No laughing matter

Browsing through the news headlines, the following one caught my eye

A cobra's kiss

The news is about two men from Rajasthan who have been getting cobras so as to get them to bite their tongues because no amount of the usual drugs they've used gives them a high anymore!  It is said that the cobra's venom is strong enough to kill 20 people or an elephant!  But the same poison is also is being studied as a substitute for narcotic drugs.  The short news also speaks of these two men being the object of study at the Chandigarh university as part of their de-addiction research.

What amused me most was one of the comments below the article... hilarious!

They should try being bitten by politicians, they will either get a higher kick or die in minutes. Their tongues are more poisonous than any snake.

Sacred and supernatural

According to Prof. Tim Crane, one of the elements that links "religious impulse" and "identification" - the two essential characteristics of religion, according to him overlooked by new atheists - is the sacred.  The notion of sacred forms one of the key elements of the characteristics of religion, any religion.  He said that anything could be sacred... a person, a thing, a text, an object... anything!  But this means that there is a distinction between the sacred and the profane. 

The sacred in so far as it represents the 'transcendence' aspect and is a point of unification among the people who agree upon its being distinct from other things, especially profane things, serves as a connecting factor.  So from what I understand, a thing to be sacred has to fulfill both these criterion: represent transcendence and be a source of unity.  That broadly gives us a vague criterion of judging something as sacred or not.  So there could be something that actually reflects the transcendence but not noticed or accepted by us OR something that is socially projected but not actually sharing in the transcendence aspect of reality.  Neither of these can be called sacred(?)

But there is one thing he mentioned in passing: "...the sacred need not be the supernatural."

That set me thinking. Then I remembered the whole distinction between the sign and the symbol, especially made by Paul Ricoeur.  Am not sure if that fits in with Prof. Tim Crane's understanding of the sacred.  However, I don't think Paul Ricoeur would have serious objections to the sacred not being the supernatural.  In as much as what is considered sacred shares the 'immanent' aspect with us human beings while being the representation of the 'transcendent', that what eludes material quantification, the sacred does not become the supernatural.  And if it does turn supernatural, then it loses its immanent character.  I'm thinking of all that we consider 'sacred' within the Catholic tradition: relics, the altar, consecrated statues, churches... all are basically still natural objects or things.  Even the person of Mother Mary, as long as she was here on earth she was a human being, immanent; but now we treat her as supernatural, but she is no more with us in that immanent form as she once did.  (The only exception I can think of is the Holy Communion. Can it be classified under this: representing the sacred but not the sacred itself?)

On the other hand, there is this dilemma as to whether we need this distinction of sacred and profane at all.  After all, if we are true to our Christian tradition, there is nothing that is 'not sacred'.  Everything, however mundane it appears, is sacred.  So perhaps we can at the most speak of 'degrees of sacredness', in so far as it is ascribed to a thing by us collectively and not merely in itself being a representation of the 'trascendence'.  

Understanding tolerance

Another key point Prof. Tim Crane made while presenting ideas from his latest book, The meaning of belief, was the notion of tolerance.  Beginning with historical origin of this word he explained how it initially was very much associated and connected with suffering.  It then basically meant accepting suffering for having no means of escape from it.  However over the years the meaning of the word tolerance has undergone a shift but is now slowly turning into something very different and harmful!   
In the context of religion and religious tolerance, the word takes a different meaning.  It is not that religion or religions are to be tolerated in as much as they cause suffering yet for no other alternative we accept them.  It is not even that we let other religions exist side by side, for want of peace.  This would mean that we resist anything that 'offends' other religions.  We respect them. Prof. Crane said that's an inappropriate and unhealthy notion of tolerance.  Tolerance, on the contrary, involves disapproval, and does not involve respect.  His position was that we need not respect beliefs.  In fact, many beliefs, especially religious beliefs are not worthy of respect!  Rather he stated that we need to respect people, respect believers, not beliefs.  He just stopped short of saying 'Respect believers, tolerate beliefs'!  Moreover he spoke of tolerance as a practical attitude rather than a theoretical stand.  However, he was open to accept that this notion of tolerance, limits of it, actual practical entailment of this, are still vague and not well defined in his thought.

He was mentioning of an article by Bernard Williams on Tolerance... should read up that. 

Truth and meaning

The talk of Prof. Tim Crane (of Central European University) I attended yesterday, as part of his latest book promotion The Meaning of Belief: Religion from an Atheist's point of view was very interesting.  There was a large audience, the biggest I've ever seen in all the open public lectures I've been to so far.  Goes to show that people are still interested and curious to know about religion - even here in Europe! 

One of the key points he made prior to the exposition of the main ideas of his book was the distinction he made between truth and meaning.  He said he was not claiming to speak or clarify about the truth of religion.  He was only interested in the meaning of it.  He consciously made that decision because according to him a discussion on the truth would not lead him to any better understanding of religion, rather it would only cause further pain and division.  On the other hand, understanding religion and its contribution, or seeking meaning, would bring about a greater benefit for all.  After all, how can one criticize or even reject something without having a proper knowledge (an adequate conception) of religion? 

And according to me, though the two, truth and meaning, are connected, they need not always be present together.  The truth may not be meaningful (to all, all the time) and just because something is meaningful does not mean it is the truth.  

Building nests!

I wanted to attend the departmental interview rounds for one post of full-time professorship at the university today.  As PhD students we were invited to be present.  However, was stuck in traffic and didn't reach in time.  So I was waiting outside the room, just in case someone else comes out and I could sneak in.  Then I decided to sit in the PhD room exactly opposite to the room where the interviews were being conducted.  As I opened the room, I saw a pigeon inside and then noticed one of the windows slightly open.  I chased the pigeon out but by then realized that it had been in for some days.  Just as I was hoping that it had not built its nest, I saw it under the table - not exactly a full-fledged nest but some twigs and leaves.  What's more, found two eggs in it! 

My desire to join in the interview presentations and questions flew out of the window, just as the pigeon!  I then searched and found a small lid, big enough for the pigeon to sit in, and then tried to re-arrange the twigs; placed the eggs in it and put the whole thing on the window sill outside.  But then had doubts if the eggs would roll down and crash on the pavement below.  Moreover the sun was beating hard and directly on the eggs - not a good thing!  So then, searched for a cardboard box, placed the whole thing inside the box.  But then it occurred to me that someone might accidentally grab the box in - and thereby disturb the 'ongoing construction of the nest' and break the eggs.  So put a small note on it.

Hunger

If there is one thing we religious - among the many! - have really no experience of, then that is hunger!  The occasional times we are late for meals or carry out fasts during retreats or days of Lent, hardly qualify to be termed hunger.  Real hunger is the physical feeling coupled with the awareness that I do not have and will get no food to eat!  Among the many privileges our profession and ordination offers us is this guarantee of food, irrespective of whether we have worked for it or not.  

There's many a one who would be idle if hunger didn't pinch him; but the stomach sets us to work. [George Eliot, author Felix Holt (1866)]

Bishops and authenticity

In the first reading of the day Paul admonishes the Corinthians to be squabbling with one another and then approaching an 'outsider' to arbitrate justice, forgetting that within the believing community there are individuals who are capable of amicably resolving the issue with greater depth and insight.  But this lack of trust of the one (or some) within is also an indicator that either there isn't one at all or that people have divided up life into faith-related and other-related so neatly that one does not have a bearing on the other.

The first imagery that came to my mind as I read this passage was the scandal of sexual abuse and the Church, all over the world, especially involving Bishops who either were involved directly in the abuse or covered up cases for the sake of 'preserving' the image of the Church.  From that perspective, I found myself reading Paul admonishing the Bishops rather than the people.  I should say, my experience of the Bishops in my lifetime has not been a very happy one.  Only on rare occasions have I met or interacted with Bishops whom I've come across as genuinely human.  Most don't even deserve to be called Christians, leave alone be ordained!

However, Pope Francis' homily this morning about the same reading, sheds a slightly different light which perhaps I've not looked into.  Speaking almost on behalf of and to the Bishops he

invited them to remember three things in these troubled times: their strength lies in being men of prayer; they should have the humility to remember they were chosen by God; and they need to remain close to the people. 

The Bishops Pope Francis has in mind and is speaking about are those who truly feel the burden of being human, not the ones who've decided and live as though they are above everything. (More quotes from the sermon). 

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.  

On being a teacher

In India we commemorate Teachers' day today.  In a way it is a beautiful tradition of acknowledging the role of teachers.  Guru devo bhava! Mostly it is children in school and may be some colleges where they felicitate the teachers.  But it is also a day when everyone remembers atleast some of their beloved teachers.  Some make it a point to visit or call them, even though the student-teacher term is long over!  Just goes on to show that one can never really measure the impact a teacher can make in the lives of the students - for good or for worse. 

A teacher affects eternity; he can never tell where his influence stops.
[Henry Brooks Adams, historian in The Education of Henry Adams (1907)]

On such an occasion, am ending the day laughing away at a forward I received...

Teacher: John is climbing a tree to pick some mangoes (Rewrite the sentence and begin  with 'Mangoes')
Student: Mangoes, John is coming to pick you.

Truly it is not easy to be a teacher! 

Misguided priorities

There is a bill drafted for proposal in the Indian parliament about providing river Ganga 'protection' with an armed force which has powers to arrest those polluting the river!  I really could not believe what I was reading.  My first impulse was to laugh.  The second thought was, why not?  It's a good move, if aimed at preserving the ecology of the river and its surroundings.  However it then struck me, why only Ganga?  Why not all rivers and forests? 

So we now have civil and legal protection for rivers, cows, temples (also places where temples were once believed to be!) ... Wonder when will people, especially women, poor, disadvantaged, activists, journalists, get protection? 

Then there is the tallest statue in the world under construction in Gujarat, that of Sardar Patel.  The cost of which is 30 bn rupees.  Wonder what would that statue stand for?  Sardar Vallabhai Patel was a freedom fighter who has to his credit the feat of uniting India, as the first deputy prime minister, after we won freedom from the British.  This 'statue of unity' will certainly be a tourist spot but to reach it the tourists will have to pass through the poverty and misery of the living people!  This obsession with  investing in buildings and structures seems to be a common disease found among all those in authority, be it in politics or religious life.