Widening the divide with capitals!

A further reflection on the theme of intolerance and Christian unity, in the context of language - a topic that I'm brooding over! 

Disunity is brought about, in most cases, when an idea is held to be of greater importance than a human being. All cases of religious fundamentalism arise when the concept of religion takes precedence over humanity; when faith becomes greater than human life; when god - and I mean, the concept of God - needs to be protected, but not my neighbour. 

One easy way we fall into this trap of elevating a concept to a status higher than a living being, reducing the latter to such a minimal value so as to count for nothing, is when we capitalise a word!  When faith becomes Faith.  When god becomes God.  When church becomes Church.  These are tell-tale signs of where and what we feel are un-negotiable aspects of our living, at the altar of which everything else (not belonging to me), especially others, can be sacrificed.  Furthermore, with words like 'infidel', 'atheist', 'unbeliever', 'pro-abortionist', 'LGBTQ+', ... we can easily reduce persons, living beings with flesh and blood, families and feelings into despicable things that in their entirety ought to be made to disappear! 

That reminds me of a very stinging remark one of my former Rector's made on a report I put together after my supervision of a batch of third year students involved in the 'Immersion programme'.  Back then it struck me, as 'what's the big deal?' Why make a hue and cry about a regular use?  The phrase I used in the report was a description of a place: '...a place infested with naxalites...'  And the Rector had circled this phrase and written on the margins, "Even naxalites are people, not insects!" Looking back I clearly see.  I did not mind using the word 'infested' in the context of the naxalites, but I would never have used it in the context of seminarians or even a packed railway station!  My prejudices were laid bare.  

Rationality or Irrationality

One particular programme that I happened to listen to today, stressed on the rational element of man.  Or rather spoke of human being as a irrational animal, in contrast to Aristotle's 'rational animal'.  This is based on the proved scientific theory that most human beings use only a minimal portion of our intellectual ability, our brain.  The vast majority of the brain's potential remains untapped.  Moreover, the human being today can predict with greater accuracy the consequences of a failure than a success.  This prompts the speaker to propose that rather than improve the quality of our reasoning or our rationality (which we have not really improved for ages, in spite of some progress), we should focus on creating systems and patterns which will help us cope with our failures and weaknesses - something we have engaged in since evolution of society.  So invest greater in technology, data production and analysis, ... and perhaps artificial intelligence too, which will complement the 'weak' rationality we human beings are satisfied/blessed with. 

However I disagree with the idea that it is better to focus on complementary systems which tend to reduce the negative impact of our failed reasoning than on improving rationality itself.

• Going further that line, will bring us to a time when we trust the system rather than our own rational ability.  Too disastrous for other aspects of life and living. 
• This notion, takes for granted that rationality is our greatest and most important defining element of humanity.  It is a major characteristic but not the only one.  The human person is a combination of various elements.  
• Rather than remedy the situation, it would be more proper to prevent the situation needing a remedy! (The Salesian Preventive system rather than remedial system). 

Though very subtle, the emphasis should be to view that what we strive for.  While it is easy to argue that what we create is basically to supplement what we lack, a better option would be to see our invention(s) as increasing our possibilities of ways in which we can do things differently.  

'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! 

Heart of communication: Communion of persons

The Church celebrates the World Communication day today.  Among the many messages and policies that clutter our media, I'm attracted towards this particular quote of Pope Francis

... that the heart of information is not the speed with which it is reported or its audience impact, but persons.  Informing others means forming other; it means being in touch with people's lives.  

The prayer concluding the message of Pope Francis on the occasion of the World Communication day 2018
Lord, make us instruments of your peace.
Help us to recognize the evil latent in a communication that does not build communion.
Help us to remove the venom from our judgements.
Help us to speak about others as our brothers and sisters.

You are faithful and trustworthy; may our words be seeds of goodness for the world:
where there is shouting, let us practise listening; 
where there is confusion, let us inspire harmony;
where there is ambiguity, let us bring clarity;
where there is exclusion, let us offer solidarity;
where there is sensationalism, let us use sobriety;
where there is superficiality, let us raise real questions; 
where there is prejudice, let us awaken trust;
where there is hostility, let us bring respect;
where there is falsehood, let us bring truth.
Amen.

Defining human nature

Human rights are sometimes based on human nature.  Meaning that there is something special about the human species that qualifies it to be treated in a more dignified manner than say a chair or a lamp post.  But this human nature is not merely something natural.  For that matter even animals have a nature. So if we consider naturality the chief characteristic of a nature then there would be nothing special or unique about human nature.  The emphasis needs to be on 'essential trait' but this cannot be something static or frozen.  There are aspects of it which change but others that ensure continuity.  So perhaps, the following definition (as found here), could be taken as a functional one...

Human nature is best conceived of as a cluster of homeostatic properties, ie of traits that are dynamically changing and yet sufficiently stable over evolutionary time to be statistically clearly recognisable.

And just like life cannot be shown apart from living, human nature is not something that can be identified apart from the human person.  It is not something that exists independently or abstractly.  It inheres.  

Flashes of radiance

Our relationship with those around is quite strange, especially with those we relate most and intimately.  Most often their presence and their role in our life is taken for granted.  It seems that it is normal or the way it is supposed to be.  However, when that person is no more present in our life then we begin to see the huge crater left in our life and we realize that what was 'normal' or 'usual' was not so.  It was because of the other person's presence and constant support.  Some are lucky to realize this in their lifetime and begin to value the other person more than before.  Not that the person is now exalted to the heavens but we then slowly get used to a higher level of relationship, at a deeper level. Soon even this becomes 'normal'.  That's how things work with us mortals.  And every once in a way there is a sudden glimmer of light and we see things differently.

Today is the feast of the Transfiguration of the Lord.  The apostles were with Jesus all along, listening to his teachings and living with him.  However, the event on the mountain shows Jesus in a new light.  The apostles now see something more special in Jesus.  But soon even that 'special' becomes 'normal'.  Nothing bad or evil in it.  All that we can really hope and look forward to is those quick moments of insight.  Those flashes of radiance which transform all we ever know of those around us.... and they abound!

May we more willingly and often see the radiance of God shine through those around us.

Painting by Raphael

Persons beyond actions

Reflection for April 11, 2017: To see the person beyond the action

Jesus' attitude towards Judas is noteworthy. Here is the man who has already betrayed Him, yet Jesus does not throw any tantrum or make a scene out of Judas' pretense. He does not chastise him or humiliate him for his choices. He does not grumble about Judas to the other apostles when he is gone from the room. Jesus is also aware of Peter's betrayal by denial. Yet He still treats them both with dignity and respect.

We may say, it is because Jesus was God, He could be so gracious. But it is the same Jesus who cried out in agony in the garden of Gethsemane asking that if possible, he be spared the suffering. To feel such agony and at the same time not hold it against someone or anyone requires great vision and openness of the heart. It does not come all at once. One needs constantly to make such decisions in small matters of life, to achieve such equanimity at moments of great intensity.

Responding immediately to betrayal or hurt feelings by being angry is natural. Yet Jesus shows through his words and deeds that there are other ways of responding too, when others hurt us deeply… to see the person beyond his or her actions.

Resurrection and Jesus

Raising of Lazarus (April 2, 2017)

Resurrection defies all logic and human reasoning. Even after two thousand years of history and tradition we Christians still find it hard to explain in rational terms. Imagine the state of mind of those who had not yet witnessed anything close to it.

We often think of resurrection in terms of our body, that too after death. Perhaps, Jesus' delay in coming to Lazarus' tomb has something to say about a fact greater than resurrection: Jesus Himself. In this sense, His words, “I am the resurrection and the life...” would mean that it is the presence of Jesus that matters most. Where He is, life abounds.

When Jesus asks Martha if she believed in the resurrection, she replies that she believes that her brother will rise. However, she is only thinking of it as an event in the future. The resurrection is an event. Jesus is the person. Embrace the person and He will take care of the event.

Stuck to the 'law' of Jesus

Reflection for the readings of April l, 2017

Opinions are always divided. Convictions too are varied. Some people who heard Jesus were convinced about him being a prophet, or the Messiah. The Pharisees were convinced otherwise. While the conviction of the people was based on what they had experienced of Jesus themselves, the Pharisees' conviction arose from their knowledge of the law. They preferred to keep the law than to let it be questioned by a personal experience.

Today, as disciples of the Lord, we too can be like the Pharisees. We too can be so caught up with following what Jesus said rather than seek for a genuine personal experience of Him and thereby live the 'law' to its fullest.

Law and Justice

Never thought of this distinction: law and justice.  Perhaps never bothered to think in those terms.  But there is a huge difference between law and justice.  I've not really bothered to find out the definition and intricate meanings of each but what struck me is that the law has got to do with action while justice is about the being. I may be splitting hairs here but I see a slight distinction.

The law is about the act, the actions one does and the subsequent things that follow.  So one breaks a law only when one has done the act.  So the act is central. However, when it comes to justice, the person is central.

This concept flashed  in the light of my reflection on human rights vs the human rights list.  I'm beginning to see more and more clearly that human rights is more about the human being rather than the rights.  Not that the rights dimension is nonsense or illogical; but that is not to be the focus of one's attention.  It is the person who takes the primary position.

Purpose of education

Understanding the other, in myself

We always size up any new person we meet. Right before the first encounter ends, we already "catalogue" him or her.  Though we would like to say it is an unconscious process, in reality it is a very conscious and curious enterprise we all engage ourselves in. I really don't think there is nothing wrong or bad about it, in itself.  It is merely having an opinion about someone we just met and interacted with.  However, it would be immature if we convince ourselves that that is who the person wholly and truly is!  Not being open to seeing more of him or her (knowing the person more deeply) is indeed stunting our own growth.

Jesus too was asked for a sign to prove all that he said or claimed who he claimed himself to be.  The only trouble here was that people were trying to "categorize" him into a mould which they had already decided for him. They were not very keen to see him grow in them... not open to let him evolve in their understanding.  They had already fixed who he was and anything short of it, would disqualify him from "their" understanding of who he was.

Honestly speaking we only condemn or accept our image of the person we meet, and not the real person.  We land in error when we condemn or accept the real person solely on our constructed image of the person, that too from a very very limited and conditioned experience.  

The Dalai Lama's wisdom

God as a person

I did an experiment to find out how much of God do we truly seek to grasp and understand.  I did a word cloud search for the term ´God´ and I chose the following at random.  I know this is no scientific or valid research, but still is an indicator.

God is barely seen as a person, a being. He is most always a ´he´; synonymous with a string of his attributes; very theological and conceptual (of course, I understand it is a word cloud!)...

What I wish to basically state is that God is rarely looked up to as a person. And even if the term ´god´ is expressed in personal vocabulary, it is of someone and I am merely appropriating it, sans the initial person´s experience! In that sense, the term looses its meaning and flavour and everything, sooner or later.  It becomes an empty shell - good and great on the outside but very much hollow and agonizingly burdensome within!

God Himself is so desperate to become human - I suppose, that´s what Christmas is all about - but we human beings are more desperate to make him divine!