Bono calls The Edge a "Zen Presbyterian." I've read quotations from the Dalai Lama. I've heard of the eight-fold path, and the path to enlightenment. I'm the first to call Karma a mean bitch. But I really didn't have a good idea of what Buddhism is. And it kept cropping up in things I was reading, in conversations with multiple people. So I decided I needed to know a little more.
I read two books together for my introduction to Buddhism. The first, Buddhism for Beginners by Thubten Chodron, provides an overview of Buddhism, its tenets, and its methodology in the form of questions and answers. I found it to be straightforward, presenting sometimes abstract ideas in language that is easy to understand. From an overview of Buddhism to how to practice and how to treat ones Buddhist teachers, this book provides a solid overview without trying to indoctrinate.
The second book I read is How to Practice the Way to a Meaningful Life by His Holiness the Dalai Lama. Translated by a Professor of Tibetan Studies at the University of Virginia, How to Practice is the Dalai Lama's own story and his own beliefs and teachings about Tibetan Buddhism. He provides detailed reasoning behind and analysis of the Three Ways to Practice: Morality,Wisdom, and Tantra.
I found How to Practice to be somewhat more abstract and philosophical. Still very interesting, but I had to concentrate more on it as I read. No distractions. Which, ironically, is a part of the message- being focused and mindful.
So, while I won't pretend to be any kind of expert on Buddhism, I will recap briefly some things I learned and observed while reading these two books.
First, many of the principles of Buddhism can be practiced whether one is religious or not. Little that I have seen in my admittedly narrow reading of the subject indicates anything offensive to any of the major religions with which I am familiar. Similarly, there's not a doctrine evident in these readings that would be offensive to someone who does not practice any religion.
Second, I think most of us could benefit from the basic teachings of Buddhism. Some of these are illustrated in other religions as well, but the judgement often present there is not obvious in Buddhism. For example, Harm none. Do what you can to make things better for other people. Be wisely selfish. Realize our actions impact other people and things. Be mindful of your actions. Practice moderation. Be charitable. Eliminate suffering where you can.
I could go on, but you get the idea. While I don't intend to become a Buddhist, there are a few things I took away from these books that I intend to use. I'm going to look at things from a new perspective. Buddhism teaches that our enemies teach us tolerance. I think that if you substitute obstacles- something a little more abstract- for enemies, then you can think of obstacles teach tolerance. Ironically, I read that right after being incredibly annoyed about something. It was so interesting that after I read that, it was easier for me to not get upset over the situation. Just figured, ok, dealing with these idiots is going to teach me some tolerance. And I let go of a lot of my frustration.
I'm also going to practice more meditation. I've done it off and on, and I do see its benefits. After reading so much about it here, I like the idea of taking time out, of focusing, of letting the clutter of my mind escape once in a while.
Curious about Buddhism? I'd recommend reading these two together.
http://www.amazon.com/How-Practice-Meaningful-Holiness-Dalai/dp/B002PJ4IBG/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1276735900&sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.com/Buddhism-Beginners-Thubten-Chodron/dp/1559391537/ref=sr_1_
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Book 17: Godless
This is the toughest posting I've done to date. The subject matter in Godless is something very personal to me and something I've struggled with for the last few years. I've made peace with my beliefs, and I'm still fascinated by the subject. There's so much that occurred to me as I was reading this book. I do tend to write in my postings about how the work affected me specifically and I intend to do that here as well. I'm doing my best to not turn this into a manifesto or say so much that the posting takes ages to read.
In Godless, Dan Barker recounts his journey from growing up an evangelical Christian, to becoming an evangelical minister, and eventually becoming an Atheist. I found myself underlining sentences in the book, making notes in the margins, and even digging up a bible here at the house to check the cited verses and their context for myself.
In his days as an evangelical, Barker would assign spiritual significance to everything. He recounts how if he lucked upon a parking space, he'd thank God for providing him a place to park; if he had to walk six blocks, he'd be grateful to God for the lessons in patience (pp 29-30).
When he began to question his faith, Barker explains that it wasn't as if a switch flipped but a "slow, sometimes wrenching, halting, circuitous process." That is true. It takes a lot of effort and work to figure out what you believe and why. It is painful to realize that what you learned as a child, no matter how well-intentioned the teachings, just doesn't work for you as an adult.
Barker's doubts began innocuously enough. He realized he could no longer reconcile the inconsistencies in the bible with what he knew to be true from a reasoned perspective and his own experiences. This was the part of the book that I really enjoyed, and where I found myself looking up passages and verses to check my own perspective. More often than not, I found myself agreeing with Barker. I don't like the God of the Old Testament. As a "loving father" how could he ever ask another parent to sacrifice their child for him? Most people will say it was a test of faith for Abraham, and that he got a bye in the end, and Isaac lived. But Jephthah, in Judges 11, received no such reprieve. There's a litany of examples like this throughout the book, and I won't cite them all here.
Part of the book is a bit more mmmm, academic, I'll call it. Barker provides an analysis of God's omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence, explaining how omniscience and omnipotence are somewhat at odds with each other. He also explains the fallibility of the concepts, as an example. The book got rather deep when Barker presented analysis around the incongruity on the origins of God.
I learned a lot reading this book. I did not know until now that the last verses in Mark regarding the resurrection were not in the original text of the gospel, and were added some years later. I also did not know how much of the story of Jesus shares its origins with many of the pagan religions- it really is all quite fascinating.
Another part of the book that I found interesting was Barker's exploration of the need for religion in determining whether or not a person will be moral and/or ethical. I don't think religion is required to determine morality. Consider the number of different religions and their differences, yet the similar moral code shared by many people regardless of their faith. I have many Christian, Jewish, and Muslim friends who are moral and ethical people. But I know several people who are very vocal Christians who engage in immoral and unethical behavior. Their religious beliefs do not preclude this behavior. I single out Christians here merely because most of my friends profess to be of the Christian faith. I don't mean that statement to say that only people of the Christian faith would be immoral or unethical, I only say that having faith doesn't give one a lock on being a "good" person.
Parts of the book I did not like. Barker spends a fair amount of time explaining why faith/Christianity/Religion is wrong and trying to convince readers to move to atheism. I think faith- or lack of it- is a very personal journey. I applaud Barker's efforts to encourage free thinking and reason in determining what one believes, but I almost felt a bit- pardon the pun- preached at in the book. I'm happy to discuss my beliefs and my questions with anyone who asks, but I am not on a mission to convert anyone else into thinking like I do. As long as one's belief is reasoned, I'm very respectful of differing viewpoints.
Many people get a great deal of comfort from their faith, and if that works for them, I'm happy to hear it. I prefer to think of myself as a free thinker, accountable for my actions. I do believe in good and evil, and I think that we all have some capacity for both in us. Great things have been accomplished in the name of religion, but so have terrible atrocities. It is an interesting journey to start questioning faith. Some people end up in the way of Dan Barker, turning away from their beliefs. Others have their beliefs strengthened by questioning. It completely fascinates me.
From an enjoyable read perspective, I liked Losing My Religion: How I Lost My Faith Reporting on Religion in America better. But from the perspective of more detailed analysis of why a number of precepts of the Christian faith don't hold up under study, Godless provides a lot of good, factual information.
I've no idea what I am going to read for Book 18. Potentially Eckhart Tolle's A New Earth but I may also go for some fiction as well. There are some books that have been sitting around the house for a while that I've not read yet.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
The Unlikely Disciple
Book 1: The Unlikely Disciple: A Sinner’s Semester at America’s Holiest University
Kevin Roose
Like many college students, Kevin Roose wanted to experience a semester in a different culture. Instead of choosing Europe, though, Roose left Brown University for a semester at Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia.
Roose’s parents are Quakers, but Kevin himself grew up largely non-religious. A friend gave him a crash course in evangelical Christianity before he started classes with advice like “Cursing will give you away immediately. Best say you’re a new Christian.” Roose knew he would be writing about his experiences at Liberty, so he chose not to disclose his full history. He wanted to learn about the college, its faculty, and students as they truly are.
Brown University is a secular, liberal university. Roose’s adjustment to Liberty included a strict dress code, no cursing, no dancing, no R-Rated movies, among other things. Some of the biggest adjustments for Roose were academic- like the school’s belief in Young Earth Creationism. That is, that the earth is about 6000 years old and evolution is a complete farce. He was also learning about the doctrine of Biblical infallibility- that Bible is literally true- the earth was created in six twenty-four hour days, and a bush really did catch on fire and talk to Moses.
The thing that struck me the most about Roose’s experience is that while he went into this with a preconceived idea of what the people he encountered would be like, he was also open to experiencing who they truly are. Roose found that while he did not share the same fundamental beliefs with his peers, that in general, they were more alike than different. To me, that was what was most shocking and meaningful to Roose.
I don’t want to reveal too much more about Roose’s experiences here, but I do have some other color to add to reading his memoir. Liberty is not the most conservative school, with respect to rules and regulations, as some of the other US conservative colleges and universities, which Roose cites in his book. I’ve had personal experience with the elementary schools associated with two of the other institutions Roose mentions.
At the time of publication of the book (March, 2009), some of the prohibitions listed at these institutions included no “secular” music and even more strict dress codes (women are allowed to wear pants only between their dormitories or in their dorm courtyards- not to any classes or in public) and there is to be no physical contact between couples- no hand holding, and not even eye contact that is deemed “too intense.” Now, the elementary schools I attended didn’t have all these same prohibitions, or maybe not to the same degree. I was required to wear a dress every day. I was the rebel who listened to rock and country music, although it was specifically prohibited by the school. Prayer and daily Bible lessons were core parts of the curriculum. I remember the rote memorization of the Baptist Catechism (Who made you? God made me. What else did God make? God made me and all things...). There was a test on it every Monday. When Roose recalls the challenge he had in learning the books of the New Testament, I was able to recall, after all these years, the song I had to learn in maybe third or fourth grade that listed all twenty-seven books in order. I’m still able to recite the song if I think about it a bit, and it turned out someone taught it to Roose as a study aid. I will say I’ve not had much use for that particular ditty in the last several years, but good to know that rote memorization has longevity in some cases.
I switched to public schools in grade six. I think I must have experienced, to some degree, a culture shock similar to Roose, although in the reverse. I was being exposed to so much more diversity, to more critical thinking. I didn’t realize at the time how much my world was opening up by being in this new environment. I wish it had happened sooner. Until then, I saw things as very black or white. Something was either OK or it was a SIN. And the SIN list was much longer than the OK list. As I was exposed to more, and as I got older, I realized how much grey there is in the world- and how there are very few absolutes; that “Always” and “Never” should rarely be used. I liked that I could identify with Roose on his journey.
Ironically, as Roose lived in the Liberty community for that semester, and his world view was somewhat narrowed, he still grew and learned about himself. He analyzed the religion he was being exposed to and determined for himself whether or not it was a good fit. He learned that even if he doesn’t necessarily believe that prayer works, the idea of someone supporting you through prayer is somehow comforting.
All in all, I thought Roose was very fair to his Liberty classmates. He might disagree with some of their philosophies, but he found the people to be largely good people. In fact, I get the impression from the book that he still keeps in touch with a number of them today.
If you like memoirs, if you’re intrigued by different religions, if you’ve ever watched a Mega-Church preacher on a Sunday morning and wonder what would drive a person to attend, then I think this book is worth a whirl.
Book 2 is one my Nora Roberts- complete fun, and the closest I've gotten yet to a true "romance novel."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
