Journeyman Philosopher

“Religion is indeed the self consciousness and self esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself or has already lost himself again.” Karl Marx

Today in my studies I came across this quote. I found it very interesting and I wanted to share it with you to see what you thought about it! The quote is found in a talk about Marx’s perception of religion and how it affects individuals and society.

Ask yourself a few questions: ‘What is he implying about religion?’ ‘What is Marx implying about individuals?’ ‘What type of religion is Marx referring to?’ I’m very interested to hear what you think.

 What do you think?

Recently I was reading an argument online in which an individual raised the question “Is it worth debating with the truly faithful?”

This is a wonderful question and I would love to discuss it.

I should mention the context of ‘truly faithful’ in this quote is meant to apply to blindly ignorant religious practitioners; the type that you find it impossible to reason with (IE “There is no truth but the bible, so why talk about anything else?). For the record, I feel, that truly faithful people realize that they make certain religious assumptions, and as so can partake in genuine intelligent dialogue.

However for the sake of argument let’s talk about close minded religious practitioners ones that take the stance “There is no truth but the bible, so why talk about anything else?”.

When you argue with these people, you’re more than likely going to get reason, logic, and argumentive prose shoved back in your face. They will spit at your words, while preaching their own. They argue on their terms with their rules (similar to the card game ‘I Win’ in Big Daddy). This stresses people out, which is understandable.

Personally I love arguing with these people, but not for the reason I love to argue with others. When I argue generally I do it in an attempt to find the truth, but when I argue with people whose goal is to simply convince me I attempt to find holes in their argument.

Think of it like practice for serious conversations. And if you’re lucky you may even convince them to examine their own reasoning later. Its very important to be flexible enough with yourself that you can be confident when arguing with these people and not to be overwhelmed with frustration.

Its all psychological, with chip after chip you can eventually breakdown that wall and learn something about yourself while doing it. I have had many of these experiences in my life, some with success and some without. However all were meaningful in terms of me understanding more and more about good argument and contradiction.

What do you think, or as well what experiences have you had that relate to these situations?

For the blog post that inspired me indirectly to write this click on this link .

Recently I was made aware of a quote by the Dalai Lama which I thought was quite interesting. It follows:

“We humans have existed in our present form for about a hundred thousand years. I believe that if during this time the human mind had been primarily controlled by anger and hatred, our overall population would have decreased. But today, despite all our wars, we find that the human population is greater than ever. This clearly indicates to me that love and compassion predominate in the world. And this is why unpleasant events are “news”; compassionate activities are so much a part of daily life that they are taken for granted and, therefore, largely ignored.”

Found in Everyday Mind, edited by Jean Smith, a Tricycle book

This is a very insightful view and perhaps one of the reasons I value the Dalai Lama so much. He does make an interesting point, however at the same time we really wonder if its 100% true. There has always been a majority of hate, however it was aimed at other peoples be it American vs Russia, China vs Japan, Japan vs Korea, etc etc. Many of the reasons these peoples didn’t manage to kill each other was because of the impracticality of the travel due to the distance between the nations, or even the sheer impracticality of the whole enterprise.

In my own opinion I think there is much more love and compassion, its just the hates alot louder.

So which is it: is this the case, or do we breed in order to destroy others?

 What do you think?

Wow. When doing some catch up research on ‘deep economics’ I stumbled upon an idea that has yanked my attention away from the promised discussion (as so I apologies but you’ll have to wait till tomorrow for more on deep economics).

I present to you VHEMT or known to those who don’t like to refer to it in abbreviation form the ‘Voluntary Human Extinction Movement’

“As VHEMT Volunteers know, the hopeful alternative to the extinction of millions of species of plants and animals is the voluntary extinction of one species: Homo sapiens… us.

Each time another one of us decides to not add another one of us to the burgeoning billions already squatting on this ravaged planet, another ray of hope shines through the gloom.

When every human chooses to stop breeding, Earth’s biosphere will be allowed to return to its former glory, and all remaining creatures will be free to live, die, evolve (if they believe in evolution), and will perhaps pass away, as so many of Nature’s “experiments” have done throughout the eons.

It’s going to take all of us going.” Found on www.vhemt.org

Wow, is all I can say…. I am blown away by this!

Don’t get me wrong its not that the overall idea’s crazy, as a matter of fact we really do need to control our population, but the fact that someone has actually suggested something as self-less as this boggles my mind.

But there is a problem, and a simple one. We are a part of nature and have rights as well. Of course I wouldn’t say that these rights override the rights of all other beings, but that these are still very important.

As so to make a quick objection to the idea; ‘Why are we not equal? Why can’t there be a balance?’ this is the fundamental problem with their view I believe.

To move on:

“However, if any of us thinks about the situation long enough, and makes the effort to work through those socially-instilled blocks to clear thinking, we will arrive at virtually the same conclusion: we should voluntarily phase ourselves out for the good of humanity and planet.” Found on www.vhemt.org.

I mean this is just a blatant contradiction. We must phase ourselves out for the good of humans, because not existing is good for us. This works on the idea that being alive causes more suffering to our own species. Ya know if we’re all buddhists this could be considered all good and dandy but we aren’t. Surely our species existing is a good thing, or at the very least not a negative thing.

One thing that I feel this idea does not make clear, is at moments it seems to say ‘You support us by not having children’ and then on the other ‘You can still support us by just thinking we need to reduce our population’. They discern what they call ‘volunteer’ (one who promises to not breed), and ’supporter’ (one who doesn’t support extinction, but who doesn’t think we should add more population to the earth).

This is problematic, because seemingly a ’supporter’ could hold a completely different view. By their classification I’m a supporter, yet I don’t believe what they’re saying, rather I believe that their approach to the issue is so far-fetched and non-sensical that we’d be just as well off not thinking about it.

I mean if I was to address these issues of environmental damage, unethical treatment of animals, and the complete borderless stomping of the human race; I’d advance a theory that would require us to lessen our footprint while living more in tune and with respect towards nature.

My objection stems from the fact that its simply unrealistic; although VHEMT does deal with this objection by saying ‘people always say stuff like that, and despite it being unlikely its our duty’. This is true, in a sense, people always say things similar to ‘you’ll never change anything’ to hold onto their base staus quo.

However I think it would be more logical to choose an approach that came easier to us, yet still would result in lasting changes. Suicide is hard to do, not breeding is in a sense going against a natural desire. As so it really seems as though their really fighting an uphill battle. I mean it would seem sooner realistic to adopt a theory that says the entire human race should vacate to Mars before self imposed extinction. In such a manner earth would be ‘happy’ again without us. But the fact that this seems more practical than their theory cannot be a good thing for VHEMT.

Of course the site acknowledge all of this. It is an uphill battle it is a struggle. But knowing this and not finding a better way, or even a better way for now just seems silly. Sometimes practicality is an important issue, and I believe VHEMT fails to acknowledge this.

?

As Digglu hinted in response to my last post:

People should find religion on their own, not have it forced on them, which is probably why so many “Christians” aren’t Christian at all.

In my life and studies one thing I feel I have confidently learnt is that religion is not something that can simply be taught. Religion/Spirituality (whatever you want to call it; they really mean the same) requires the individual that adopts it to take a personal assumption, one that in no way can be taught as a fact by others.

Think of it this way, I use christianity as its easiest to illustrate, you are approached by a priest who says to you ‘God exists, I know he exists’. This priest has, what he would consider, a connection to God of some sort that allows him to make such a statement. In such a manner the priest, to the best of his belief, is most likely not lying.

However what needs to be taken into consideration is the status of the person who is hearing the priest make this statement. Priests in general are respected in society and people have a tendency to place trust in their judgements and decisions. As so it is common place for a person of little or no knowledge of religion to adopt the views of the priest; ironically to have faith in God by truly having faith in the priest.

This is a problem. In this step the personalization that is necessary for sincere religious understanding is sidestepped.

In my last post I covered the concept briefly that religion recquires individual interpretation. How religion is ’suppose’ to work is the priest is suppose to give you their interpretation, but explain it in a manner open for debate that allows the listener to understand that this is an interpretation (although a true one to the preacher).

In this manner the individual listener gets to, through debate/interpretation, determine which truth makes sense to them; and thereafter develop it for themselves with the assistance of the preacher. This allows them to do more than listen, but as well develop critical thought abilities (which is of course necessary to even apply religion correctly to your life).

Think of it like this: It is not sensible to just adopt a belief without knowing its premises. And if its premises require you to ‘just believe’ it makes little if no sense to accept it as a truth, without first determining if you yourself hold that premise.

Without personalization through interpretation religion is nothing more than a fact. But religion isn’t a fact. When religion is adopted as a fact ad hoc someone elses reasoning it leads to a misrepresentation of the sincere belief that is required for successful adoption. This is the fundamental problem of how we approach spiritual development in our societies, we teach as fact rather than inspire individual development.

Imbroglio religious belief, belief that is disconnected from what would be considered its ‘true spiritual element’, is the natural occurrence of mass producing an individualistic belief for a society in an attempt to spread its merits. The merits are inevitably lost in the drone of mass consumption.

I was watching the documentary ‘for the BIBLE tells me so’ the other day. It was a very interesting film and although the focus was on homosexuality, what was the most interesting point to me was the underlying point focused on the correct way to read the bible (or religious texts for that matter).

When I speak to people of religion, spirituality, personal belief, or whatever you want to call it; I often am taken back by the blatant claims of these people who ‘know’ their religion.

My basic belief and personal assessment is that 95% of people that claim to be christian, buddhist, hindu, or of any sort of spiritual or religious belief aren’t. There is a basic teaching which I learned through my education which I think all religious practitioners should keep in mind is that you never take religious teachings out of context of time, and that you never rip individual lines out of the context of the base message.

There was an amazing line in the film by Reverend Dr. Laurence C. Keene. Keene said that when people came up to him saying “Listen I’ve read the bible I know what it means.” he has responded with the line “That is not what the bible says it is what it reads.”

This is an astronomically important point that the video below drives home (this excerpt was also in the film). Religious text is not suppose to be taken literally it requires individual translation and interpretation. Unfortunately this interpretation needs to be done by people who know how to do it.

The Two Golden Rules (of spiritual and religious text translation):

I recently received this through my ‘Tricycle Daily Dharma’ update and thought it was of relevance to one of my previous posts and would as well be of interest to my readers.

The Responsibility of Kindness

From the Dalai Lama’s “Nobel Peace Prize Lecture,” in The Dalai Lama: A Policy of Kindness

As many of you may remember, I previously talked about what I called the ‘Lazy Man’s Sophism’. It covered the idea that every individual has a responsibility towards change, and that at the same time every individual caused and influenced change.

Its very important to acknowledge this principle. We often as people make excuses for ourselves and our completely inconsistent with reality.

Anyhow I really can’t say it any better without being completely redundant. I just hope that you find this quote as interesting and insightful as I do (the Dalai Lama is the shiz-nit :D)!

To see my previous article entitled ‘The Lazy Man’s Sophism’ click here.

To sign up for Tricycle’s Daily Dharma click here.

Since I initially started planning to get tattoos, and since I have gotten tattoos I have been approached by many people with various questions.

The questions in general have all been focused on this train of thought:

‘Isn’t it contradictory to be a buddhist and get a tattoo?‘

I felt it would be useful for me to explain here how and why I got my tattoos, and as well how as a buddhist I feel these tattoos are justified! I hope that this will be of interest and perhaps use to other individuals planning on getting tattoos be they buddhist or not.

First to get the dogma of buddhism out of the way. In some forms of buddhism, such as Therevada, you are not allowed to get tattoos if you are a monk, an you are not allowed to become a monk if you are tattooed. However in some other branches of buddhism you are. Overall there is no holistic view in buddhism about tattoos, so lots of your decision, if you are a buddhist, would have to be based on this categorical classification (ie what type of buddhist you are).

But, more importantly, what really is a tattoo and why would buddhism reject it?

A main concern of buddhism is the heavy weight of attachment. Attachment in all its forms is to be avoided. In such a manner we are instructed as buddhists to control our desires, and realize that in essence our desires are a self constructed delusion.

Tattoos in general are ussually associated with pride and attachtment (after all isn’t a tattoo something that stays on you for life?). This is why most buddhists would object to the concept.

If I approach a buddhist and say ‘What do you think of me getting this tattoo?’ some may respond like ‘It’s not necessary/It’s pointless/You’re grasping/It’s a big attachment/ etc…’ But is this really justified?

As governs so much of our life intent is truly the determining factor in this situation (intent is also a teaching of the eight-fold path). What is my intent when I get my tattoo; is it out of pride, do I want to boast, am I compensating, am I grasping, do I really really just want it? If it is any of these past examples it would be against buddhism to get a tattoo (or rather it would be incompatible with being a good buddhist).

But my justifications were not of this sort. My tattoo was nothing intended to showcase to the external world, but rather I set it on myself as a reminder of my practice.

Right mindfulness and right concentration are two important elements of the eight-fold path, yet constantly in life we are distracted from our practice. I don’t mean to say that a tattoo would liberate us from practice, rather I would say a tattoo can assist us in practice. This is just as a meditation cushion can assist us in posture, and a tibetan singing bowl can assist us in clearing our mind.

A personal reminder to self I think is a very good reason to get a tattoo. If it sincerely helps my practice, and I believe it does, it is more than justified.

But really with my views aside, who else in buddhism would agree. For one I believe the current Dalai Lama would agree. After all he fosters the opinion that it is very important to practice/do what works best for you. And as well I agree the original Buddha would agree, after all the buddha himself was not one for strict rules and regulations.

So really what does this all mean? You’re most likely not contradicting any buddhist teaching (unless maybe you’re a monk) but regardless the governing factor is truly why you are getting the tattoo. And unfortunately, from a buddhist perspective, because I want to isn’t good enough.

On a quick side note something that was also of interest to me, is I had many buddhists hint at the concept that I shouldn’t be getting something permanent (as this goes against the teaching of impermeance). But in reality a tattoo is not permanent, nothing is permanent. As I grow and change, so does my tattoo. And when I no longer remain, nor will my tattoo. Really the misconception is with buddhists percieving that tattoo as permanent. And in such a sense, I think (interestingly enough) a tattoo, could be considered a metaphor for enlightened practice; as it requires time, care, and attention.

I thought it would be interesting to write about two little tidbits that most people are unaware of; the argument for why christians shouldn’t eat meat and the argument of why buddhists can.

First the more controversial one ‘CHRISTIANS DON”T EAT MEAT!!!’. The idea stems from the concept of what the perfect world was in the eyes of God (ie before sin was introduced by Adam). In this perfect world Adam was instructed by God to be the keeper of animals and to protect them, as so he didn’t kill them or eat them. It was his duty to name them, which some argue is a gesture of responsibility (ie by naming something you transform it from an it, to a being). When Adam and Eve (humanity) got rejected from the garden of eden (God’s paradise) because of the introduction of sin everything got shuffled. And as such humans started eating meat.

If God’s ideal world was one in which mankind didn’t eat animals and instead looked after them, then logically you’d think Christians would strive to do what God initially wanted before sin was introduced to the scene. The main objection to this theory is that, well, Jesus ate meat (supposedly… probably force fed it) and thus it seems as if christians would be justified in the action as well. Although the statement ‘Come on guys the son of God did it!!!’ is a strange form of peer pressure.

Now to buddhists eating meat. Most have heard how the current Dalai Lama eats meat occasionally. As so many have adopted his justification of it. The idea is that with buddhism its fine to eat meat, however its wrong to lead to the death of that animal. So, for example, this means you could eat unintentional road kill, you could eat animals that died from natural causes, or you could eat meat that was going to go to waste (heres where it gets tricky).

The problem with this concept, and the common objection, is that by eating meat in situations in which it would go to waste you are supporting the industry. For example in old school tibet if you were to walk in and buy meat from a butcher that was going bad, the butcher would be happy but as he knew you were a monk and due to the spiritual nature of tibet, he’d probably make sure to kill less next time. However in our society if you buy meat that is left over, it gives the message to the companies ‘Hey people bought our meat, lets keep on producing it.’ In such a manner you become responsible for the future death of animals due to your ‘vote’ for meat eating (unfortunately this is how capitalism works).

My personal assessment is that eating meat by 95% of people is immoral. The only way I feel you could consistently eat meat as a christian is if you somehow appreciate it even through you’re killing it for a snack (ie respect it as God’s creature; but respecting what you kill by most would seem an oxymoron). And the only way to eat meat as a buddhist consistently is if you can guarantee that you are not influencing the deaths of more animals (which is near impossible due to how easily people are influenced).

Its immoral as it just isn’t fair to the animal. However if you don’t care about such things as being nice and respectful to animals, I can’t really do much for you!

I felt it was important to create a brief post too explain why I maintain a buddhist spirituality. As religion and philosophy often don’t get along, credibility as a philosopher is often affected by their spiritual opinions.

Since I was a child I have had basic buddhist inclinations, and upon taking notice in such my parents bought me a book; I was given the book “Buddhism for Dummies” when I was 17-18. Despite the title it was a very interesting read (very organized), and what was more so interesting was that everything I read I already felt. I had a gut instinct, to say it crudely, that what buddhism purported was accurate and true in my life.

As so I began to apply more so basic teachings of buddhism in my life. I always kept in mind the eight-fold path and attempted to live my life in accordance with this.

My first lesson, once applying buddhist methods to my life, was just how many people out there felt they knew what buddhism was. My actions were commonly questioned in the ‘buddhist’ light of others (ie. ‘you can’t eat that’ ‘you’re not a buddhist you have possessions!’ etc…), in a sense this actually helped assist in my development as a philosopher (I had to argue a lot). I learnt quickly as well that spirituality is more misunderstand than advanced quantum physics in my opinion (okay…. maybe slight over exageration :D).

My fear, and the fear that I believe most educated religious practitioners hold, is that my belief will eventually overtake my rationality. That perhaps one day I might say “Well because Buddha said so…” in justification.

In light of this fear, I have always believed that one should find the religious view that they believe and, as well, that does teach what is right. A rightness that is defined externally from the religious texts. If someone finds something in their religion that justifies murder they should discard it (assuming it is wrong).

One thing I can say I have learnt about religion, (through experience, research, and study) is that true religious belief is malliable. It adapts to times and places, and it helps the believer. Without this flexiblity religion, just as any other belief, stagnates and dies. It becomes an archaic opinion that restricts individuals freedoms, it becomes a shackle of the human spirit chaining it down with small minded restrictions.

“Find what works for you” has been said many times by the current Dalai Lama. Always question your belief in a manner that assures it is being used correctly.

I guess my point is that, despite my religious views, I will always assert rationality before spirituality. However, I believe, true spirituality is ensnared with rationality.

I accept my beliefs in light of their acceptability. After all I’m not practicing a dead religion, it’s as alive as I let it be. In accordance with this I make sure to justify all my actions in a rational manner. Although spirituality does affect my actions, I admit, I hold my belief more like a compass and my rationality more like GPS.