The Emmaus story

The Gospel event of the Emmaus experience consistently continues to amaze me.  Perhaps it is the one event narrated in the Bible that I've found myself reflecting on most recurrently.

This evening it occurred to me that Jesus while joining the two disciples was leading them in the opposite direction.  Rather than lead them back to Jerusalem, where the whole action was being unfolded, he walks with them, in the opposite direction.  Then the comedy of the fact, the disciples reach Emmaus only to run back to Jerusalem, the place where they started their journey! Back to square one! 

One way of looking at it is that God often leads us away from where we are and where we think we ought o be, only to lead us in the opposite direction.  Perhaps later in life we get back to where we initially wanted to be, but then we are not anymore the same person who started off.  The journey, the new place we've been to, and the whole experience of the while, transforms us and our view of the place we are so convinced we actually ought to be in. 

Another way of looking at it is that God joins us in our journey. He does not cause abrupt u-turns in our life, just because he wants to or because that's where we are supposed to be.  He basically accompanies us, even if we are in a totally different direction.  It is in our daily living that we encounter God.  In our everyday choices and decisions.  He accompanies us.  The decision to change or retain paths is always ours!  

It will decide everything...

A quote of Pedro Arupe, as quoted by Fr Gerry in his September circular:

What you are in love with, what seizes your imagination, will affect everything... It will decide what gets you out of bed in the mornings, what you do with your evenings, how you spend your weekends, what you read, who you know, what breaks your heart, and what amazes you with joy and gratitude. Fall in love, stay in love, and it will decide everything. 

They followed him

The last line of the gospel this morning, left me wondering if the same call were to be given out today, how many would follow!  Leave alone, just drop everything, no goodbyes or settling affairs or  packing and what not... just follow.

The team fishing would have surely heard of Jesus.  They wouldn't have followed his instructions if he were not seen as someone whom they considered above normal.  Or else which fisherman would take instructions about fishing from a carpenter?  But this team did and when they realise for themselves, rather than the hearsay they relied on so far, that he was someone really special, they acknowledge him to be someone who is to be in better company than themselves.  Peter asks him to leave because they are not worthy to be in his presence.  Interestingly Jesus invites them to join him!  And when he invites, some of them follow him, right then and there! 

I wonder if we in our contemporary world have space for such a feeling of wonder, of being overwhelmed, of being called and promptly accepting.  We'd sit, reflect, consult, calculate, discuss, reason out, weigh the pros and cons, try to strike a bargain, ask a hundred and one questions... But Peter and company chose to follow him right away; all the above followed!  Of course, they did not at once leave their families and homes but they certainly did accept Jesus as master and were willing to do anything he asks of them, right after their first encounter with him.  

Bold, open review of existing structures

For quite some time now the British news is all about the NHS and how it is falling apart.  After Brexit, the state of NHS is the most discussed and debated issue in the printed press. 

The National Health Services (NHS) came into effect on July 5, 1948 at the strong recommendation and long battle of the then health minister Aneurin Bevan, a Labour party member.  It was a time after the war and the whole of the world, even Britain, was in recovery mode. Though today none would question the need and the great service NHS offers, back then there were many objections to it - primarily because it imposed tax on everyone and secondly because, doctors saw it as a form of national socialism.  Doctors resented it because it would mean that their independence was now at stake.  They would not be 'small businesses' but state functionaries.  The NHS survived years of revamping, policy changes, even threats of being thrown out...

However, with the reeling pressure of time and circumstances, people do not fear asking the bold questions: Is it time to move on?  Do we still have to invest and sustain a sinking ship?  Alternatives are being discussed and debated.  However, none of them seem to be 'better' than what NHS can. But I like the way the whole point is discussed and debated in open.  There certainly will be some political moves going on in the background, but atleast there is no secrecy about the state of affairs, or rather the sad state of affairs. 

I've admired the way the NHS works.  I may not be aware of all its intricacies but the health care system of the country is worth admiring.  I don't see this possible in India, given its large population and the mind set we presently function with.  Furthermore with the grave economic inequalities that are characteristic of India, a general taxation for health will never really take off.  Moreover, I wonder if we'd ever have such an open and free debate in the public domain, with members of the political parties (no matter whether in power or in opposition) participating and learning, rather than politicizing and merely criticizing each other and conclusively ending up far away from the topic under discussion. 

Belief

Basic insights from the fundamental notion of Web of belief, by Willard Quine

• often it is the external experience that forces us to relook at our beliefs, often a contradictory one, one that does not fit in to our existing network of beliefs.
• we can choose which of our beliefs we wish to alter (peripheral, central, core).
• often we prefer to alter the peripheral, easier, less cumbersome than revamping the whole web!
• guided by conservation and purpose is simplicity.
• consistency is the ultimate aim... even if it means accommodating contradictory or differing views.
• we can never really map our whole belief system and state completely why we believe a certain thing, but we should be able to map the main reasons.

Quine talks about the 'web' specifically in the context of physical sciences and philosophy, but I think these basic principles of his theory are applicable to any belief, even religious beliefs. 

If that is the case, then are religious beliefs fundamentally the same as any other beliefs we hold in life?  If so, where and how do they diverge or part ways?  Is this point of departure also the point where religion tends to break away from life and living?  

Understanding mission

One of the significant words that we Salesians need to clarify and remind ourselves constantly is the word 'mission'.  Not so much that we tend to forget it but that we invariably tend to limit it to a very narrow sense and thereafter spend our whole life fulfilling this narrow limited understanding of mission! 

Unfortunately our skewed understanding of mission does not depend on those for whom we work. This danger lurks greater around those of our institutions and works that are already established and already set.  Our decisions, policies and attitudes are not appropriate because we proceed in the following order: mission - activities and works - those for whom we work. However the correct order should be: 

mission - those for whom we work - activities and works. 

What happens many a time is that the situation of those for whom we work, while not taking precedence over the mission, does not take precedence over our activities and works either!  It is not a matter of our going in search of those who can fill up our activities and works (and most often, those who do come are not necessarily the ones who need!); rather, we ought to ask ourselves: for the sake of those to whom the Lord sends us as priority, what are the activities and works we need to carry out here and now?  

'Commanded' to love?

In the gospel we hear Jesus 'commanding' his disciples to love one another. 

This is my commandment: Love one another. 

Can anyone really command another to love?  If love is an emotion and a feeling that is spontaneous and cannot always be rationalized then how can one be commanded to love?  

Two aspects:  

1. Jesus always preached.  He never commanded or went about burdening others with his authority, certainly not those less fortunate than himself.  So it would be right to say that there are only two things he really 'commanded', in comparison to the rest of his teaching that he exhorted: Love God.  Love one another.  Perhaps it is to emphasize the core of what he was and wanted to communicate.  
2. Love is not primarily an emotion or a feeling or something that we can now have and later discard as per our convenience, the ambiance, or profit.  It is a decision.  A conscious choice we make to place the well-being of someone over and above our own.  It is a concrete move to ensure the welfare of the other.  Therefore it is possible that I can love someone even if I do not like the person.  Therefore when I love, I feel 'compelled'.  Furthermore what greater 'compulsion' to follow the 'command' of the one I love! 

Best interests of the child

The English law going by the policy of 'best interest of the child' in deciding matters concerning children and their welfare.  The policy has been in place following the abuse of parents and guardians of their own wards and hence seeks to protect the children from any and every sort of abuse.  However, the recent deaths of two infants in a span of one year, which also generated a lot of debate in the media and in real life, hint at a loophole in this otherwise efficient policy. 

The question one needs to ask when seeking the best interests of the child is, who decides what is best for the child?  Unfortunately this is where the law falters.  It certainly does not consider the child itself as the best 'interpretor' of its own welfare.  So who is the ultimate adjudicator? The law 'assumes' that it is the one.  However, this self-claim is not without a double-face.  In reality it takes on this role only in 'controversial cases'.  Any normal person will understand that the parents of the child are the ones who'd be the first in interpreting what is best for the child.  Hence this right is of the parents. The law should intervene only and only in cases where the parents have repeatedly proved themselves incapable of making sound judgements towards the wellbeing of their child.  Not once in a way mistakes but repeated lapses. 

If parents are not awarded this right to be the primary interpretors of the best interests of the child then the law should take it upon itself the welfare of every child; each and every one, not just one stray or 'controversial' case.  Thus the law should makes sure the child gets the best education - that would imply there that there is only one school in the whole neighbourhood - only the best.  Because it cannot be partial to some by sending them to some lesser standard source of education and favourable to others by getting them into some 'grammar school'.  So too in each and every decision involving the well being of the child, the law should have a say - not the parents. 

(In the English culture, that the child itself is not considered capable of making 'right' decisions for itself, is not a surprising fact... but the fact that it gradually is given the skills to learn the criteria and that potential respected, is better placed than in some other parts of the world.)

New year resolutions

Here's a funny take on new year resolutions...

I stopped this 'high-celebration resolution' long long ago.  Have been more realistic and need based rather than one special event or occasion based with regard to taking resolutions.  The best and most amusing take on resolutions I've come across is the following... a video I received last year around this time and I perfectly agree with her...

Deuce

The 1961 women's final at Wimbledon was the last time that Wimbledon witnessed an all British competition.  Both the finalists were British: Angela Mortimer and Christine Truman.  The commentator wanted to be fair to both of them.  However, after the match he received 34 letters of outcry from the general public accusing him of being partial.  Of those 17 accused him of siding Mortimer and the other 17 accused him of being partial to Truman!

Such is life and human thinking.  No matter what you do, people will have an opinion.  If one were driven by what others say, one can never ever be happy or make any conclusive decisions.  While having an open attitude is healthy, one also needs to rely on one's own prudence and judgement in the final analysis.  

The Lord hardened Pharoah's heart...

The first reading of the day begins with this statement:

"The Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart..." (Ex. 11: 10)

Honestly if only Yahweh did not do this, there'd be no Passover, no slaughter of the Egyptians at the Red sea and no hurried exit from Egypt.  Just that one act of making Pharaoh obstinate resulted in all this following confusion.  So why did he do that?

Some would prefer to believe that he did that in order to fulfill his promises to the Israelites; or to show them his greatness.  These could be 'good reasons' but not 'valid or real reasons'.

The fact is that he didn't!  Yahweh, the almighty could inspire Moses and Aaron and lead them to guide the Israelites out the Egypt, but he could not and would not change the heart of Pharaoh.  That was something beyond his own nature... to meddle with the decisions of human beings.

So then, is the Scripture wrong in making that statement.  Well, can consider it one of the many anthropological modes of expressing an experience of God.  

Cultural roots

During my lengthy and exciting discussion with Vlastik today, it struck me that the whole hierarchical style of functioning in the Salesian world, as experienced and lived in India is not primarily of the Salesian heritage.  It is actually more of the Indian culture than the Salesian tradition.  That the Italian Salesian tradition which we inherited also happens to be a hierarchically based is an added reason, not the primary reason.

This fact dawned on me when I realised Vlastik's predicament as to how come Salesian religious life in some parts of the world is hierarchical.  However elaborately I explained to him, he found it baffling. Then it struck me that his European culture and upbringing has a different set of prioritized values wherein even children are consulted in families.  Naturally in a Salesian house, even the youngest confrere is respected and treated with the same privileges as a senior confrere.  He is not treated differently, as we do back in India.  Here in the UK, a temporarily professed has the same privileges as the one celebrating the diamond jubilee of his profession.

Back in India, our culture considers the father as the head of the family.  He makes all the prominent decisions.  The mother is at times consulted.  Children are rarely even informed.  Moving from such a a general ambiance into the seminary life with its superior-student dichotomy is not very difficult, unless one had a different upbringing or is a late vocation who has moved out of his parents shadow and learnt to make his own decisions for his life.  In this continued ambiance, no one has any 'problem': the rector and staff take decisions and the students follow.  Ask the students to get involved in the decision making and they're baffled or at a loss!  Because all along they've been told 'virtue lies in obedience'.  The rector is happy to make the decisions and the students is happy to follow!

From this perspective, I see the great difficulty of what Fr TD is trying to bring in, in our Salesian system: participation.  What he is fighting is not rooted merely in the Salesian religious tradition, but in our general cultural heritage.

Found this in an interesting article I happened to come across on the net... read here.

When parents can't decide

For quite a few days I've been following up the news about the case of little Charlie Gard, the struggle his parents are going through to convince the court and the medical team to permit them to take their child to the US for treatment.  Honestly I don't see the logic of preventing the couple from taking their child to the US for treatment.  One of the points of contention is that the treatment spoken of is only experimental and it has not really been medically proved.  But precisely so, I argue, that since all possible options have been tried, in vain, this possible option should be permitted.

The main reason for not granting the parents to take their child to the US for treatment is that the proposed new treatment would only add to the suffering of the little baby.  Hence the court now directs the hospital to take the child off the life support.  (read the whole debate argument from the legal perspective here).

However, this particular case where the state takes into its hands, the decision about the well-being of the child, rather than let the parents decide is a bit too outrageous for me. This is peculiar to the UK.  The predominant law which permits the state to intervene is often invoked - and rightly so - in care cases, when the child is at risk from its own parents.  However, in this rare case, when there is an international panel of medical experts claims that there is a possibility of treatment available outside the UK, the court should consider that option.  Somewhere I feel there is also this stubborn belief that the UK has the best doctors!!

Hope love for life and trust in God, will show everyone involved the right way. 

Middle path?

Trying to find the mean or the common denominator in all instances of life is not always the best way of dealing with every situation.  There are instances in life where we are forced to take a side or make a stand.  It could be with simple or even life-changing matters.  However, human as we are, we tend to find a 'peaceful' solution to every issue.  By that, I mean, a comfortable way out for us, at that time!

Statistics do help in arriving at a decision but can never be totally reliable.  After all, if one is to believe statistics, if one places ones head in an oven and the feet in a fridge, on average one should be perfectly comfortable.

I am not sure even that 'middle path' that Buddha sought and taught, is really possible.  From experience we know that we are always biased, for good or for bad.  There is never truly an unprejudiced mind.  It is another fact that most often we are unaware of it or even have the courage to acknowledge it. But the fact is that we are biased.  So is it truly possible to attain that 'neutral' view?  I guess each situation and context varies and so does the possibility.  But I guess nothing wrong in trying if that is the best solution, that is for everyone involved. 

Rorty, sentiments and human rights

Richard Rorty, speaking of human rights, believed that reason was not an effective means of communication in a human rights discourse. Anti-foundationalist that he was he did not believe in human rights being founded on some moral or eternal principle, which everyone ought to recognize and admit.  He rather preferred to speak of a 'human rights culture' something that we socially have agreed to.  And the best means of building this culture? Through sentimental education, not rational argumentation.

I see a very valid point in what Rorty is trying to build.  The sentimental appeal is much stronger than any rational argument. We are affected more by our sentiments than our logic and rationale. The idea is to make people see that others are not "like us", but "us".  However, there seems to be a sort of drawback lurking just round the corner in this argument.  Am not really able to pinpoint it, but I can feel it.

• Is it that convincing someone of human rights using emotions is more of a blackmail than a real conviction? 
• Would I be using the suffering of others as a 'lesson' plan? If no suffering or pain with which I can appeal to the sentiment of others, do I not have a valid means of conveying the worth of human rights? 
• Seems more like claim-rights... only when 'we' agree to something.  What if 'we' agree to what is convenient for us?  Slavery and dowry was very convenient once upon a time.  Even to those who were burdened by it, because it was a 'socially accepted norm'. 
• What of those who 'understand' the language of reason?  Learned men and women who know what is being said and discussed?  
• Can international and national policies ride on the strength of emotions and feelings? 

Daily commitment

No honourable feat is the result of a single spontaneous instant decision. It precedes many such small decisions for that one great act to appear spontaneous.  So is a grave mistake or mortal sin.  No one makes such a sin, without previously indulging oneself in petty mistakes and compromises, which eventually lead one to the 'big error'.

So how to achieve great merit or virtue?  Or how to avoid landing in the 'big error' or 'grave danger'? Mind the small, daily decisions and acts.  What you decide at each relaxed, calm and serene moment is what you will eventually decide later when under duress or strain.

Make hay while the sun shines!

Aspiration and ambition

Have been working on a paper trying to prove that addictions are more than just strong desires.  As part of the reading came across this particular difference.  (will cite the source when I remember!)

Aspiration is when we hope for a better tomorrow and use all our time, talent and resources to achieve it. It is about making life better. Most scientific discoveries that have benefited humankind are all results of aspiration. Ambition, on the other hand, is when we hope not only to be better than ourselves, but to be better than all others.

I came across this text in Harini Calamu's blog POV. Read the interesting text here.  In her blog post, the author cites the reasons for BJP coming to power.  She rightly proves what most know: The weakness of Congress and other parties is BJP's greatest strength! 

The tale of two trees

It is interesting to note that in the book of Genesis, especially in the creation narrative, God mentions of two trees in the garden of Eden.  There is the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.  Both are in the middle of the garden. However, while informing Adam of his new residence, God forbids him from eating the fruit only of one tree: the tree of knowledge of good and evil.  He does not exclude the fruit of the tree of life from his menu.

Why would that be?  Is it because Adam already had life and therefore didn't need that?  But then that would mean that Adam didn't have knowledge.  Or is it that he did have some knowledge but not the one needed to distinguish good from evil?  But then it is exactly that 'ignorance' of distinguishing good from evil that did him in.  For if he knew that what the serpent was telling him was 'not good' then he would not have tried it.  In his innocence he listens to the serpent.  Even to say that he was ambitious - and therefore wanted to be equal to God - would not be right, because he did not have the knowledge of good and evil.  So why knowledge?

Most importantly why not the tree of life?  Or could there be a story about how a monkey tricked him into climbing the tree and gulping the fruit before Adam could eat it?  And Adam never got to eat of that tree before he was expelled from the garden?

Or that he did eat from the tree and nothing happened, because God did not forbid him from eating of that fruit?  But then why did God mention it, if it did not matter? God certainly did not speak of a tree of freedom in the middle of Eden - at least it is not mentioned in the Genesis.

Religious life, narrated by a 'party-loving girl'

There is a new book on sale here in England. Written by a nun, Sr Agatha wherein she speaks of her life in the convent and related stuff.  There is an extract in today's newspaper wherein she describes her emotions and feelings about her fiance.  Just out of curiosity (and a break from reading Husserl!) I read this two page article.  Read the article here. It is refreshing indeed.

Sr Agatha, with her three siblings

The narration is very realistic and truly human.  Shirley (Sr Agatha) makes no pretense of her feeling for him, even till the day he dies.  No pious or patchy expressions to camouflage her feelings and sentiments for him, at various stages of not only her life but his as well.  No lying that love for someone dies or evaporates just because one has become a nun/monk, all the while knowing the implications of one's choices and living by them.

On the whole, the writing and her sincere expression of her deep felt sentiments and thoughts make religious life appear normal. Not some hyperbolic sacrificial saga or a tale of suffering and pain.  

Choice

Watch this interesting animated story and the inspiring message (narrated by Sadhguru)

It is all about the choice we make...