Re-reading prayers

 Most often, I barely pay attention to the words of the psalms and canticles I pray during our lauds and vespers.  The recitation is clear and loud, but the meaning is barely dwelt upon or even considered.  I guess it has become a routine and therefore the recitation is more in terms of familiarity with the text than meaningful prayer. 

However, today there was Katrin with us for morning prayer.  I'm sure she never ever recited the lauds ever before and therefore offering her the breviary and indicating the prayers, I felt the need to read the text as if she were reading.  Virtually how it would be that she would understand the same words and phrases of the psalms and canticles, that I'm so used to reading so often.  

It was surprising to note that quite a few bits felt odd or even not contextual.  Perhaps even out of place or redundant.  At times it felt as if the words did not do justice or fell short of actually expressing the real feeling or sentiments. 

Nonetheless, an interesting experience it was! 

Listen

It's been a while since I've paid attention... it has been mostly self-talking and self-hearing!  

'Being offended'??

There is the incident in Buddha's life that comes to my mind when I hear about the whole debate between 'freedom of speech' and 'no platform'.  One of the basic bones of contention in this debate is offense (giving and taking). 

On an occasion when there were people visiting the Buddha, there was a man who came in and started abusing the Buddha.  But he sat there very calm and quiet.  He never retorted nor got agitated.  After a while, the abuser got tired and left.  The disciples then approached the Buddha and asked him, why didn't he say or do anything when he was being insulted.  The Buddha replied, "When someone offers you a gift and you refuse to take it, whom does it then belong to?"  The disciples replied, "The giver." And the Buddha replied, "He offered me a gift and I did not accept it!  So why get worked up about what is not mine!"

Besides, I know not if there is anything called 'being offended' - no one can offend me, unless I let them offend me.  Furthermore, resorting to anything other than verbal dialogue or debate, in order to show difference of opinion or contest the other person's views, is already conceding defeat! 

Everytime I get angry or hurt, I ask myself why is it that I'm feeling this way.  So rather than merely shut the other person up by shouting or insulting, I merely listen.  I then merely present my side of the story.  And then leave it at that.  If the person merely wants to insult me, by feeling insulted, I'm letting him win, without a valid reason.  And if what he or she says has a point, then it is for me to ponder and respond appropriately (both the other and myself - in the reverse order!). 

The same is true of 'bad words'.  When someone calls out, "Peter" I don't respond.  That's not me. So why should I respond to someone who calls me a 'sob'?  If I do respond, then I'm accepting that title!  

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.  

All the right words...

Poverty or generosity?

Another interesting passage: this time from the letter to the second letter to the Corinthians (8: 1 & 9).

Here, brothers, is the news of the grace of God which was given in the churches of Macedonia; and of how, throughout great trials by suffering, their constant cheerfulness and their intense poverty have overflowed in a wealth of generosity.  

Note the seemingly contrasting facts about the same group of people: 'intense poverty' and 'overflowed in a wealth of generosity'.  It could be argued that the first is about material possessions and the second about a virtue.  Yet, how can one be generous with what one does not have.  Well, that brings to question the historical meaning assigned to 'poverty'.  Even if not the dictionary meaning, the one assigned to 'poverty' as is appears here; as inserted by the author; as understood by the reader. 

Another line of argument (the usual interpretation): they were poor, yet generous with the little they had.  So, there is no rivalry, both the phrases are compatible.  Yet, this compatibility is not the initial focus; it is only the intended derived focus!  This 'compatibility' would not have been that hitting and efficient, if not for the purposely contradicted phrases 'intense poverty' and 'wealth of generosity'. 

For a normal reader, the first point would be, which of these two is true? Both can't be, at the same time!  But for a Christian, I wonder how many ever thought of the two as incompatible?  Compare the meaning accorded to the words 'poor' and 'generosity' here with the intended meaning in the instance of the poor widow's contribution. Is one right in according the latter narration or the present text in discussion a 'great Christian writing'? Or is one right about saying that these are examples of illogical thinking and confused ideas? If criteria for judging are different then one ought to be ready to grant two different verdicts - even contradictory ones.  Then there is no common ground for further discussion.  If on the other hand, we seek for common ground, one might ask, then what's Christian about this? 

And with v. 9:

... he was rich, but he became poor for your sake, to make you rich out of his poverty! 

note the words rich used twice, don't mean the same, even though occurring in the same sentence.  And what if they did??  The same with 'poor' and 'poverty'.  

Tolerance vs harmony

For long the Indian belief system and the general mood of the population has considered Hinduism as a tolerant religion. Indeed it is – at least in its principles and core values. However, living here in Europe and often hearing of the Christian tradition and history, I wonder if the same tolerance can be said of Christianity too. But then on deeper reflection it struck me that the word 'tolerance' smacks of a sort of dominance and a kind of pitiful 'permission' for other beliefs to exist. Even in common usage we don't use the word 'tolerate' when speaking of human relations. And when we do, it is not in very positive and joyful description. To tolerate someone would mean to bear up, for want of no choice or out of sheer necessity. It certainly is not a pleasant scenario. So why use the term when referring to religions and religious adherents? Perhaps a better and more suitable word would be 'harmony'. Well it does not describe one particular religion or group but of the whole! Even if one were to use it for one particular religion, one would need to say that it promotes harmony, not tolerates other belief systems!

Good is not the word

Speaking of stating the truth without hurting or causing confusion and in a way acceptable to all, without in any way diluting the content of it, is an art. 

Many years ago a few Salesians doing a refresher course in the States were invited by a family for a meal to their home.  The household had put in great efforts to receive them, make them feel at home and lay out a grand meal.  However the food was not so great.  And when, at the end of the meal, the hostess asked the priests how was the meal, one of them prudently replied, "Good is not the word!" 

The Salesian conveyed what he wanted to convey, without in anyway offending the lady! 

Expressing oneself

One of the advantages of social media, besides anonymity, is the possibility to express oneself without adhering to theories of scientific truth and error or abiding by public/popular/actual rhetoric.  In other words, anyone can express oneself without being felt compelled by the accepted or prevalent norm.  One is merely expressing oneself.  There is no demand for logic, reason or arguments to support one's statement(s) - at least one need not oblige. 

In one sense this can be a very dangerous endeavour.  One can deny total responsibility for what one has just stated and offer no explanation or sensible justification for either.  That can lead to serious personality disorders which affect not just the individual concerned but all those associated with him or her. 

On the other hand, it can be seen as a psychological letting off of steam.  A sort of therapy wherein one merely expresses one's opinion.  Not necessarily a judgement or conclusion.  A catharsis. 

All the same the balance or the line dividing the two can at times be very thin and slippery.   

Rendering meaning

The dilemma of whether to use or not to use language is such that even to express its 'murderous' nature, we use it.  An interesting article on the meaningfulness of greeting cards inspite of them using cliches or outdated phrases...

Clichéd statements such as ‘I love you’ and ‘Sorry for your loss’ call attention to this double futility: language always fails but it is impossible to remain silent. Nowhere is this clearer than in the sympathy card phrase ‘There are no words’. Though the statement is true, in order to be given meaning it must be expressed and, in doing so, is falsified. This axis of articulation and absence, of speaking and silence, is the dilemma that language continually re-presents.

[Source: Aeon]

Sound vs Word

Today in one of the seminars that I attended, I came across the distinction between a 'cry' or a 'yelp' and a 'word'.  In other words, Aristotle seems to use two different words and with purpose: logos and phrene (not sure if I got the word right). While the latter is a cry, a sound, logos is an articulated sound.  So while one may claim that what counts is the logos, another may claim that unless you have the basic 'cry', you cannot articulate it.  The articulation does not happen without the basic sound. 

The discussion was as part of a political theory.  When in a public sphere what matters is only logos. If it is basically a 'cry' then it does not find a place in the public sphere. Even if it does find a place it is not really understood and thereby does not make an impact.  But on the other hand, it is basically the 'cry' that gives rise to the 'word'.  Perhaps an exaggerated example, but makes the point nonetheless.  At an international conference on world hunger, one would expect a well documented, scientific paper on hunger and means of addressing it rather than a hungry person's plea for food.  Even if a hungry person reaches the place and pleads for food, it is not going to get translated into a policy, affecting the political, at least not until someone 'articulates' the hungry mans cries into an 'international language'.  Strange but true! 

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.  

Wittgenstein and silence

Extracts from Paul Engelman, Letters from Ludwig Wittgenstein with a memoir, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1967, p. 97

For Wittgenstein

... what goes beyond the clearly empirical cannot be spoken of (whereof one cannot speak thereof one much remain silent), but this does not mean that what is unsayable is insignificant, or worthless. 
For the positivists what we can speak of is all that matters in life.  Whereas for Wittgenstein all that really matters in life, is precisely what we must be silent about.  

When he nevertheless takes immense pains to delimit the unimportant, it is not the coastline of that island which he is bent on surveying with multicolour accuracy, but the boundary of the ocean.  

On p. 121...

Wittgenstein account lays great stress, not on the features of the world itself, but on how it is viewed. 
He really does seem to hold the view that there is something outside language and outside the facts of the world which is of fundamental spiritual significance.
However propositions can only handle the humdrum states of affairs.  They cannot express 'what is higher'.  Words will only hold facts, just as Wittgenstein says, 'a teacup will only hold a teacup full of water even if I were to pour out a gallon over it'.  Expressing anything higher will only end up talking nonsense, but it is important nonsense (p. 121). 

Cave paintings and emojis

Mankind took centuries and ages of painstaking effort to evolve communication and language from the earliest animalistic grunts and cave paintings.  Years of study and research has seen the development of syntax, grammar, spelling, dictionaries, translations and what not... all to polish language and make it more sophisticated.  In such a context it is amazing to see the use of language on social media, especially the ones most in use (twitter, facebook, whatsapp...).  Grammar has gone for a toss.  So have spellings. Words are shortened and abbreviated (euphemism for murdered and butchered!).  And most often there are hardly any words or letters... only emoji.  So much so, the word 'emoji' was announced as the word of the year in 2015 by Oxford dictionary!  Back to the age of cave paintings! But I guess pictures have always been a more powerful means of communication than words.

The power of words

Prior to Trump's election as the president of the US, it was the tension between the US and Russia.  Now it is the US vs North Korea.  And I still don't know why is it that there is the tension?  Did the US invade any part of North Korea?  Or did the North Koreans attack any part of the US?  The tension seems to spring and get escalated merely on the exchange of words... far more than the experimentation or military drills and tests.

No doubt words of provocation work so efficiently.  Wonder if words of peace and harmony too work with such finesse and effect.  Our sensitivities are so heightened that any small slip of tongue or gesture is enough to thrust us into war.  But the same sensitivities remain callous when it comes to discussing matters concerning the well being of the suffering, poor, marginalised and struggling folks within our circle of daily experience.  Even with enough and evident reasons and arguments for eradicating social evils and suffering, we still don't see the point.  We need Harvey and Irma and Jose to get our attention to more important and deeper issues than frivolous things like war and military exercises.  

Personalised greetings

Most people think that with an advancement in the means of communication, communion grows. That's not always true.  At times the danger is that instead of bring people together, the means of communication, distances people from one another or makes relationship superfluous.

I'm reminded of days, not too long ago, when b'day cards were sent out to loved ones to greet them on the occasion of their birthday.  Now these cards had to be timed in order to reach the person just before the day. That meant thinking about the person much before the actual day itself.  So there was a list of people close to us and their dates and addresses.  This list or diary was regularly looked at and invariably people remembered.  The greeting itself meant writing something worthwhile and good for the person.  Taking the trouble of going to the postoffice to get a stamp and then post it. Then came b'day cards which replaced the letter. But even then, one had to think of the person, in advance (and till the actual day).

With the internet, the e-mails made things "easier". One had to think of the person just the previous day or on the day itself.  Today, most people merely remember on the day and send a whatsapp message or a facebook post.  Gone are the personalised greetings. Wishes are now broadcasted not conveyed! What's more one need not even remember any date, they are all digitally recorded and reminded!

Understanding the unintelligible

Most of us agree to the notion that there are things which are beyond conceptualization. There will always be things which we can never fix into words and meaning.  They will always elude intellectual grasp.

Theologians and believers would call that the realm of faith. Philosophers would mostly not agree to this fact and try all the same.  For the latter, this exercise is what keeps alive the inquisitiveness of human life. Thus in a way it is healthy, for the mind and for life.

In an effort to conceptualize the unintelligible, most often we think of what harm we would be doing to the reality itself.  By trying to fit it into our mental categories we somehow distort it, at times beyond recognition.  But today it struck me that there is something else that is harmed too: the tools by which we try to conceptualize the yet-to-be-conceptualized.  By tools I mainly mean language.  No wonder, the first thing that goes for a toss in philosophy and mystic talk is language.

And how does one grasp that which is beyond language?  Primarily without language one cannot think; even to name a sentiment we need language; even to express what is felt, one needs a medium/language...

Speaking the truth

Thought for the day...

To write anything more would be an annulment of the veracity of the above quote!

"I am great"

Everyday - day after day - we say so many things.  I realize I've been writing much lately.  Yet the veracity and necessity of it is often taken for granted. Dag Hammarsjokld (in Markings) has a stinger for those of us who take others silence in the context of our ramblings as confirmation of our thoughts and ideas.

The fool shouted in the marketplace. No one stopped to answer. In this way it was confirmed that his theses were irrefutable.

"Stop the Homily Abuse"

A very lively and refreshing take on homily by Archbishop Socrates Villegas, who is also the President of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines...

• We were all abused by the homilies of our elder priests when we were seminarians. When our turn came to deliver homilies, the abused became the abuser.
• Long, winding, repetitious, irrelevant, unprepared homilies are signs of a sick spiritual life of the priest.
• It is not enough to prepare our homilies; the good priest must prepare himself.
• We preach only Jesus Christ; always Jesus Christ.
• When you listen and pray before you talk, you learn something new and your homily will be crisp and fresh.
• The simple lifestyle of priests is the homily easiest to understand.
• Reading and study must not stop after the seminary. If we stop reading and study, we endanger the souls of our parishioners. If we stop studying, then we start forcing our people to read the so-called open book of our lives – the comic book of our lives, hardly inspiring, downright ridiculous and awfully scandalous. The homily becomes our story and not the story of Jesus.
• Believe what you read. Teach what you believe. Practise what you teach.

Click here for the full text.