the oppressors. Monologue is safe.

As a result, you are taught their meaning of ‘strength’ and ‘weakness’.

If you are ‘strong’, then you enjoy the right to impose your will on the others. Identify yourself with the oppressors in your life. But, if you’re the opposite, that is, too weak to impose your will on the others, then keep your lip sealed tight, and abide by the rules.

Can Lucas free himself from this behavioral pattern, this web of destructive beliefs? Does he have the courage to search for the key to release himself from the handcuffs?

Are you Lucas? Are you Lucas to yourself? To your child? To your friend?


(‘Lucas’ was first mentioned in What glitters is not necessarily gold: The Golden Rule)

Death by Humiliation

I live in Canada. In Canada, particularly in Ontario, I live amongst people who come from different backgrounds. Does this mean that moral values are relative? Let’s take the case of Honor killing. In some cultures like those of Afghanistan and India, honor killing is being practiced especially on females who have ‘wronged’ their fathers. Relativists would say that since there is no such thing as absolute morality, then ‘honor killing’ may be good or bad depending on the culture and situation.

I can understand why criminals are punished: they harm and kill people with a malicious intention. I don’t think any relativist can ever say, upon seeing their loved ones being murdered, that the act is relatively good or bad. If they do, they must be extremely detached and insensitive to human suffering and injustice. Perhaps, relativists are armchaired philosophers who resist any show of or being affected by sympathy.

Since murder (not killing) is evil in whatever context, then it implies that we have a responsibility towards the others. Our responsibility towards the others makes this ethical value absolute in whatever context.

So, to speak of honor killing or to term it as such is a confusion of terms, of responsibility or the sheer lack of it. Honor is “a perceived quality of worthiness and respectability “. In which case, there is no such thing as ‘honor killing’. For the man who killed his daughters just because he didn’t like what the daughters did (which was to love a man, or dress like a Westerner), he not only brought dishonor to himself but also display a blatant disregard for human life. What he did was not out of honor, but out of shame of being humiliated. He cared only for his image and what his peers of the same mind would think of him. He cared nothing for his daughters. Honor is about character, self respect, self worth, despite what others say of himself.

A man who has no respect for life cannot claim to have honor. A man who cares only for his image of his self has no honor.  A man who has no worth has no right to speak of honor, in honor. What he did was simple and plain murder, the malicious intention of killing a human being whom he perceived as a means or an object for his own pleasure of ‘looking good’ in the eyes of those who are equally sick.

Thou shalt not kill; or, better still thou shalt not murder is a universal ethics. It implies a universal respect for human life. Ethics is not and should never be an object of cool and detached contemplation. It is rather a subject to be reflected upon, to be thought of based on the experiences of others who are in genuine pain. Only in this way, can one feel the pain of the others as one painfully but meaningfully transform the experience into a subject of genuine philosophical reflection.

 

What glitters is not necessarily gold: The Golden Rule

I thought that the golden rule was simple and straightforward and anybody, who read these words, would know what the rule meant. Following it was a different story. Or, perhaps, it was not a different story. If people who understood the golden rule still got them wrong, then either they didn’t really understand the message, or that they showed no care for it.

At any rate, I took the message for granted and believed that the message was as easy as A, B, C. But I was wrong. Misunderstanding was prevalent.

For instance, someone - let’s name him Lucas - had told me that the golden rule applied only to his circle of family and friends. It did not count for those outside the circle. These outsiders, he argued, must first prove their worth to him. Their actions, however good or bad, were to determine his reactions towards the outsiders.

The golden rule states “Do unto others as you want others to do unto you.” This rule, Lucas says, applies to his circle of family and friends, but not to outsiders. Yet, he turned the rule on its head by arguing that: “Since they are outsiders, he treats them with suspicion (or unfriendliness). He expects that they would also treat him with suspicion. Hence, “since I treat the other with suspicion, I wouldn’t mind being treated with suspicion, for I would expect him to do so just as I would to him”.

"So, says Lucas, "If the other treats me unfairly, then I will treat him unfairly many times over. On the other hand, if he treats me with kindness, then I will render my kindness to him many times over".

This is how he understands the golden rule. He’s not the only one with that mindset. In fact, there are many of them. How do you understand the golden rule? Are you with him?

Atheists don't read stories that don't sell

Not all atheists are alike. On the one hand, you have the hard core atheists who demand that others, like believers, open their eyes to the reality in which no deity can exist. God, they argue, cannot exist for the simple and undeniable fact that evil exists. Religion is dangerous and violent, and it’s time that people outgrow their psychological dependence on their childish images of the old white bearded man in the clouds.

On the other hand, you have atheists, like Alain de Botton, who recognize some merits to holding on to religion. To quote Alain de Bottom, Religion "teaches us to be polite, to honour one another, to be faithful and sober", as well as instructing us in "the charms of community". On Alain de Botton’s Religion for Atheists: “De Botton’s inspiring new book suggests that rather than mocking religions, agnostics and atheists should in fact steal from them. He boldly argues that the supernatural claims of religion are of course entirely false - but that religions still have some very important things to teach the secular world. “

In other words, religion, for the sympathetic atheists like de Botton, is socially useful. Without religion, there would be moral and social unrest that would spell the end of civilization.

But what does it mean for something or someone to be perceived as useful? For something to be useful, it serves a purpose outside itself. For example, the sharp pointed branch is useful in times of armed struggle, if one can not purchase a knife. The branch can be used for anything, e.g., killing, defending one’s self, or for any other use aside from killing, defending one’s self, such as sticking it deep into the ground to be used as a peg. Another example of use is when I treat another person as a means for my own selfish purposes.

Alain de Botton therefore perceives morality, as taught in religion, as a means for social cohesion. He means that the usefulness of doing good to to the other, is not performed for the sake of the person in front of me, but for the sake of keeping intact the group to which I, and possibly the other, belong. The act is right not because it is the right thing to do. It is right because it sustains the group.

I have no argument against those atheists if they are referring to a group of people who, out of  fear or habit,  attend mass every Sunday, or who act as Christians or Muslims or Jews because they’re conscious that others are watching their every step; or, who interpret the religious texts to their liking.  In other words, I don’t mind at all when the sympathetic atheists like de Botton say that religion is useful for as long as they are referring to a group of people who manipulate religion to suit their psychological dependence. The idea that religion is socially useful is valid because people’s behavior made it so.

However, when you consider those believers who are psychologically independent, truth seekers who have no regard as to how Truth appears to them; those who perform genuine acts of self sacrifice, and who expect nothing, I repeat, expect nothing in return, not even salvation for their sakes, atheists keep mum about them, as though they don’t count. As though, they don’t exist.

I say this at least: these psychologically independent, highly spiritual beings exist. And, they, not the psychologically dependent ones, are the ones whom one should study and emulate to be able to understand what religion really is all about. So, why are they not being talked about? It’s simple: they, with the exception of the Dalai Lama, are not popular. They are few. They don’t make the news. For the media, they are stories that don't sell. And, atheists don't read them.

How should I approach the other when invited to a discussion?

There are 3 approaches. If I have left anything out, please let us know.


You are my enemy
I meet my enemy in a battleground. I call it a battleground because there is every intention of winning, and of making the loser look bad. In a battleground, there is at least one self centered individual or party who listens to no opinion but his. He has only one agenda, namely, to win the individual to his side. Any objection to his view (or, what appears to be an objection) is perceived as an affront on his set of beliefs, his personality.

Is there a loser? Yes: you have the loser who lost, the loser who won; and the biggest loser of all: truth that nobody seems to care about.


Socratic Method  In this scenario, you are engaged with another person in a discussion. You listen and ask question while the other gives you his take on the topic. You are on the lookout for loopholes in his argument. You cross examine him on his assumptions and sets of belief. It's alright if you don't have the answer; but the whole point of this exercise is to get the other person to admit his state of ignorance and to eventually become humble. But, how many of us would be willing to admit how painfully ignorant we are about which we believe ourselves to be knowledgeable? I would say, very few – and this is because these few have in them, from the very beginning, a sense of humility; while the many felt, not humility, but humiliation. While this approach may work on some people, I wouldn’t apply this on someone with a big, fat ego.

Doctor-patient relationship In a doctor patient relationship, the doctor begins by posing some questions to the patient. The whole idea of this activity is to come up with the most accurate diagnosis. Unless, it is very clear what the patient is suffering from – for example, a simple, non chronic headache – then the doctor patiently continues with his questioning. With this tender approach and the doctor’s caring attitude, the patient learns to trust him. Patient desperately helps the doctor to help himself. In this assist-being assisted - if the cure is found - the patient is cured.

Similarly, you can help the person who is in search for a spiritual meaning in his life, by listening to his judgment about his life. His problem, I think, lies in his inability (or, fear) to see, objectively, how certain beliefs about himself or life in general, impedes him from considering adopting other beliefs that could expand his views, thus improve the quality of his experience.

For more discussion on this approach similar to this, click on philosophical counseling

I would love to read your comments.