The Essence of Religion

Whoever lives their life rightly experiences sorrow not as a problem, but as joy.
That's so hard to live by. Problems in their current state are named "problems" because that is what they are, or else they would be named "joyfulness". I don't necessarily enjoy having problems, but I do enjoy having joy. I guess by turning my problems into joy, then I can make my own joy. But then again. They just wouldn't be problems anymore. Wittgenstein seems to be able to grasp this concept better than I can.
It just seems like if I get in a car accident, I'm going to say "This sucks" as opposed to saying "Oh, What joy!" and even after the fact, looking back... I think I still would have preferred to have not gotten into the car accident at all, as opposed to having to deal with the PROBLEM of it all.
It would be nice to achieve a state of oblivion though. To where there are no worries or concerns, except for to satisfy the hunger of your belly. But then again, what kind of life is that? With no spontaneity. I might die.

Bakhya Ibn Pakuda

This reading made me think about our discussion in class today. About God existing despite the evil and sorrow in the world. How can this be? There is a sentence here that says that "if he afflicts her, she suffers patiently, and her love for him only grows." It's something I don't really understand. If I were afflicted, I doubt if I would love the person who harmed me even more. Unless of course it was for my good. Like- my tooth was getting work on it, because it had a cavity. But even then, I rarely fall in love with my dentist.
There was a point made in class today about how we can't really appreciate the good without the evil being present. And then it was rebutted that we just wouldn't know any different, but would instead feel the good all the time. But what about being able to appreciate the good without the evil anyways? For example, if we are outside in our California heat, sometimes it is unbearable. And then a wind blows. We know that it is good. And we appreciate it. Or a baby's cry isn't evil, but just a way of saying "Feed Me" or "Love Me" or "Hold Me", but despite it NOT being evil, we are made to appreciate when the baby laughs.

What is Unworthy of Our Desire?

What I liked about Hinduism was how it embraces man as he is. If you seek material things...go ahead and get them, if you want pleasure, find a way to please yourself, whatever you desire and whatever makes you happy, you should go after. Granted the catch is that eventually you will find that what makes you happy isn't material things, or sex, or anything else of the world, but instead it is doing good works and the relationships you have with people. When Hugh talks about how a man descends from the dignity of his natural condition to what is unworthy of his desire when he desires visible things, I can't necessarily agree with him.
Does he believe that we are born pure and then we come into sin? Or does he believe that we are born sinners, and must deny ourselves? Or neither of these?
But it can't really be all that healthy to continuously feel like we are degraded because we desire things that we see here on Earth. Isn't that only natural? Should I feel like a horrid person because I want a new laptop, or the cute dress I saw at the store the other day, or because I want a nice house one day and an attractive husband...?
All of those are transitory and perishable.

Perhaps All Dragons Are Princesses

When I began reading the excerpt by Rilke, at first I thought that it was pretty pointless when she wrote of "The Experience" of a boy becoming one with the nature surrounding him. I still don't understand the point of it, and I don't think that that is possible. Or that if it is, then it can only exist for a very short period of time, so why dwell on it? If it can't be something to strive for. You just fall into it, sporadically.

I can relate a little better to some of her other thoughts about how loving another human being is the most difficult task entrusted to us, or when she teaches that we should "have patience with everything unresolved in our hearts and try to love the questions themselves"

I really enjoyed when she wrote about how we view life. She says that if our world has terrors, or dangers, or fears, it isn't against US, but instead they are our own self made terrors, and our own dangers and our own fears. In reality, we make our world. However we choose to perceive things and react to things is how we define ourselves.

All the World Was Mine

Thomas Traherne ends this excerpt by riveting back to a time when he was a child. He brings us into his perspective on how he viewed the world the first time, and could not see fault. How can you see fault, when there is nothing to compare with? The world was all his, and he viewed everything as spotless, pure, and glorious. He didn't know of sins, complaints, laws, vices, guilt, tears, or quarrels; instead, all he saw was joyful and precious. How sweet it must be to see something for the first time, untainted, unblemished, and seemingly pure to the beholder. Is this how God views us?
Perhaps when he views us, he sees us as we are: perfect. He made us this way, in our proper place, and our specific image, and we work best in this image of ourselves. I wonder if we will every learn to desire objects, and people so perfectly, that we can't desire them any other way.
I'd like to believe that this is what marriage will look like.
But yet again, it seems to be unrealistic.

Guilty of Polytheism

Abu Sa'id Ibn AbiL-Khayr.
What a mouthful.
This guy most likely believes in predestination. Which is cool, if that's what you want to believe.
He seems to think that everything is through God. Whether it be actions, thoughts, discoveries, realizations...
Basically, to sum it up, we are helpless. And when we can behold our helplessness is when we will have our desires fall away from us, and we will be free and calm. This is when we will desire what God desires.
I don't know if I buy all of this. I doubt that man will ever desire only what God desires. Isn't there the eternal struggle between the flesh and the spirit? Characteristically, as humans, we seem to be programmed towards our own desires. And though we say that we desire what God desires, I don't know if there is ever complete truth in this. And how can we ever know every one of God's desires?

I liked how he told us that if we wished to draw near to God, then we must seek him in the hearts of men. Hopefully each person contains some sort of holiness within their hearts.

Novalis

There is not much to work with here, because it is such a short reading, but here are my thoughts nonetheless...
When Novalis states how "philosophy is really homesickness", I can wrap my mind around this concept. Philosophy is defined as 1) a belief accepted as authoritative, or 2) the rational investigation of questions about existence and knowledge and ethics, or 3) any personal belief about how to live or how to deal with a situation. Any of these definitions suffice in helping to understand why you could replace the definition with homesickness. All that philosophy is looking for is a comfort area, what you can hold to, something that is real and true to you...something similar to home. We desire an innate feeling of goodness, along with familiarity to be able to cope with life. Philosophy is just how you find this for yourself. And then it is labeled.
When he says that "when we understand how to love one thing-then we also understand how best to love everything", I don't know if I particularly agree. When we are small, we understand how to love mom, but we do not understand how to best love everything else. In fact, the world is pretty damn scary. Or let's take the example of having a "first love". When I had my first love, I understood how to love that person, and granted, it did teach me a lot about love, and the different concepts and ideals included in that one word, but I don't think that I understood then how best to love everything....rather, I understood more that everything thrived off of this amazing thing called love.

Shadow of Desire

William Blake has amazing insight. There is so much to digest in his excerpt.
He negates all preconceived notions of Good and Bad, God and Satan. Instead we are enlightened with this new knowledge of how maybe these opposing forces are really one, and we have viewed everything backwards and upside-down all of our lives.
We are told that the Soul and Body are not separate, but instead are one, intertwined. And that Energy (which is correlated with Satan) is the only life and is from the Body, and that Reason (which is correlated with God) is the outward circumference of Energy.
We are told that we should not restrain our desires, and he writes some of the Proverbs that he collected from Hell...
Some of which I really enjoyed:
Everything possible to be believed is an image of truth.
Eternity is in love with the productions of time.
No bird soars too high, if he soars with his own wings.
Shame is Pride's cloke.

It seems that we fall back on the recurring theme of looking outside your box. If we do so, then we will see that everything is infinite.
Having the opposing forces of good and evil be called one and the same is a little difficult to grasp, but if we believe that evil exists, it is only because we have the good to compare it to. Kind of like when Blake turned the Heaven/Hell existance around on us, and put it in Satan's perspective. Where Satan said that God was the one that "fell" out of their Paradise, and that God then created from what was around him a place that he labeled "Heaven".

The Philosophy of Love

This excerpt is written by a Mantinean woman named Diotima to Socrates. She attempts to reveal true beauty while showing him how to find it himself.
I don't necessarily know if love and beauty are synonymous words. I believe that we can love beauty, but can beauty make love? Love can make beauty. Where there is love there is beauty, without a doubt. But where there is beauty, there is not always love. Either way, Plato writes that Diotima says that "the quest for universal beauty must find a man ever mounting the heavenly ladder, starting from the individual beauties, from bodily beauty to the beauty of institutions, from institutions to learning, and from learning in general to the special lore that pertains to nothing but the beautiful itself."
I wonder what it would be like to gaze on beauty's very self, as she puts it, unsullied, unalloyed, and freed from the mortal taint that haunts the frailer loveliness of flesh and blood. We are only accustomed to the humanly love that we have experienced here on Earth, is this all we know, and can we know more?
The next part of this reading is a conversation between Socrates and Phaedrus, where Socrates lift up a charming prayer, asking to be granted beauty from within and requesting that whatever outward things that he have may be in harmony with the spirit inside of him.
It has been said that Socrates was quite hideous. If only his inside was reflected on the outside, then perhaps this prayer would ring true, and his physical appearance would cease it's ugliness.

Watching God With God's Eyes

The Hermetic Writings resemble some of the past readings that we have done. I like this style of thought, where God is here, God is there, God is everywhere. God made all things so that through all things we can see him. Through all emotions, of love, hate, jealousy, joy, sorrow, gladness, through all objects, pencil, shirt, hairspray, plate, we see God. I think that everyone has the ability to view God-what is different is the perception in which they choose to view Him. Whether it is a Him at all. We each choose to see God in our own way, whether it be a nonGod, whether it be an almighty God, or even if it is our very own soul that we bow down to...something is acknowledged. This passage says that we should realize that othing is impossible, and recognize that we are immortaland can embrae all things in your mind. We are told that we can perceive God everywhere, in all times and places, all substances and qualities and magnitudes.
So if this is to be held true, why do people spend (or waste) their entire lives searching for God, when in reality, He is everywhere and everything?

The Ocean Diver Doesn't Need Snowshoes

Jason was right. I’m addicted to Rumi.
Here’s a side note…When I was studying abroad in Argentina last semester, I frequented a boliche (discoteca/nightclub) called Rumi. Who knows- maybe the Argentine’s knew a little something-something about Islamic Sufiism poets.
Anyways, this guy has some neat shit to say.
I’ll begin with his conversation with an embryo. Yes, you read that right. An embryo! ?
But it makes perfect sense- how are we to describe the world outside an embryo to it, when it can’t even fathom it, since all it knows is what it has experienced? It is content to stay cooped up in the dark with its eyes closed.
Is that how I am?
Do I know no more than what is available for me to experience, so I am content with it, not knowing that there is more than “it” out there?
Another scenario that Rumi gives to us is with a Friend who knocks on a door, and claims that “It’s me” and is refused entrance because he is raw meat. He then returns much later cooked, and is gained entrance in the house. He claims that “It’s you”, and the person within welcomes their self. What does this mean? Maybe that once we become one with God then we may enter Him- I’m not too sure.
During another part of this passage, where God is rebuking Moses for reprimanding a worshiper on the way that he praised God, we are told that God looks inside at the humility. Ways of worshipping are not to be ranked as better or worse than one another; it’s not god that’s glorified in acts of worship, it’s the worshiper. All that God is seeking is a burning. BURNING (as Rumi emphasizes). He wants lovers who burn.
And there was one more part that was very inspirational to me. This was about a loaf of bread. To men see a loaf of bread. One has not eaten for ten days, and the other is quite full. The full man sees the shape of the loaf, whereas the other man sees inside of it to the taste.
I want to see the taste.

The Perception of Beauty is a Delight in Itself

What Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali describes in his excerpt is delightful. He claims that all joy is loved, and that where beauty is perceived it is natural to love it. And if God is beauty, he must be loved by those to whom his beauty and majesty are revealed. Our soul can attain eternal life and become Godlike through knowledge and love.
I really like the concepts of perseverance, strength, vulnerability, having aspirations, hope, enjoying every moment of life, but I think passion and love are behind each of those. One day perhaps I’ll be able to think up some magnificent tattoo that can incorporate an expression of this. Al-Ghazali defines passion for me: “Love, when it has grown strong and overwhelming, is called passion, which is love firmly established and limitless.” Some people view passion as something that doesn’t last- primarily in relationships. They are under the misconception that there is passion in the beginning of the relationship, yet it cannot continue. Al-Ghazali’s prior enlightened words directly contradict that and claims that passion has no limits and can be firmly established. I like to believe that this statement holds some truth in it.

Cloud of Unknowing

Kind of like how Taoist’s would believe, this passage declares that we are to do nothing. We are to remain unknowing. We are best if we have a cloud of unknowing between us and God, and a cloud of forgetting between us and all of the creatures made. “This is the lightest work of all…But it is hard, and a miracle if you can do it.”
I’d have to agree when he states that “you feel in your will a naked intent toward God.” This is obviously true, since almost every formed and unformed society has attempted to acknowledge or create a higher being to be in control of their lives. Whether there is only one higher being, or multiple, or if the higher being is within, or just resides in nature, humans continue to acknowledge it.
The author in this passage urges us to seek God through the darkness that we are in, only by dwelling on Him and nothing more. Thinking will not bring us to behold him, but only pure love has the ability to smite the thick cloud of unknowing. If we work hard at doing nothing for God’s love and have a desire to have God, then it is better than wrestling with a blind nothing.

I don’t think that this way of thinking has much impact on Christians of our time. People are so preoccupied with their appearance of being “spiritual” or “religious”, and don’t even realize that they have corrupted those words to leave a bitter taste in our mouths. Instead of being still, and knowing that He is God, they are so busy running around proving that they have good works to accompany their faith, and that they can save souls and clear a path to Heaven.
Jason made a statement in class today, about how Christians would not be believers if they found that the resurrection of Christ was false. Isn’t that a bit sad- that all of Jesus’ good teachings and moral standards aren’t enough for being to believe. Blind faith doesn’t seem to exist. In reality, if humans were to be told that there was no Heaven, and if in reality, there was no Heaven…would people have a religion still?

In Gazing Upon His Own Purity, He Will See the Archetype Within the Image

For some reason I can’t seem to get into the Christian teachings. I think it’s because I’m just so familiar with them. I want to learn more about other religions and their beliefs and dig deeper into understanding those. Because of this, I leaned more towards the excerpts that allowed me to generalize “A God” as opposed to God- The Father, of Christians.
Gregory of Nyssa seems to incorporate the idea of the God being within us. All we must do is seek within ourselves, and we will find what we are seeking. I like to believe this. I like to think that each of us has this innate goodness, call it what you want- God, virtue, purity, etc.-either way, what we ultimately seek and will find by searching ourselves is this.
He says that we cannot gain any knowledge of our nature by looking to others, or by searching the substances that have been created. But we can look into the artistic skill that has been impressed in the works that have been created.
So to understand this…I am to understand that I will not comprehend this God by looking to others, or by looking to the Bible or Mother Mary, but that I will find this God by looking at the love that went into the creation of Bible and Mary and people in general. This is a concept that seems easy, but I’m finding so hard to put into words.
We are told that when God made me, he endowed my nature with the perfection of his own nature, but that I must cleanse myself from any wickedness that I have let accumulate upon myself. And that when I can see from the eye of my soul, then I “will see clearly within the pure brilliance of my own heart.” Which will be purity, holiness, simplicity, and other brilliant reflections of the nature of God.

Furious Monkeys vs. Delighted Monkeys at "Three in the Morning"

Chuang-Tzu is quite a character. Even when the author introduces his passage, he warns us that “he tilts like the great earth itself, spinning in empty space.”

In the beginning of the reading, I was lost without a doubt…until I was informed that Chuang-Tzu was making fun of the people who thought of themselves as intellectuals, saying things that initially didn’t make sense to anyone. But he shows his true colors when he admits that the best thing to use is clarity.
I’m still a bit hesitant on some of the insights that he tries to explain to the reader, such as; using a horse to show that a horse is not a horse isn’t as good as using a non-horse to show that a horse is not a horse. Or when he says how “there is nothing in the world bigger than the tip of an autumn hair” and “no one has lived longer than a dead child”.
But when he brings something to my attention that I can relate to- he isn’t joking around.

“How do I know that the dead do not wonder why they ever longed for life?”
^Wow.

That just makes me want to experience death, and find out if when I try to be satisfied with this life and avoid death, I am in reality making a big error? Seriously, How are we do know that loving life is not a delusion? There is NO answer. How frustrating. All we can do is wonder at our life. But then again, Chuang-Tzu tells us that the True Man of ancient times knew nothing of loving life, and knew nothing of hating death. Does this mean, that to model the True Man (of ancient times) I must learn how to know nothing. Apparently he “emerged without delight”, which makes me think that expressing emotions is not part of the True Man’s nature.
But then MY very own nature goes against that. There have been many times have I wished that I could make myself numb, and without emotion, but in reality, it’s because of all of these emotions that I find joy in life, and I find passion in my life.
I am encouraged slightly to find that the True Man of ancient times didn’t rebel against want, and could commit an error and not regret it. And also that “he received something and took pleasure in it”, but then again… he also “forgot about it and handed it back again.”

This self-denial/self-acceptance, be who you are/ don’t be anyone, breathing with your heels type of life is rather difficult to grasp.

Don’t do to others what you wouldn’t want done to you

Tzu-Ssu teaches about Tao. He says that the fulfillment of human nature is called the Tao, and that the cultivation of the Tao is called true learning. He speaks of the mature person and of the sincere person. The mature person pays attention to what is happening in his/her inmost self. In a persons inmost self , he/she will find sincerity. And this will be valued above all things if the person is a mature person. His definition of a sincere person is one who “does the right thing without trying, understands truth without thinking, and acts always in keeping with the Tao.”

He gives a lot of credit to man. He assumes that every man/woman is inherently good inside. He even says that humanity and understanding are innately in our nature, and that in fulfilling ones own nature, one can fulfill the nature of other people.

Tzu-Ssu uses an analogy out of The Book of Songs: “When you carve an axe handle, the model is near at hand”. This is true, for when you carve an axe, you are using an axe to do it. But the real truth lies in the application of this to humans. When we deal with people, we already have the perfect model of behavior inside us. We are told to “Just act sincerely, in accordance with your true nature.”

I find that there are many similarities between Taoism and Buddhism. These philosophers seem to have faith that a person only needs to look within to seek anything that is.

Winter: The Past of Spring

I really enjoyed the reading by Dōgen. I suppose that is why people choose their passage to write on though-because they enjoyed it. One day I’ll choose one that I absolutely didn’t like at all. If I can find one!
First of all, Dōgen defines an ordinary person as one who is deluded in the midst of enlightenment. He says that to be enlightened about delusion is to be a Buddha.
Pretty enlightening, huh?
I like citing the examples that are used, and Dōgen uses a really good one. He says that “if we watch the shore from a boat, it seems that the shore is moving. But when we watch the boat directly, we know it is the boat that is moving.” This is our lives. We are not permanent, though we may think that we are.
He shares with us about how there is the past and there is the future, but the present is independent of them. In the present state what I am typing on is a keyboard, in the past it was pieces of plastic and metal, and in the future it will be recycled? Or buried and decaying? I’m not too sure…but I am pretty sure that it won’t be a keyboard forever.
One of my favorite books is Slaughter-house Five by Kurt Vonnegut. It’s been such a long time since I’ve read it, but I still remember how the “aliens” were describing their view on time and eternity to the main character. Time to them was like a mountain range, extending forever in both directions. You can point at a spot and call it the present, but just as soon as you say that, then it’s not the present anymore, it is the past. Time was just a concept to them.

But it seems that Dōgen taught mainly about focusing on finding truth within yourself, and not being led to it through any other means.

How to Use a Raft

Although I keep trying to look at each religion that we study through objective lenses, I find myself basing my opinion of them on my past experiences and my own upbringing. I judge whether a religion is worthy of being followed, or just a waste of time. However, since we’ve been studying a bit on Hinduism, Judaism, and now Buddhism, once I put myself in the shoes of a believer, I can’t seem to disapprove of the religion. There is lots of good merit to each one, and truth to be found immersed all throughout them.
For the reading about the Buddha, I find that I relate it a lot to what we have learned of Hinduism. It appears that clarity of mind and a sense of peace is honored above all else. Buddha seems to make it very simple for us by telling us that we can lead ourselves. Within ourselves is what we are looking for. “Be your own confidence.” He gives us an analogy of a man who uses a raft. If the man is reasonable, he will realize that it has been very useful to him in crossing the river and will leave the raft behind, as opposed to taking the raft (after he has used it to serve its purpose) and walking with it on his head wherever he goes.
I would think that this is what humans tend to do in their lives. I know I have. For example: Two years ago I was at the beginning stage in my relationship with a boyfriend I had- my outlook on relationships was different. Now that the relationship has ended, I have learned to have a different outlook on relationships, but I still find myself giving advice based upon the last feelings in the relationship. I know that the relationship served its purpose for the time that it lasted, and now that it is over, I don’t know if I should necessarily be so stubborn in my thought-processes. Instead of dragging that raft all over the place with me, perhaps I should open my mind to have another attitude towards relationships.

The Goal of Wisdom is Laughter and Play

I like this Philo character.
He believes that people are ultimately good. Just like God is good. He believes that God “alone rejoices, he alone feels delight, he alone is happy, he alone enjoys absolute peace; he has no grief or fear, is free of any evil or pain, and lives in eternal bliss.” I’m not quite sure I believe all of this, but it makes for a nice picture of God. Even if, while you’re struggling, and upset, and depressed or sad, you don’t have a God available who can relate to you, because He just has a smile on His face all the time, and pure happiness in His heart. If only He would have modeled us to be more like Him…Shucks!
Philo seems to think that we are made in His image though. He declares that “the face of a wise man is…radiant and serene, filled with a vast delight”. And that “the goal of wisdom is laughter and play”.
Don’t get me wrong, I love laughter. I’d love to become laughter itself, like Philo says I would be if I were wise. I think that it is very wise to laugh a lot, since it is a portrayal of a glad heart, and an easy mind. Do the wise men that you know laugh a lot? I know a few…however; the majority of the wise people I know generally reflect other qualities before they laugh away. They tend to be more silent and contemplative-thinking before speaking. They tend to be analytical, well-learned, slow to anger, and understanding of many things.
While I think Philo has a great outlook on life in general, I don’t necessarily know how realistic it is.

Rebellion Predestined

Throughout the passages from the Bible, I found there to be some contradiction.
Today in one of my History classes, my professor said something that I had never really thought about before. She explained how Islam believes the Koran to be the unaltered Word of God, whereas the Bible is just the inspired word of God. Humans put their own twist and interpretation on all of the books of the Bible, however in the Koran it is just God speaking to humans. Pretty enlightening if you think about it.
Out of our reading from The Bible, I wonder how it is that Jacob was able to “see God face to face” and have survived. Doesn’t it also say in the Bible that no one can see God’s face, and even that he is all powerful. If so, how can a man wrestle with God and win? This makes no sense to me. Another excerpt says: “I form light and create darkness; I make peace and create evil.” How can the Jewish God create evil, when He is supposed to be everything that is good. Or better yet, why did he create evil? Weren’t humans created for the purpose of worshipping Him? He basically predestined our rebellion against Him, by creating this evil.
Yet another passage says, “You have hidden the truth in darkness”-why would God hide the truth? But directly before that, there is an extract that declares that “No longer does a man need to teach his brother about God. For all of you know Me, from the most ignorant to the most learned, from the poorest to the most powerful.” How does a man know God, if God’s truth is hiding from us in the darkness?
I have all of these questions about this religious book that I was brought up to think was without fault. You would think that this one book-the Bible would have continuity throughout it, as opposed to contradicting itself.

Wear Shoes

This passage provided lots of insight that was easier for me to follow than the previous passages assigned for reading.

Ramana Maharshi discusses reality.

He states that we continue our habit of regarding that which is unreal as real. But what do we regard as unreal? I don't think he is talking about anything tangible, so to grasp this concept is a bit difficult. However, we are told that when we stop regarding the unreal as real, is when reality alone will remain, and we will be that.

Good to know that we are reality when it's all said and done.


To be able to have the mind happy makes it so that the whole world will be happy. How do you find out how to become happy yourself though? Is it as simple as making a decision to have that kind of attitude? Or must you have experienced certain circumstances in order to qualify for this state of mind?

I really enjoyed Maharshi's analogy where he says "Wanting to reform the world without discovering one's true self is like trying to cover the whole world with leather to avoid the pain of walking on stones and thorns. It is much simples to wear shoes." He seems to almost imply that we must walk on some stones and thorns in order to reform the world. Just like we must discover our true selves if we want to cover the whole world with leather- no, I'm only kidding. But, in reality, we can't expect to be able to help others when it is ourselves who need to be helped first. If I understood it at all…

So figure out who you are, break free from life's sorrow, lose the ego, and just accept that we need not seek reality, because we are reality.

Water can't feel thirsty.

Supposedly.

How Strange and Marvelous!

Padmasambhava.

The first passage in this reading from The Tibetan Book of the Dead didn't capture much interest from me, mostly because I can't relate to being on a deathbed with spiritual people whispering in my ear... However I like the thought of the female Buddha Samantabhadri (Dharmata) and the male Buddha Samantabhadra being inseparable. The former is symbolized through a state of mind that is pure emptiness, and the latter is symbolized through a state of mind that is unobstructed, sparkling, pure and vibrant. We are told that ultimately, a great light is formed. The second passage from The Book of the Great Liberation proved to be a little more enlightening for me. We are given the definition of the mind in its true state: "naked, immaculate, transparent, empty, timeless, uncreated, unimpeded; not realizable as a separate thing, but as the unity of all things, yet not composed of them; undifferentiated, self-radiant, indivisible, and without qualities." It would be a true accomplishment to be able to succumb your state of mind to be able to fit this definition.
For me, I'd have to admit that I'm still in the Samsara stage- but not in a bad way. I have learned peace, but I still think that what I want is to enjoy MY life here, through friendships, monetary accumulation, being merry/fiestas, traveling...but I have learned to appreciate each stage of life, whether it be sorrow, joy, anger, bitterness, happiness, etc. (although I'm not always successful) Despite my attempts to attain this ultimate peace that we are learning of (which I assume everyone naturally desires) I still find myself preoccupied with things that really don't matter in the universal perspective.

"It is only because of deluded ideas, which you are fee to accept or reject, that you wander in the world of Samsara."

Seeing Through Lenses of Greed

So I’m not entirely too sure if Jason wants 300-600 words per blog, or if it’s 300-600 words for the both of the blogs that are required for the week…
So, whoever out there that reads this, will be stuck reading more than (s)he may want to. Oh well!


Chief Seattle represents his fellow Native American’s very well. He is calm, peaceful, retrospective, and contemplative. Not only does he admit tactfully how the Native American’s are dwindling out of existence due to the White Man, but he seems to have accepted it in his own heart. However, this acceptance doesn’t give him the liberty of seeing the way that a White Man see’s- through his Greed. Chief Seattle remains innocent in his perspective of the different religion and lifestyle between the Native American’s and the White Man. He states very matter-of-factually, “Your God is prejudiced. The White Man’s God cannot love his red children or he would protect him.” And it’s true. How could the White Man expect to come introduce their God to these people after having shown with their actions how selfish and inconsiderate of a people they were. What kind of God would govern such a people as the White Man? So, after taking all of the Native American’s territory, their women, their food, and even lives, after having introduced disease where there was none before and trampling on the peace and friendship offered to them readily, how dare the White Man come into their house and home to try to tell them that they know about a better God who will show them how to lead happy lives?!?! Shoot, I’m glad that Chief Seattle wasn’t me, or I’d obviously not be so kind towards the White Man.


The Chief ends by saying that “Dead have power and White Man will never be alone”. Their belief in all of the spirits is deep-rooted, and perhaps this is where their peaceful nature comes in. Plus, ultimately, if you thought that you had the ability to have an eternity of revenge on the people that ruined your existence through your dead spirit, then wouldn’t you be more peaceful with your current trials as well?

The offering of a sincere heart

After reading Sa-go-ye-wat-ha’s heart rendering speech, I couldn’t help but to have gained a little bit of insight. What struck me the most was when he declared that the Seneca Indians believe that forms of worship do not matter to the Great Spirit, but what really pleases him is the offering of a sincere heart. This is something that I have been questioning recently, having grown up in a Christian household, I was fed Scripture and led to believe everything that was in the Bible. Of course, as we get older and our innocence fades, we become more doubtful about the faith that we thought that we once had. Or at least, I have become this way…I just recently wrote an email to one of my girlfriends from high school:


“I don't know if I can believe that God would be so ruthless with his ultimatum: to get to Heaven you must confess with your mouth that Jesus is the Son of God and believe in your heart that He died for your sins. Let's say that Jesus was/is the Son of God (and not just a prophet like some religions believe Him to be) then that would mean that EVERYONE else who doesn't believe this goes to H-E-double-hockey-sticks. So all of the people who have never even heard of Jesus before, go to hell. All the unborn children, all the mentally retarded people... or is there an age of consciousness, an age of decision-making capabilities? What about a perfectly able deaf woman, who isn't able to receive the message of Jesus, despite the fact that those around her have, because there is no way of communicating it to her, she dies and goes to hell? shouldn't that be God's fault, because His Holy Spirit failed to enter her and perform a miracle to show her "the light"? Or for example, let's say from a Muslim perspective. They believe in the SAME God, and were brought up in their religion and faith, believing that their activities are sanctioned by God, in their heart they have followed Him faithfully. Yet they go to hell? According to Islam, I'm going to Hell. I've had the opportunity to hear about other religions and other Gods, but because I don’t accept the other religions then, according to them, I am to go to hell. So who am I to condemn an Islamic man or woman who doesn't accept my religion because of the way they were brought up, just as I don't accept theirs....

Is there a "right" and "wrong" belief? Some of us really do believe in the same God, with differences of course. I want to believe that God looks at our hearts, but then the Bible says that good intentions don't get us anywhere (especially not Heaven) but isn't that what we're all about? I have good intentions in my faith and in my followings of Christ, just like a Jew has good intentions while (s)he is trusting in God as well.”


I believe in love. I believe that love is the strongest thing, power, out there. And if there is a God, I would want to think that He’s a God of love, but proof shows me otherwise. There is love, but there is only love for “His children”, and the rest are condemned to hell. So I suppose that instead of having God as my source of love, I would have to admit that Love is my source of God. Perhaps the only religion that has peace with their God and believes in a “Great Spirit” who only looks at a persons heart are the Native American’s. If so, sign me up.