Religion as personal or private?

Another note on the differences between religion as personal and religion as private.  Again, a very subjective distinction. 

In viewing religion as purely private affair, one tends to feel as one 'in charge'.  Just as in the case of property owned by an individual, 'private property', one feels that one has authority over it, so in the case of treating religion as private, one feels that one is in authority.  Unfortunately not every aspect of religion can be so 'subjugated'.  There are aspects of religion wherein one cannot be considered to be in the driving seat.  Being open to that possibility, in a sense being passive, is part of the nature of religion. 

Furthermore, any experience of the supernatural cannot be actually 'contained'.   If genuine, it naturally flows into every aspect of one's life.  Any attempt to contain it, restrict it merely to oneself, is one of the offshoots of viewing religion as private.  In the same vein, viewing religion as private tends to exclusivity (my religion and me; or my God and me) whereas when viewed as personal, there is greater openness towards inclusivity (my religion, me and all of us within a larger reality; or my God and me in the world).  

Formation and knowledge

Reading this particular article on Aeon about walking and applying the philosophy of Gilbert Ryle to it, I was wondering if this can be applied to the whole process of formation and that particular phase of intellectual formation too.

Just a handful of us formators back in the province believe that a student discerning his vocation to priestly or religious life ought to have a rather meaningful and sensible intellectual capacity.  Lacking in which he or she will make things and life miserable for others and themselves - the exact opposite of what ministry seeks to do in service of the people! Most formators feel that intellectual capacity should not be a major factor to be considered when deciding whether a person continues being a religious or priest or not. 

Ryle seems to suggest that if self-teaching is activated, that would suffice for improving a skill. 

We can think about Ryle’s view as a middle way between the just-do-it view and intellectualism. Intellectualism claims that skilled action requires thought, and gives a picture of thought as deliberate, conscious internal activity. The just-do-it view observes that it is not plausible that skill requires this kind of conscious thinking, and concludes that thought is the enemy of skill. Ryle agrees with the just-do-it view that conscious thought is not a requirement of skill, but offers an alternative view of thinking as engaged problem solving, claiming that this kind of thought is a requirement of skilled action.

If I'm reading it right, Ryle would say that just because is a person is kind and considerate, does exempt him or her from engaging in a very intellectual exercise of thinking. Nonetheless, to actually continue being kind and considerate and develop it as a skill rather than blindly repeat certain kind actions and utterances, a particular kind of thought is essential. 

One need not be an expert in oceanography to be a priest or religious but if one is not competent to reflect on ones own ministry and willing to make sufficient effort to learn from it, even if already 'good' at it, then one certainly is not worthy of becoming a priest or religious. Openness and humility to learn, require a certain kind of thinking to actualize and bear fruit.  

Respect

You don't throw a whole life away just because it's banged up a little... 

That's one of the punch lines from the movie Seabiscuit

Why respect some great thinker, politician or celebrity if somewhere in his or her speeches or texts he or she has a very "biased" opinion about a certain group of people?  Why respect Kant and Hume, if they strongly felt that the whites were superior to the coloured skin? Why read and appreciate Aristotle if he felt men were superior to women?  Source: Aeon

• Disrespecting the whole person and all his or her writings betrays a profound lack of understanding of how socially we are influenced, even the greatest of minds of any time. 
• Never take one of their personal convictions to be the bedrock of all their thought and philosophy.  
• We are judging them by today's standards and cultural openness - something that they did not have the privilege to in their times.  
• While an individual is ultimately responsible for his own thoughts and actions, one cannot be held solely responsible, if the whole ambiance of his lifetime is flawed or biased.  (Jesus saying, "You don't give the dogs food meant for the children")
• Accepting and admiring the deep thoughts of such men and women, is not affirming their 'racist or sexist' thoughts.  Racism and sexism were never okay, people simply wrongly believed that they were.
• See if their fundamental way of thinking would be negatively prejudiced if applied today. 

Given Aristotle’s openness to evidence and experience, there is no question that today he would need no persuading that women are men’s equals. Hume likewise always deferred to experience, and so would not today be apt to suspect anything derogatory about dark-skinned peoples. In short, we don’t need to look beyond the fundamentals of their philosophy to see what was wrong in how they applied them.

• Excusing them is not the same as excusing someone who's living today with some of those distorted values. We, the living, have the opportunity to weigh the pros and cons; we have history to learn from; we have the possibility of making amends; we may not be the ones who created such notions but are very much in a position to challenge them; we certainly are 'better equipped'... the dead have no such possibility! 

When I'm weak, then I'm strong

One of the many Biblical paradoxes: when I am weak, then I am strong. A very good meditation on humility and openness.  The weakness experience here is not oppressive, even though it is meant to be.  The weakness does not prevent one from buckling, even though that is exactly what weakness is all about.  Rather, in those moments of struggle and giving in, we feel strong enough to carry on.  Rather than give in, feel the urge to keep going. 

However for me to really experience that I need to be doing what God wants me to do;  furthermore, not my work, but His work. So it is not me doing His work, it is me sharing in His endeavours.  Therefore the task is not mine alone nor am I totally indifferent about the work ("not my responsibility").  I have the strength because I'm not alone; because he who has entrusted me with a task, is taking the major responsibility and I have only to accompany; because the achievement of result is not my goal, making the best of efforts is. 

The challenge is for me to be humble and open enough to see that I'm not in this alone.  There are others, there are well-wishers, friends, guides, confreres, loved ones... there is God.

Being at home with ourselves

While discussing with a group of members of the Salesian family about the notion of spiritual accompaniment of young people, it came across to me that the basic starting premise of our effort is that there is something not right with young people today!!  For me that is a dangerous launching pad.  We (the grown ups of today) have a 'problem' with the young of today - may not be a life and death problem but let's say, a difficulty.  I realized that our preceding generation had the same complain about us!!  Nothing very different.

The starting point of all our interactions with the young should be meeting them where they are - not where they 'should' be!  The way forward is not to become like them or make them like us.  We are the digital immigrants and no matter how hard we try we will never become digital natives.  Nor is any attempt to make the natives feel like immigrants of any real benefit.  The best way forward is to be with ourselves today.   Most of us do not know how to be ourselves, leave alone how to be be with God! In being happy and contended with ourselves and in our openness (non-judgemental attitude) to be with them lies the key to a harmonious future, both for us individuals and for our collective society.  

The x-ray and the photo

Whenever or whomever we love or are fascinated by, we need to grow or strive to attain a holistic view of the person.  It is possible that in the process of gaining a better view of the person from all possible angles, our admiration for him or her may dwindle.  However, that is  a better risk than basing all our love and admiration on merely one particular view we hold, and are unwilling to put that to test or view other perspectives. 

Recently someone narrated this analogy to drive home the point that when studying a historical figure one needs to have a multi-dimensional approach rather than be stuck to one view alone, or worse, deny alternate views.  When a surgeon has to perform an operation on his mother, the photographs he has of her are of little or no use; what he needs are the most specialized x-rays.  But, in his office or at his desk, he does not place an x-ray but the most memorable 'live' photo of her!  The x-ray has its place, so does the photograph.  None to be demeaned, but the worth of each to be noted as varying for differing purposes. 

An echo chamber

Read an interesting article on Aeon today: Why it is hard to escape an echo chamber?

As I read this article all I could think, at every instance or para of it was the present grip of Mr Modi on the Indian electorate.  The BJP that is presenting itself is very different from that of the BJP represented by Vajpayee or even Advani.  The former, was distinctly clear about its agenda, course of action and vision.  It made no veiled presentation of itself.  Everyone, not just members of the party, knew what its aims and objectives were.  Not so with the present BJP.  What it has succeeded indeed is turn the Indian mind into an echo chamber.  In doing so it has not blocked itself from 'other voices', merely branded them untrustworthy, corrupted and therefore not worth anything.  Far from doublespeak, or even momentary epistemic glimpses, the echo chamber sounds rational, interested in the truth, active throughout and resonates with voices; but merely endorsing its own principles.  Even the contrary voices somehow are so manipulated (not by changing their content, but by changing the mind of the listener), that they endorse the principles of the 'ghetto'. 

The solution out of this echo chamber?  Trust!  There are numerous voices that resonate in a society.  However we know not whom and what to trust.  Unless we begin to trust a voice and that voice proves itself trustworthy, we will only further entrench ourselves in the echo chamber. 

To be more fair to the reading of the article, I can even look at my own Catholic upbringing as a echo chamber.  However, as long as one is willing to look at, evaluate and even trust other contrary sources, is open minded about the authority of sources other than Catholic sources, am willing to be won over by the goodness I observe, acknowledge and appreciate in others, especially non-Christians... I would think I'm not an ostrich in an echo chamber.  

Openness

Another aspect of my 'conviction bank' being brought into the docks in recent times is the notion of openness.  While I understand that having an open attitude in life is more beneficial than a closed or rigid attitude.  However, is it really possible to be open-minded all through?  I used to chuckle at the quote I came across many years ago

Don't be so open-minded that your brains fall out!  

But the point is that at sometime or the other we form a view and then stick to it. One cannot always be open to all and every different opinion or view on any matter.  Once we have taken a stand, we then can be open minded by letting it stand the test of ... whatever.  If it stands, good. If not, adopt a new stand?  If so, we'd go on changing views and convictions to no end.  So we have something fixed and other aspects flexible?  On the spectrum of fundamentalism at one end, and openness at the other, where does the middle lie? 

Or perhaps, I'm confused! 

Poetry

Here are some insights from the talk by Rev. Mark Oakley who spoke of poetry as the true language of religion.

• Poetry is more about meaning than words. 
• Poetry is not a better way of saying truth but truth is found in poetry. 
• It is a language that hovers, rather than being logical or grounded. It is not something that can be beaten down to extract the precise meaning.  Just like story telling which commences with "Once upon a time..." poetry arrives at meaning without summarizing.  The contrast to poetry is not exactly prose but 'here is the news' attitude.  People now-a-days prefer to have 'news ears' where things are all very definite and clear, rather than live with ambiguity and openness, characteristics of poetry. 
• Poetry is what arrives at your intellect by way of the heart. 
• Metrophobia: fear of poetry

One of the last things he mentioned was the quote that captured his attention during one of the protests in the US: 

He stated that this is popularly considered a Mexican proverb but was originally by a gay Greek poet who wrote it as a sign of his rebellion against his companions who excluded him from the literary community for his sexual orientation.  

Self-taught faith journey

The feast of the three kings, that Epiphany celebrated, post-Christmas has a very different touch to it than the rest of the Biblical history preceding it.  In a way it is a foretaste of the Acts of the Apostles, wherein the message of Christ is not restricted to the Jews or the land of Judah but begins to spread across the whole world.  (Or is it?  There have always been non-Jewish 'interpolations' in the Biblical history, right since the origin of the Jewish race. The story of Ruth, for example.)

Of the many things interesting in the narrative of the three kings the one that caught my attention yesterday was the part where the kings come to know of the birth of the messiah from their knowledge of astronomy.  There is no mention of an angel appearing to them and announcing the birth of Jesus, as in the case of Mary, or the shepherds.  There is no 'God-telling-them' as such!  However, they read the signs of nature and infer and based on this knowledge they come to experience the child Jesus.

This has an important lesson for us all: one's faith journey need not necessarily be strewn with divine revelation!  If one is open to the other, and willing to be led by signs other than ones approved by men, there is a great possibility that one encounters the divine along the way.

There is no mention of the kings prior to the event nor after their visit to the child Jesus.  Some wish to believe that they went back as different men, just as they took a 'different route' back home - I doubt it!  They would not have been very different from what they initially were.  They already were good, they only continued working on their goodness.  

Openness to God

The text preceding the vision Zachariah has of angel Gabriel announcing the birth of a son to him, describes Zachariah and his wife to be devout Jews, following the Scriptures scrupulously, blamelessly.  Yet when the angel appears to Zachariah, he finds it hard to believe the words of the angel.  There is nothing of such description about Mary preceding the annunciation.  She is not described as 'following the commandments and ordinances blamelessly', yet when she is told that she is to become the mother of God, she accepts and the angel - same, Gabriel - departs.  No punishment.

Wonder why Gabriel was so harsh on Zachariah and not on Mary?  After all, Mary too asks, 'How is this possible? Since I do not know a man?'  Gabriel only replies her that God will see to it.  While in the case of Zachariah, he is silenced!  He is struck dumb!

I guess there is more of what has not been truly recorded.  Perhaps Mary, even though she did not follow the letter of the law to its perfection, she was more open to the spirit of Yahweh.  Zachariah, on the other hand, was very much concerned about keeping the letter of the law.  He did not expect God to spring surprises on him, certainly not with something outside the text.  Being a priest, he should have been more open to His spirit than Mary who was not so well versed in the Scriptures.  Just goes to show that openness to God is what is more appreciated than perfect adherence to rules.   Apart from this there seems no valid reason for Gabriel to be kind to Mary and harsh on Zachariah. (Unless Gabriel was partial, or Zachariah dumb-stricken by surprise, more than punished by Gabriel).

Mixing up means and goals

In our enthusiasm to be devout and spiritual we tend to often fail to grasp the real meaning of being so.  We comfortably - and obstinately - settle for the means rather than the goal.  The means is something truly good and noble but we turn that into an end in itself, forgetting that it is supposed to lead us to the living God.  One simple example: the Bible.  The scriptures are meant to help us come closer to God.  However, it is also possible that we get so lost in the Bible that we forget God!  For those who contend that the word cannot be separated from God himself, need to ask themselves ' Is God so fossilized in the written word that he can no longer speak and make himself known through other means?'  If so, then they've never really understood God; some may have perhaps made the Bible into their God.

We Christians run the same danger of the Jews in Jesus' time.  The Jews then were sure of the scriptures, knew exactly what God was like and what he wanted.  But there comes a man named Jesus, saying and doing all the wrong things, and yet claiming to have been sent by the very God whose 'laws' he was breaking!  Today we are so 'full' of Christianity, that God himself may find it hard to enter our lives.  The readings of the day (God appearing to the Israelites on Sinai and 'blessed are your eyes, because they see, and your ears, because they hear') are a stark reminder of waking up to this reality, rather than blaming those gone by for failing to notice the presence of God amidst them.

All that we say or do is for us to feel the presence of God.  Trust that He can use any and every means to reach to us.  We are only called to be open to His message.  Not be fixated on something so stubbornly that we block out not only any further communication from him but Him altogether!

Nicodemus, the willing

Reflection for April 24

Nicodemus, is an exception among the lot of the Pharisees. He is one who not only dares to believe in Jesus but acknowledges Him to be 'from God'. It was not that Jesus performed some special private miracle for Nichodemus or cured him of some ailment. Nicodemus' trust in Jesus is born out of the very same acts and words which Jesus uttered in public and which everyone, even the other Pharisees heard and witnessed.

What makes him stand apart is this willingness to be open to the working of the Spirit. 'To be born again … from above' could very well mean this very willingness to be swept off one's feet; to be transformed in totally unexpected ways. Nicodemus was open and thereby perceived something divine in Him.

Know not if Nicodemus later became a Christian or a disciple of Jesus. Even if he didn't he would not have been the same pharisee as before.

Living in God's presence

In our certitude of who and what God is, we forget that God has His own mysterious ways of encountering us, even beyond our wildest of imagination.

You know exactly where to look. That is the reason you fail to find God (Tony De Mello).

The best strategy therefore, is to be open to an encounter with God every moment of our life, with every person we come across, through every object that we use. Perhaps this is the meaning of living in God's presence.  

The true meaning of existence is disclosed in moments of living in the presence of God. (Abraham Joshua Heschel).

In the open region

Aristotle reports a story about Heraclitus, which Heidegger recounts in his 'Letter on Humanism'.

The story is told of something Heraclitus said to some strangers who wanted to come visit him. Having arrived, they saw him warming himself at a stove.  Surprised, they stood there in consternation - above all because he encouraged them, the astounded ones, and called for them to come in, with the words, "For here too the gods are present" (Heidegger, 1992, pp. 256).

Heidegger highlights a few aspects of this story saying how the strangers are shocked at the mundane and disappointing spectacle they witness at Heraclitus' place. Thinking him to be a thinker of repute they expect something noble and great of him. But here he is warming himself by the stove... something any one could be found doing.

... "even here," at the stove, in that ordinary place where every thing and every condition, each deed and thought is intimate and commonplace, that is familiar [geheuer], "even there" in the sphere of the familiar, einai theous, it is the case that "the gods come to presence." 

Heraclitus himself says, ... "The (familiar) abode of man is the open region for the presencing of god (the unfamiliar one)" (Heidegger, 1992, pp. 258).

[Heidegger, M. (1992) 'Letter on humanism', in Krell, D.F. (ed.) Martin Heidegger: Basic writings. New York: HarperSanFrancisco, pp. 213-266.]

Discernment and Decision

At what time does a youngster with us 'decide' that he is to be a Priest or Brother?
The aspirantate? But isn't that still a forum or platform for discernment... so much so it does not even come under the formation commission. It is placed under the youth pastoral department. (that is something I learnt only today!) Salesian formation commences only with the pre-novitiate!

The pre-novitiate? But that's only to discern whether or not, I have a vocation to religious life. Perhaps also to know more about the Salesian congregation and Don Bosco.

Novitiate? Well this could be a place where one finally makes a decision. But one only becomes only a temporarily professed member of the congregation at his first profession. This too is not the final decision-making moment.  It is again a trial period (lasting 6 to 9 years)!

Well, the final preparation for perpetual profession (for a Brother) or Ordination (for a Cleric) could be the final decision-making moment.  That means, from the time a youngster enters the Salesian house (at the age of 18 or so) till this moment (say, age 29) what the hell is he doing???  Already decided?? Or discerning??!

Isn't discernment a process? And at some time, a decision. Yes! But open to review by self and others! If my decision is so fixed and finalised that I am not willing to let it be challenged, neither by self nor others, then I am not even letting it grow. I'm only fanatically preserving it (my vocation), – mostly out of fear that in case something damages it, I would no more be a Priest or Salesian – not living it out recklessly and joyfully.

Teachers' Day

Tomorrow, India commemorates Teachers' day... a day dedicated to felicitate the teachers in our schools and colleges, in fond memory of Dr Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan.  In schools this is really a day of celebration for children as they express their sentiments for their respective teachers, and being children they are sincere in their feedback!  However, as we grow older, this respect and admiration for the teachers turns into disrespect and despise.

Being teachers, as those involved in one of most noble profession of imparting knowledge and leading young minds in their search for wisdom, is enough reason to demand one's respect.  Irrespective of their educational qualification or lack of it, whether competent or not, respecting teachers is the duty of a student - not an optional privilege!  Indian tradition lays before us a beautiful example when it equates a Guru to God himself - the other two being mother and the guest.

... and the best gift or form of respect a student can offer to one's teacher is to grow in wisdom and build one's life on values.  This begins when a student is open and willing to learn, however little or much the teacher has to offer.  

Anyone better than me?

I took up the General Chapter 27 document for reading this morning.  I took my own time to read it well.  Right in the first section itself something that struck me was the 'concern' about symptoms of self-referentiality whereby we do not go out of ourselves to be open to the demands of God and go out to encounter others.  This can be seen in our lack of updating, reference to a stable spiritual director and 'do it yourself' spirituality.

Now that's something!  Perhaps it is the other extreme of the mean called independence and self-mastery.  So I did a simple exercise on myself.  I asked myself this question: Who is better than me, around here? Frankly speaking it was a mere act of accessing my degree of humility, but all the same if I said to myself, if I can speak of somebody as inspirational and can even have the courage to tell that person that you inspire me for this and this, then I think I'm still on the right track. But if I have a great difficulty in recognizing the virtues that surround me, here and now, then I would be like a peacock strutting myself around, foolishly convinced that I'm the best.  This would also explain why I would not approach anyone to be my regular spiritual director. 

To know and to witness

A reflection based on Jn 1: 29-34

We are all called to be alter-Christos (the other Christ) but prior to that we need the grace to be able to recognize who Christ truly is. This is possible through the grace of the Holy Spirit. And just like John's baptism, we need to rise out of the water (our sins), to be open to the Spirit and have the courage to see for ourselves and then point to the others, the Christ.

I have seen and I am the witness... (Jn 1: 34)

Spiritual direction and openness

We had a long discussion on spiritual direction and counselling and manifestation and related stuff this whole morning.  I intervened only before lunch. My only intervention was this: 

If young people joining us are given a taste of freedom that an attitude of openness offers right on early in life, then they are sure to get so 'addicted' to it that none need to 'tell' them to go for manifestation to the Rector, or meet the spiritual director.  They will naturally take to spiritual direction like fish to water.  However, this attitude of openness is essential for a religious.  If not, he is bound to carry with him a burden, which at time will surely become too heavy to bear.  However, there could be some issues that need counselling which could be addressed to by a psychologist or a trained counsellor.  But this is only an additional help.  If the person has not learnt the art of opening up, no counsellor or spiritual guide can help.  Furthermore, if a person is always carrying such a heavy baggage that he always needs support and counselling, when on earth will he help others with their baggage?  

We all are broken and wounded in some way or the other.  Yet we learn to extend a healing touch to others in and through our brokenness.  But if we are so broken that it is we who seek healing all the time and every time, then I would question the very vocation of such an individual to religious or consecrated life.  The best would be to ask him to discontinue and help him with or through a psychologist.