Welcome to the Wisdom of the World by Joan Chittister

September 22nd, 2010   by   Andrew


Author

A writer once said in an interview, “if your theme survives the telling of the tale, then you effed up bad.”

He was talking about fiction and the importance of being ruthless even with yourself about your own cherished beliefs. Otherwise, the work’s truth won’t be able to grow out of that pain you feel in challenging your own assumptions.

Joan Chittister is a Benedictine sister and the inspirational drive behind Benetvision. She has a curious habit of making her book titles lengthy and intriguing. And even though she has put together a wonderful walkabout in world spirituality and she has gathered international, accessible meditations on the spiritual process, she hasn’t challenged her own assumptions or her own themes. And today, that’s bad.

Technical Bits

This is a book about the big questions in life, and the spiritual journey involved in both asking and thinking about those questions. Welcome to the Wisdom of the World is a short book (about 190 pages) that examines the spiritual contribution of five of the world’s religious traditions – Hindu Wisdom, Buddhist Enlightenment, Jewish Community, Christian Love and Islamic Submission (links are to my earlier summaries of world religions). Chittister strikes a point in staying away from the sacred texts of each tradition. Instead, this is about anecdotes, about little stories of people in each faith or tradition and how we can apply their insights today in our daily lives.

Each religion is given five chapters. For example, Chittister asks the question “How Can I Learn to Let Go of the Past?” in chapter 4. She compares two women she knows, a middle-aged professional that couldn’t get past a rough divorce and a retired woman unwilling to start up any new romances. Chittister then tells a Hindu story about the birth of Ganesh and how he got his elephant-head as a replacement for his original.

In chapter 7, “How Do I know the Right Thing to Do? ” there is a story of a Buddhist Monk named Shoun. Shoun never seems to be doing the right thing and never at the right time. But everything he did was in the loving service of some other. Chittister uses this illustration to distinguish between obeying the ‘laws‘ or ‘shoulds‘ in life,  and seeing the world as it is so as to serve the growth of spirituality.

The Jewish tradition is used to tackle such questions as “Where Did I Lose My Idealism?” and “Why was I born?” In this section, Chittister uses several stories about rabbis. Rarely do the rabbis agree on how to serve their communities but in each action or direction they see God’s will.

Little vignettes of abbeys and monks are the focal points for the section on Christian Love. The chapters in this section deal with questions such as “How Will I Know the Truth When I See It?” and “What is the Purpose of Life?”

Chittister stays pretty close to the Sufis to explore the Islamic contribution to world spirituality. “What is Happiness?” and “Why Do I Feel That Something Is Missing in My Life?” are examples of the questions put to the Islamic tradition.

Commentary

Welcome to the Wisdom of the World is a great little book for the spiritual student. Its focus is on people, real individuals curious about that elusive quest and willing to work on that task of being human. Through the use of these anecdotes, Chittister demonstrates how ancient stories can still be relevant as long as you are willing to engage the story on a literary level rather than a literal level.

But here’s the thing — each worldly tradition seems to confirm Chittister’s trust in and reliance on God. Behind each little tale she tells, no matter where it comes from, Chittister finds a place for God and puts God there. And as a result, Chittister does not seem to challenge her own assumptions or examine her own cherished beliefs. She has found all this inspiration from the accepted world religions, but it is not inspiration for dramatic change in herself. This book could be taken as  a call to take up only the institutional (or institutionalized) spirituality the world offers.

If Chittister wanted to really examine her own theme she could have immersed herself in the atheist perspective for at least one extra section of her book. There are resources available. There is a growing non-God-centered spirituality. Emmanuel Levinas has been quoted as saying, “Scientific knowledge can push the possessor toward a sense of responsibility. It is a signal of transcendence.” If Chittister had knuckled-down and taken on the hard task of learning some things so far outside of her realm of comfort, I would be singing the highest praises for her.

Also, she seems to have little time or little exposure to the marginalized spiritualities and traditions the world has offered us. There is wisdom in Dreamtime, in the Peacemaker and the Tree of Peace, and in the male-female Enkai, even if the underlying cultures were not empirically successful.

I will continue with Welcome to the Wisdom of the World later this week with some quotations, recommendations and a final wrap-up.


Back to the Book Reviews

September 13th, 2010   by   Andrew

I’m going back to book reviews.

The theme for this set of book reviews will be Change.

Here’s the line-up of titles I will discuss for the next few weeks:

The Future of Faith by Harvey Cox

Welcome to the Wisdom of the World by Joan Chittister

Darwin, Divinity, and the Dance of the Cosmos by Bruce Sanguin

Touching Peace by Thich Hnat Hanh

I will be using something close to my usual format but likely toning down the number of quotations and overall length of posts.



The Faith Instinct – Nicholas Wade

April 19th, 2010   by   Andrew

Author

Nicholas Wade has some considerable credits to his name. He has been a writer and editor for such magazines as Science and Nature. He has also written for The New York Times and has at this point about six other titles of his own.

In a curious aside, not really related to this book, Nicholas Wade has moved on to bigger, woollier things — he is part of a group intending to recreate a woolly mammoth from genetic material. Here is the interview with Stephen Colbert (Comedy Network). For American readers, here is  a link to the video on Nicholas Wade’s own website (Comedy Central).

Technical Bits

The Faith Instinct is less than 300 pages long and broken into twelve somewhat evenly spaced chapters. Wade is using a wide lens right from the start, looking at world history and world religions, and drawing from a lengthy set of resources and cultures.

He is a scientific writer and the chapter titles give a little a taste of his style (examples: The Moral Instinct, Music, Dance and Trance, The Tree of Religion, The Ecology of Religion). Wade isn’t using the intricate, careful sentences of Jack Miles or the vocabulary-rich parry-and-riposte work of Christopher Hitchens. Wade remains even and tempered with objective sentences that communicate his successive points. He is exploring what is before him and, to use the phrase, following where the evidence seems to lead him.

As a note of caution, I would suggest that the reader would have to be at least comfortable with the idea of evolution. There are pages where the words ‘evolution’ or ‘adaptation’ come up in ever paragraph. This book is certainly not an attack on some worldview or anything, but it is a science-writer using  scientific explanations in order to understand how religion has changed and why religions endures.

Commentary

Mea Culpa

I have to admit that at first I was reluctant to look at this book. I had a poor assumption that this was  a defense for specific religions. Let me say, in plain and simple terms, I was wrong. This book isn’t a persuasion so much as an exploration. It is an attempt to remove the filtering lenses of cultural bias, temporal assumptions or exclusive truths and examine what is really happening in the conscious, unconscious, emotional and intellectual activities bound up in religion.

Wade’s general idea is that we can look at religion the way we look at language or how we look at more directly scientific stuff like genetics. He wants to look at religion from an evolutionary perspective. It is an adaptation that has affected the way we gather as communities, share emotional bonds and distribute loyalties.

Wade relies quite heavily on the work of anthropologists and archeologists. He spends a great deal of time on the subject of hunter-gatherer societies and their rituals. Dance and music were of supreme importance in achieving trance-like states or transcendent experiences to commune with the supernatural.

The change to agricultural societies and then to city-states and nations led to a nearly systematic specialization from what Wade refers to as the ecstatic connection to the supernatural (where any individual could access the supernatural) to the ecclesiastical (where the divine could only be accessed through a priesthood with control of a sacred text). There was a shift in interests too. As Wade puts it, “adherents of the ancestral religion sought to secure survival in the real world; those of modern religions are more focused on salvation in the next.” But Wade does point out that in every religion there is an attempt to negotiate with the other power for some personal gain. The idea of a supernatural power is an extremely efficient way to regulate behaviour within a community.

Wade does a pretty good job in presenting a case for the evolutionary advantages of religion, in my opinion. But by no means is he advocating some specific religion. Drawing from archeological research and other sources, he does (with some cool, impersonal detachment) discuss the history of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. For each he describes evidence that shows how each sacred text was a political piece of propaganda ‘created’ for specific rulers interested in expanding regional borders, creating national cohesion or establishing emotional solidarity.

He spends a great deal of time on the topics of ritual and community. There are some amazing, fascinating little illustrations on smaller and nearly lost cultures. The island-dwelling Trobriands near Papua New Guinea had a tradition of exchange for honour and prestige. Ceremonial armbands made from shellfish were given as gifts around the islands in a counterclockwise direction. Necklaces made from disks of a red shell were given as gifts around the islands in a clockwise direction. As part of the trade system, islanders would travel hundreds of miles on rough seas to carry out these ceremonial transactions. And in a number of years the armband or necklace would make its way around the islands as a gift back to the original owner. On the Island of Bali a complex system of farming, flooding and then burning rice fields was developed in order to control pests that could ruin the crop. By the gate of each flood canal is a temple, and all the coordination and timing comes from a central priesthood in continual communication with the farming groups.

What I found most interesting in Wade’s book is that he does not shy away from the contradictory nature of religion. In terms of evolution, the main measuring stick is found in an individual’s passing on of genes to the next generation. But with religion, the individual is compelled and even justified in sacrificing his or her own life for the benefit of the group or the higher power. Death can really cramp your chances of passing on your genes. But Wade addresses this by suggesting several explanations. In some respects, it is actually a control that allows balance. Overpopulation causes as many problems to the progress of a species as a lack of population. Also, such beliefs and demonstrations of self-sacrifice can be used as ways to identify loyal individuals and  ‘free-loaders’ (Wade’s term for people that take much more than they give). As a result, rewards can be distributed accordingly. As well, Wade suggests ways to look at the idea of group evolution. The community and the religion can carry on because of the sacrifice and loyalty of the individuals.

As I said earlier, Wade is mostly interested in ritual and community and the adaptive advantages gained from them. I tend to be more interested in symbol and story (as can be seen by my explorations on world religions in March). However, I can already tell that this book is one well-spring of information that I will be dipping my bucket back into again and again.

I will continue with The Faith Instinct on Wednesday with some quotations and a final wrap-up.


March Review – “And the end of all our exploring”

March 31st, 2010   by   Andrew

“Not for fear of hell nor longing for heaven but for love.”

–7th Century Muslim Prophetess

Well, I’m done, for now.

This month I’ve done a little traipsing through the gardens of earthly beliefs. I haven’t exactly delved too deeply or too greedily, but it has helped me regain some perspective, some vocabulary, and surprisingly  enough for me, some personal conviction.

I found the above quote in a comment on another blog, but thought it more appropriate to link to the original comment-writer’s site – Conscientisation,  “a 43 year old post-cynic more interested in the Omega course than the Alpha Course.” I haven’t explored much of this site yet, but it looks like April might be a good time for it.

There is a clear and simple set of observations, or a pattern that seems to develop, from every religion I looked at this month.

Every world religion (or every major worldview, for that matter):

- attempts to define a code of behaviour or morality and tries to find a basis for that code in something usually authoritative

- changes through schism, politics, succession, success, failure, translation, population movement, etc.

- borrows from its neighbours,  ancestors,  enemies, etc.

- inspires both the most creative artists and the most unforgivable criminals

This is the short list. I’m trying to keep to my own observations and steering clear of evaluations. Well, trying – evaluation and judgment are sometimes automatic when glaring hypocrisy is present.

But I do want to look more specifically at the idea of belief. I was watching a video of Richard Dawkins a few days ago in which he makes a distinction between faith-based belief and evidence-based belief. It illustrated for me one of the core issues I have with institutionalized religion.

With faith-based belief someone is making assumptions based on what cannot be known (unless you feel like insulting the definition of know). Now, I might make a slight allowance for personal experience or personal knowledge (sometimes you just know, right? Like when your gut is just telling you something, but then you don’t listen, until it’s too late and you say, “Oh why didn’t I listen to my gut?”). But two things come from this. First, it can only be personal then (otherwise, you are invading on someone else’s gut). Second, it’s an exaggeration. It is only reliable if you keep track of each important  personal moment and then evaluate whether it is consistent or not (sometimes your gut is the last thing you should listen to! Even if it uses the voice of God, or maybe the voice of hunger, or the voice of let’s-go-find-some-trouble).

With evidence-based belief, you are still making assumptions but at least for the most part it is based on something that can be known. As well, the beliefs drawn from observations must depend and fit tight with the observations. Otherwise, you’ll get some serious flack when you try to explain yourself to anyone. And you get into more serious flack when you stretch beyond the initial assumptions or the collected observations.

The difference is kind of like the difference between a metaphorical understanding of something and a thorough or complete understanding of something.

And so to God.

People love explanations of things. Even if they don’t accept them, people collect all sorts of contradictory explanations and then draw them up whenever a situation needs some explaining. But with God, there is no explaining. And there is no way to know him/her/it/them. There is no description that fits the term appropriately. There is no attempt one can make at understanding a God that would not be an insult to the God (I’ve used the ‘proving-a-negative thing before for some humour… well how about insulting-a-unknown?)

And so, I cannot believe that I know God. To claim to know God is to claim that you know the unknowable. This example of ”cognitive dissonance’ (thanks again Sab) has been written before, I’m sure of it, but it strikes me as one of the most arrogant and human of things to claim. To have something on the unknown is a dangerous pit I hope to avoid (or at least step lightly around). The only step I am willing to make is one of definition — I do not know the unknowable. So I will make no (serious) claims about it (please allow me some room for future punchlines).

But I can’t stop here.

I do not believe in God because it has become a meaningless statement for me.  Earlier in my blog I made an attempt to write about the word God. I’m surprised, in some respects, at how my mind has changed a little, in its flittery, stumbling, leaf-on-a-breeze way. But the convictions are still there.

I will tell you what I do believe in. I believe in my family, my friends, my neighbours and I believe in the world that I live in.

I have to.

Every day I am with them, and they are with me. Every day I get to know them a little more, and so my belief grows. And what’s more, I can communicate with them and learn from them and be of service to them. And I can know whether or not I am doing well by them from what gifts they share with me.

Sometimes I believe in story as well. I will try to discuss this belief a little more on Friday.

As the title suggests, a close from T.S. Eliot (once again):

LITTLE GIDDING

[end of part V]

We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.
Through the unknown, unremembered gate
When the last of earth left to discover
Is that which was the beginning;
At the source of the longest river
The voice of the hidden waterfall
And the children in the apple-tree
Not known, because not looked for
But heard, half-heard, in the stillness
Between two waves of the sea.
Quick now, here, now, always—
A condition of complete simplicity
(Costing not less than everything)
And all shall be well and
All manner of thing shall be well
When the tongues of flame are in-folded
Into the crowned knot of fire
And the fire and the rose are one.

(entire poem)

For a little more explanation of the poem and its context, here’s the starting wiki. I will discuss this a little further on Friday, but since I don’t personally align myself with all of T.S. Eliot’s conclusions, here is another quote from him:

Datta. Dayadvham. Damyata.

Shantih shantih shantih.

(from The Waste Land)


Tying up the Loose Ends

March 29th, 2010   by   Andrew

Even with its favorable length, I’m running out of time here in March. So, today is going to be little more than a quick summary of some of the world religions I haven’t explored. And Wednesday I will do a full review and commentary.

Sikhism – founded about 500 years ago, Sikhism is based on the visions, revelations and preachings of Shri Guru Nanak Dev Ji. It is based on a belief  of a singular, formless God and the brotherhood of humanity. There is a relation to certain Hindu beliefs, such as  samsara (reincarnation, cycle) and karma. However, every individual has equal status before God.

Prayer is a cornerstone of the Sikh religion but the worshiping of idols is strictly forbidden (since God is formless). Also, dress and clothing is very important and symbolic to the religious Sikh. Hair is not cut, but kept in a turban. Short pants, a comb, and a metal bracelet are worn as well as a ceremonial dagger.

As a reflection of the ‘equality’ within the religion, there is a tradition where Sikh males all  share the name “Singh”, meaning lion. Women carry the name “Kaur”, meaning princess.

Jainism is tied pretty closely to Hindu traditions. Jains tend to follow a vegetarian diet, and there are extreme cases where devout Jains may only eat that which does not kill the original plant or animal (eg. fruit). Interestingly enough, Jains believe that karma is only the ‘bad’ collected through a person’s life. This is different from the Hindu and Buddhist definition where karma is the sum of both ‘good’ and ‘bad’.

.

Parsis (Zoroastrianism) – If I have but one serious regret it would be that I have not written more about Zoroastrianism because I do feel it provides incredibly valuable context to how religions are influenced by other religions.  So I might make it up to dear Zarathustra later. Zoroastrianism (began in the Middle East around 600-500 BCE but is now found in small groups In India) did have a major role of influence on Judaism, Christianity and Islam, especially in terms of the development of ideas such as an afterlife and a paradise based on judgments of good and evil.

Vodun (Voodoo) – Terms such as ‘Voodoo’ are used to describe a collection of practices and beliefs that originated in West Africa but are often associated today with the Caribbean and with traditions of ‘black magic’. ‘Vodun’ tends to be used to refer to the religion itself. In this belief system there are hundreds of minor spirits, but there is a supreme being and an afterlife. For an interesting list of some of the minor spirits, here is a link.

Scientology -  If I have one comedic regret it would be in not inspecting Scientology further, because, to paraphrase several comics, the punchlines just write themselves (as an added note, their websites are really sleek and nice).  Forgive my ignorance but I just feel life is too short to glean ethical and mystical advice from celebrities or dynamic executives.

.

.

.

If there is something I have missed, or sketched inappropriately, or represented inaccurately, please let me know. And as usual, the limits of my scope and my abilities should be a signal that for any interested readers, this is just a beginning.

Please prepare well by all means available, and then  set forth on your own journey. All paths lead to more paths and more vistas. You may not see them all or be able to take them, but knowing they are there, and knowing someone may be traveling on them, is an important step on your journey, all the same.


Atheism – Proving a Negative

March 26th, 2010   by   Andrew

An apologetic in North Carolina by the name of Frank Turek has a book with the title, “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist”.

It’s a clever enough title, in its way, so I’ll give him that. But I haven’t read the book, and don’t intend to. I first came across Turek’s name as it was tied to Christopher Hitchens because the two had a debate about God. If you would like to see the video, you can do a search or ask me for it. I will not link to it here because it was a sloppy and weak display of two otherwise mature adults refusing to listen to one another. Turek actually did stay on the topic better than Hitchens, to his credit. But you might as well put a revival-tent preacher on stage next to a political comedian empty of punchlines and say to them, “Make some entertaining faces for us, mm-kay.”

Since the word ‘faith’ is inappropriate (although deliciously ironic, I suppose), today I will use the word ‘worldview’.

The worldview of Atheism is the new darling of the media, mainly because the “New Atheists” are giving the media what it wants. The New Atheists are, generally speaking, a group of scholars and writers and  scientists that have decided to examine things like faith, institutionalized religion and the physical world, and from such studies try to go where the evidence leads them.

For the general low-down, the wikipedia is of course a starting point. But please don’t stop there.

The history of atheism has as ancient of roots as all of the theisms out there. Socrates himself was found guilty of, and put to death for, not recognizing the accepted gods and corrupting the youth of the city. Maybe this is the reason why atheism is often tied to academics, scholars, scientists and free-thinkers. It’s been a long time, but the academics are finally trying to get some payback for what was done to the ol’ Greek.

You don’t have to be that smart, really, to be an atheist. There is really no entry qualifications that way. And like every other worldview, there are dramatic schisms and groupings and regroupings, and certainly different flavours of humour. The Atheist Nexus is good sampler of blogs, and useful in terms of getting a sense of the modern mood in non-believers.

The real challenge for atheists is, as Ronald Aronson puts it, “the most urgent need [for] a coherent popular philosophy that answers vital questions about how to live one’s life.” (source: Steinfels through Sam Harris.org)

This is one thing that nags at me quite a bit — there is no worldview out there that really solves this problem. Yes, in religions, things tend to be spelled out rather plainly and absolutely, but that really hasn’t prevented abuses. And the same can be said about atheism. Not every atheist, for example, is a humanist, or just plain humane for that matter.

But, I do have to say that I like how this need is being studied now.

Here are two very important, relatively short videos that demonstrate the  work going on right now towards a philosophy on how to live one’s life. ( First exposure to these for me was  from Leah’s blog, The Whore of All the Earth. Thanks so much Leah for waking me up to TED talks — what an incredible, valuable site!)

And of course, Ramachandran for last. (This one totally blew my mind! Personal prognostication here, but I think the path to understanding morality will be through neuroscience and neurology).

(Ok, also: Leah recently posted Sam Harris’ talk on how science can answer moral questions. Check it out on her site.)