We did, but you didn't...

We played the music but you didn't dance. We sang the dirges but you did not weep.  We did so much for you but you said nothing!  We gave you all this but you did nothing with it all. 

The pride of being the one giving, the one doing, the one bestowing... it can actually cancel all merit.  In some cases it may backfire as well.  Perhaps the one you were playing music for was deaf and did not really know what you were doing.  Perhaps the one you sang the dirges to, was returning home after a very glorious and joyful day.  Perhaps the one you did so much for, needed something totally different than all the great things you did, something trivial that you did not consider as required by him.  Perhaps the one you gave so much of material things after all needed just a few minutes of your time daily.  Of course, there is the question of holding the other accountable to what he or she has been blessed with.  But should I be the one to whom they should be accountable to? 

Charity does take a big toll on the one engaging in it.  It demands more than being generous.  It demands being able to give without asking anything in return.  It involves not claiming ourselves to be the 'saviour' - not with the ones being helped out, not to others, not even within/for ourselves.  Most of all, it involves genuinely being concerned for the other - it involves love.  

Experience!

Karwaan... an enriching journey

Yesterday watched the movie Karwaan, a lovely hindi movie!  A very simple plot and not too many characters or complexities.  Yet very smooth and profound.  How three different characters, with perhaps nothing in common bond together and in the process help one another learn something profound about themselves, through their mere presence.  The best I enjoyed was the subtle and comic timing of Shaukhat (Irrfan Khan).

Though don't really agree that the lyrics of this song actually represent the lead characters but all the same, do speak a lot about them.

The human voice

A simple reminder of the declining human presence in the world of technology and progress...

Anyone who has traveled in Europe, especially those like me from India, where public transport is anything but quiet, will certainly vibe with the sentiments brought forth in this video. 

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)]