The virtues of truth

This might remind one of psalm 1:11: "The mouth that lies shall kill the soul"
There is a thin line between deception, lies, and deceit. Is rendering a lie morally permissable? Does one have the moral right to conceal one's self from others? I feel that it is never good or permissable to falsify the truth for the sake of personal gain. One should always consider the heart when forced to make decisions that in the end will bring dishonor, for we all have  to answer to a higher power as well as to suffer  the consequences of karma.  In the text The Mahabharata; a battle of illusion  and the esence of deceit is played out as seen with Sakuni and Yudhisthira in the game of gambling, The prince forfeits all his wealth due to sakuni's cheating. Greed and envious way's  consumed Duryodhana all for the sake of  material wealth and personal gain.

I think it is interesting how the reading explains how negative mental states are experienced as pleasurable when universalized. I thought about how people in groups can watch a movie about something sad or experience something that creates a negative feeling, but the more people that know or the more it is talked about it is, or can be, turned into a positive experience or feeling.

The Art of Religion of Art

When searching for the definition of feeling, I came across about 20 different responses. They referred to the sensation of touch, the examination of sensitivity, and even an aspect of health and well being. Out of the definitions presented to me I chose 2. Feeling (n)- an emotional state or reaction;(v)-consider oneself to be in a particular state or exhibiting particular qualities.


Why am I talking about feelings you may ask? As I think back to our last class a major component of our discussion was tied to the correlation between art and religion and how each one projects a certain feeling from you. Gnoli highlights this fact:


"The successful imitation by the actor of the characters and their experiences is no doubt, Sankuka says, artificial and unreal, but is not realized to be so by the spectators, who forget the difference between the actors and the characters, and in the difference between the actors and the characters, and inferentially experience the mental state of the characters themselves."                XIX-Gnoli

After truly considering the two seemingly different entities, I ended up really uncovering more similarities. Both art and religion are forms of expression, whether it be separate or through each other. The two forms are also respected for the feelings that they evoke. It is in the presence of true art and religion that one can feel happy, sad, emotional, and nostalgic in one piece (or writing). The concept of beauty being in the eye of the beholder can be replaced with either art or religion and still be held plausible. These thoughts made me further consider the fact that each can be used within the other. Art can be used in the expression of religion and religion can be an inspiration to art.

As both an artist and a spiritual person, I find it fascinating to view this concept and really think about it. Sometimes I find it so difficult to understand how people can believe that everything does not have relation to each other. This cycle, in my personal opinion, is what has allowed the formation of the world that we live in today. I cannot exist without everything else in this world existing. The absence one thing in a sense is the absence of all things. We are products of not only our thoughts, actions and experiences but those of us around us as well. You disagree? If so, stop reading- your contradicting yourself.

Vimalakirti's Teachings

"The body is inert, like the earth; selfless, like water, lifeless, like fire; impersonal, like the wind; and nonsubstantial like space"- Vimalakirta Nirdesa Sutra (pg. 17)

This quote by Vimalakirti shows the concept of detachment to earthly tangible solid states. Just as the elements of earth occur, life itself occurs. The feeling of the wind being impersonal, it cannot be captured, recreated nor created by man in its truly natural state. This is the same of life and the body. Vimalakirti makes the concept of being void truth. Although you may be here, materially the body will decay and no longer appear. Knowing this, one must concentrate on being one with the body of the Tathagata to gain all that is needed to continue a great journey of Dharma. 

Different but Same

"Great Sage, in all these multitudes gathered here,
Who look upon your countenance with hearts sincere in faith,
Each being beholds the Victor, as if just before him.
This is a special quality of the Buddha.

Although the Lord speaks with but one voice,
Those present perceive that same voice differently,
And each understands in his own language according to his own needs.
This is a special quality of the Buddha." This passage taken from around page 9 of VIMALAKIRTI NIRDESA SUTRA stood out the most to me.


In religion its important to understand the teachings that are being taught to you but what's more important above all else is the ability to be able to teach. The ability to reach out to all walks of life from different backgrounds, languages, and ideologies and still be able to help them understand the same thing; unite them in a common goal which is reaching Enlightenment and Nirvana. (In this case)


There are so many things in this lifetime and world that divides us as humans, that exclude a certain group of people or make them feel less than. You have some people who teach a religion saying its for everyone and yet aren't able to reach a masses and translate/teach what they should be; they're too quick to close the door instead. But in this section of the Sutra it's claiming that each new Buddha is different, they look different, come from different background, and even speak a different language. All of this and yet they still manage to translate their teachings in the same way that will reach the people who need to be reached in a way that they will understand. The same way that includes everyone, that is meant to reach everyone even though they are all different themselves. That's powerful to me, the ability to be different and yet still speak the same language; to be separate but still come together.

I am my brothers keeper

I think it is interesting that when asked about his sickness, Vimalakirti says "my sickness comes from ignorance and the thirst for existence and it will last as long as do the sicknesses of all living beings." I feel that if everyone had this same mentality then the livelihood of people would be somewhat better than it is today, People now are selfish and do not care what is going on with the next person. Not saying we should be nosey, but how can one live a life of extreme wealth and privilege and not feel an aching in their heart when they see someone who is living the exact opposite, and not always by choice. I know Vimalakirti was not necessarily talking about ones quality of life, but it could be applied to this. The same with education, how is it okay that some get superior education, while others don't. There are extremes in all areas of life, healthcare, rights, jobs and pay...etc. If everyone cared about the equality of the world, and got the same "sickness" Vimalakirti  had,  a lot of problems would be alleviated. 

Questioning Ramayanas

 Love is an emotion that is beautiful to experience, yet the pain of love can peirce the hardest of hearts. Born of compassion with longing and desire, cruelty creeps out of the shadow's despite one's desire's, be led by  the heart and the paths of righteousness and your heart will not betray you. This is my summary of the beautiful and poetic love story of Rama & Sita in the Ramayanas.
"It is the ultimate tale about this hero, so tragically torn between love and a totalitarian notion of duty, or responsibility, or whatever else might fit into the elastic  but binding notion of a King's dharma."
This tale reinterates the notion and concept of Dharma and Karma, as it is a metaphor that teaches one that no matter what path you find yourself on in life always choose good as opposed to evil. Be faithful to your spirituality abide by the law through devotion and right relationships and in doing so in the end you will be richly rewarded.

Four Truths and No Self

My initial perspective of this text was like most Christian's, pessimistic in nature. However after careful reading i came to the realization that negative or not, it is reality. The four noble truths of suffering, birth, old age, sickness, and death. The fundamental concept is that pain is inevitable, everything is subject to change, therefore the Buddha prescribed a prescription for the fundamental problems of life. One must abstain from the cravings of worldly things, whether it is love or the love of material things,the desire's of the heart are dangerous to behold. The Buddhas prescription is a powerful mechanism to keep one from being ensnarled and entangled in a web of frustration and defeat in the essence of things being impermenant.
Pain is inevitable, regardless of your origin of religion. What i do know is that we are all seeking a release and escape from the pain's of life, whether one is a Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, etc...
The teachings of the Buddha thus states "that suffering its cause; its cessation, and the path to its cessation are realities which we fail to see as they are, and this is true for the Buddhist and non Buddhist". One may ask the question is it better to experience periods of pleasure in pursuit of our desires or to abstain for fear of  change or failure? Is this truly happiness? Or indeed a dose of medicine and cure for the problems of life?

Reason Based Exegesis 2/26

"One of the foremost proponents of reason-based exegesis was the Spanish Muslim philosopher, Ibn Rushd (d.595/1198). He argued that Islam addresses people of different intellectual and psychological capabilities, necessitating that the Qur’an be dealt with at different levels. Just as one person’s comprehension may differ from another’s, it is also possible that one person may be more comfortable with simple explanations while another may prefer to rely on complex, rational evidence."- 2008 Abdullah Saeed
 
When reading about Reason Based Exegesis I struggled with knowing what was acceptable because Reason based exegesis is challenged against tradition based exegesis. Using tradition as a tool of guidance keeps new ways of thinking about the Qu'ran at a standstill. While many scholars prefer tradition based, I feel that reason based is a better way to focus on the teachings of the Qu'ran. Reason based allows the seeker to view the teachings in a more personally applicable way. Some students may not see things in the same way and therefore reject the traditions. Traditions are the basis for understanding a culture and order, but after, reason based exegesis should then be allowed for further insight into living according to the Quran.

Without Knowledge, There is No Action

Here, the issue is whether knowledge is completely independent of the duties of the several stages of life or is somehow dependent ... Of course, knowledge is dependent on all the duties of the various stages of life, it is not completely independent ... Once it has emerged, [however] knowledge does not depend on anything else for the attainment of its fruit. But it is so dependent for its emergence ... Authoritative [though not sacred] texts too say this; for instance, ‘Action burns up impurities while (valid) cognition is the supreme goal. When action has burnt up impurities, (valid) cognition emerges.’30 

There is a quote from Fredrick Douglas that says "There is no progress without struggle." While this may seem unrelated, I translated it for the purpose of the blog to "without knowledge, there is no action." In our readings yesterday, we discussed Ram Prasad's Knowledge and Action. Within these readings, the correlation between the two are debated amongst the Kumārila and Śaṅkara traditions. While I will not be discussing these traditions in detail for this writing, I really would like to highlight the concept of this battle. 

As I was thinking of what exactly to write, I found myself continuously erasing and typing and erasing again. How do I discuss this epic battle? Is there a winner? I know these questions may seem silly when read out of context, but when I consider how these two sects look at these important virtues as a mean for living (for lack of better words) I don't understand how one could be more important than the other. In my own personal opinion I feel as if they are necessary for the other. Knowledge is... well I don't even know how to define it. I know it is a source of power and all but I can't even describe what I think it is. As far as action, I do believe that action cannot take place without knowledge, but at the same time knowledge cannot really happen without action.  Rereading this I find myself all over the place, but I guess this is the part of readers block or something along those lines.  

 

  

free post

Know Your Self.

"Both sides are agreed, as we will see, that knowledge of the self is required in 
any correctly religious life, that is, in any life oriented towards the attainment of the 
highest good."  The excerpt taken from page 101 of Indian Philosophy and the
Consequences of Knowledge was really important to me.

Within this article, the author is debating the who, what, when, where, and why of knowledge, and its relation to finding oneself in religion, from two main view points which are the Mīmāṃsakas and the Advaitins. This sentence above represented something that was so true and so relevant in today's times an that finding the knowledge of the self. While this is taken in religious terms, to me finding out who you are can relate to anybody and I am evaluating this phrase in that regard.

I've seen some many children in middle school or younger who just seem so lost because they have no idea as to who they are or who they are supposed to be. All they know is what their elder's tell them, their guardians, teachers, environment and even other friends. They watch all these shows, and listen to all this music and all that new knowledge gets absorbed into their brains that they are convinced that this is them. That how they are being portrayed must be how they are supposed to behave. But what's heartbreaking the most is when I hear stories of counselors in high school telling the same kids that they shouldn't even apply to a Uni or college because they won't get in. That they should focus on sports, or not major in Biology or Mathematics because it's too hard.

Some of these same kids grow older, wondering the world aimlessly until they become adults who are still confused as to their placement on Earth or what they are supposed to be doing. But no matter what is that they are supposed to be doing it starts with them finding out who they are and not who other's seem them as. There's a big difference between the two and it all starts with the self. At least to me that's why this phrase was so important because we all need to find ourselves, to know ourselves, and then later on use that knowledge to better enhance our paths to our 'higher goods.'