tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-92211541408911104442024-02-19T10:13:21.416-05:00Signposts to EdenExploring Pathways to EnlightenmentABOUT THE AUTHORhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04035273164972855608noreply@blogger.comBlogger60125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9221154140891110444.post-37605890944902572872012-10-14T14:58:00.000-04:002012-10-14T15:15:13.940-04:00"The Incredible Shrinking Man" Reveals Each Person's Connection to the Infinite<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEglX2eUX4ZqLbfHUZHO-K5S8HAROkpkSQl4GSvDewSdF1G8ZdUdEwKcRZpj9hTd4ArozxAsxG5XeqIAtI64bB9owfHJDz6DWXvh-E-789i99TkuOI02hl5OdCeudbnyxJHwoBkdI2aT/s1600/sm.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEglX2eUX4ZqLbfHUZHO-K5S8HAROkpkSQl4GSvDewSdF1G8ZdUdEwKcRZpj9hTd4ArozxAsxG5XeqIAtI64bB9owfHJDz6DWXvh-E-789i99TkuOI02hl5OdCeudbnyxJHwoBkdI2aT/s1600/sm.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
The initial scenes of "The Incredible Shrinking Man" give no indication of the <i>Reel Insight</i> to come. Despite terrific special effects and a compelling musical score, the film suffers from weak character development and marginal acting. That makes it all the more disarming when the final minutes of the film delve into profound ideas about existence, and each human being's connection to the infinite.<br />
<br />
While boating one day, Scott Carey (played by Grant Williams) is exposed to a strange cloud of unknown particles. Within six months, he realizes that his body is steadily shrinking in size. When he is the size of a toy, he moves into a doll house, where he is attacked by the house cat, and finds himself plummeting into basement, trapped in a hostile new world where previously harmless objects (such as a mouse trap or a spool of thread) become instruments of life or death. <br />
<br />
As Carey struggles to survive, his wife has given him up for dead. For most of the film, the audience hopes for the typical last minute rescue and happy ending. But for "The Incredible Shrinking Man," there is instead a realization that he does not need rescuing - that he does not want to be rescued from his place in the Universe. <br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dwdvYOxjuHiiZntrf18QhWuoWQEyffg4WNaVpwg2nPZUwx_n8_7XFkNyXTY1tADfHPc9qPBjU5lNFrPuSId4A' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
Finally small enough to slip through the tiny holes of the cellar window screen - and continuing to shrink to the size of an atom - he steps into the night and gazes up to the stars and the moon, describing his feelings of awe and acceptance:<br />
<br />
"So close, the infinitesimal and the infinite. But suddenly, I knew they were really two ends of the same concept. The unbelievably small and the unbelievably vast eventually meet - like the closing of a gigantic circle. I looked up, as if somehow I would grasp the heavens. The universe, worlds beyond number. God's silver tapestry spread across the night. And in that moment I knew the answer to the riddle of the infinite. I had thought in terms of man's own limited dimension. I had presumed upon nature. That existence begins and ends is man's conception, not nature's. And I felt my body dwindling, melting, becoming nothing. My fears melted away, and in their place came acceptance. All this vast majesty of creation - it had to mean something. And then I meant something, too. Yes, smaller than the smallest, I meant something, too. To God, there is no zero. I still exist."ABOUT THE AUTHORhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04035273164972855608noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9221154140891110444.post-14465457185485638772012-08-26T12:07:00.000-04:002012-08-26T22:53:52.243-04:00Dreamtime Eternal<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhgjYZHqzbCTpjF8xI_t7gbSeURiP0meStKODRAyU2wD4Qpoc-q3kfyR0LE9CgNVv33bUUxMzNQfj_-4jQQEisAKU9KffyVTAJSQsWntenq1y-5kFv4IE8Zp86jk2vz3YItVMExFjFx/s1600/dreamtime.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5504927554302339538" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhgjYZHqzbCTpjF8xI_t7gbSeURiP0meStKODRAyU2wD4Qpoc-q3kfyR0LE9CgNVv33bUUxMzNQfj_-4jQQEisAKU9KffyVTAJSQsWntenq1y-5kFv4IE8Zp86jk2vz3YItVMExFjFx/s320/dreamtime.jpg" style="cursor: pointer; float: left; height: 219px; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; width: 320px;" /></a>“Living as a human being is in itself a religious act.” - Mircea Eliade<br />
<br />
If there is a sense, when tourists climb off the bus from the city and begin snapping photos of the tribesmen and women who live near Ayers Rock, that something sacred is being profaned, it is because the sightseers are ignorant of a realm of existence the Aborigine recognizes as omnipresent. <br />
<br />
“Spirits are still in the land,” the natives caution the visitors, “the past and the present are now.”<br />
<br />
But the cameras click, and the vacationers shop for souvenirs. The Aborigines appear more disheartened than threatened. These busloads of people are blind to a rich world flowing around and through them. How can they not be aware of it?<br />
<br />
Of course, the tribesman sees it because his eye has been acutely trained to recognize it. From his youth, he has been engaged in a lifelong, ever-deepening initiation into “Dreamtime,” where all things simultaneously exist in past and present, and are concurrently worldly and divine. <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
The Divine Past</div>
<br />
Eliade tells us that myth is always found “at the beginning of religion.” The Aborigine’s religion begins with the myth of the world’s creators, supernatural beings who also happen to be his ancestors. The Wulamba myth tells of the Djanggawul, who came from the land of the dead. These beings possessed enormous reproductive organs, that they dragged across the earth, forming valleys and ridges, with every movement and each location immortalized in the myth. The Djanggawul progeny ultimately became the Aborigines, who navigate this landscape still, and view its features as evidence of their primordial past. In replicating the movements of the<br />
<br />
Djanggawul, their offspring observe what Eliade describes as “[their] present institutions and ceremonies,” and sustain a relationship with the supernatural ancestors who are said to have ascended to the heavens, from which they “supervise the tribe.”<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
The Worldly Present</div>
<br />
It is this replication and relationship that imbues the Aborigine’s environment with divinity. Eliade says that “[Dreamtime] can be reactualized through ritual.” But, if the lay of the land is an imprint of the gods, and moving within it a replication of ancient events, then ritual becomes ubiquitous. This means the “fabulous primordial past” of the Dreamtime is also eternally present. It is not just replicated, it is “lived again,” with the native assuming the role of his ancestor god. When he traverses the crevices of the rocky beach, he is the Djanggawul in action, creating the world as he goes. His gaze focuses simultaneously on the present and the past, as every hill and gorge “reveal themselves as proofs of his first and glorious existence on earth.”<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
Cultivating Consciousness</div>
<br />
The Aborigine is not born with this ability to move simultaneously within two worlds. Instead, this consciousness is cultivated by the tribesmen, as the elder, fully indoctrinated men gradually reveal secrets of their faith to young initiates. Perhaps the youth is taught preparatory stories or songs when very young, but it is only near puberty that ceremonial rites begin to offer the full truth to the novitiate, and the process of revelation continues throughout his life. The knowledge he is given has been handed down through the generations, in an unbroken line pointing back to the gods and the dawn of mankind. And so it is the gods who teach him, the gods who return to the earth to regard it through the native’s eyes, and once again negotiate its terrain by way of the tribesman’s feet. In practicing his faith, the Aboriginal man brings the ontological experiences of his body into unity with the spiritual understanding of his mind, becoming the gods, and creating the world anew. The activating mechanism of his religion is simply the man’s “being” (living) at one in these two realms. And of course, when reality is understood in this way, it is correct to say that the gods are still alive, that there are “spirits in the land,” and that the “past and present are now.”<br />
<br />
Eliade tells us that, for the Aborigine, informed by his faith, “it is always possible to be ‘oriented’ in a world that has a sacred history.” But his world and history only extend to the borders of where his “being” brings it to life – beyond that lie unknown regions which are excluded from the tribal world. It is from these unfamiliar lands that the tourists emerge, blindly taking photographs. But the Aborigines do not seem to resent the visitors, so much as pity them. “They are ‘new’ people,” they say among themselves. “They have not yet learned wisdom.”ABOUT THE AUTHORhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04035273164972855608noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9221154140891110444.post-32979986144235925872012-07-28T16:13:00.002-04:002012-07-28T16:13:40.309-04:00<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dzYDQwVa_w-Whu7mi627Bq992JeGyRvknPuHuahtzbWybJKYfXs1_0Lwogc7Zwg3Myhf9jwByV6qZ_WN9NQrg' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
Patricia Neal in "The Hasty Heart"<br />
<br />ABOUT THE AUTHORhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04035273164972855608noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9221154140891110444.post-11892274807897220472011-12-09T19:33:00.000-05:002012-08-26T22:54:53.073-04:00The Bhagavad Gita: Why Arjuna Should Fight<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgr0UQgHaHyE4EB1jIe2Z82g90Th91wZNraSuSBlVBOisI7UStfISR0xB_dnVqWWNKGvZgLIvGwn02ypF7Xcv0IjRZgMxrdihVX9sQdI9J0DKFpQKdy-uBltnjpEWmx2CFFuL0YoGWJpt4/s1600/bg-krishna-instructs-arjuna1.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5496878705019895138" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgr0UQgHaHyE4EB1jIe2Z82g90Th91wZNraSuSBlVBOisI7UStfISR0xB_dnVqWWNKGvZgLIvGwn02ypF7Xcv0IjRZgMxrdihVX9sQdI9J0DKFpQKdy-uBltnjpEWmx2CFFuL0YoGWJpt4/s320/bg-krishna-instructs-arjuna1.jpg" style="cursor: pointer; float: left; height: 240px; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; width: 320px;" /></a>The dilemma is presented immediately. In chapter one of the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Bhagavad</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Gita</span>, the military leader Arjuna stands poised at the critical moment before an epic battle. Plagued by doubt, he finds he cannot fight; he cannot bring himself to kill. He turns to his friend and charioteer, Krishna, and divulges that his heart is grieving and filled with despair. We, as readers, easily identify with Arjuna’s overwhelming reservations, and it is to the surprise of many Western readers that the God Krishna exhorts Arjuna to fight.<br />
<br />
Krishna begins by consoling Arjuna, turning his thoughts away from the mortal bodies on the battlefield, toward the eternal and absolute God. Krishna suggests that, in seeking God, Arjuna will come to comprehend his role in the battle. As Arjuna questions, and listens to Krishna, he learns of numerous paths to God. “Hear now the wisdom of Yoga,” Krishna says, “Path of the Eternal and freedom from bondage.”<br />
<br />
The path to God is called “Yoga,” although this word refers to different types of yoga (different paths to God) at different points within the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Gita</span>. It could even be said that these different paths illuminate different concepts of God and God’s relationship to Man.<br />
<br />
THE YOGA OF WISDOM IN WORK<br />
<br />
Early on, Krishna reveals the path of Karma Yoga, the yoga of action: “Set thy heart upon thy work, but never on its reward. Work not for a reward; but never cease to do thy work. Do thy work in the peace of Yoga and, free from selfish desires, be not moved in success or in failure.” (<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Bhagavad</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Gita</span>, II: 47-48)<br />
<br />
The message is that Man’s work is to be true to his <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">dharma</span>, while letting his actions be free from the bonds of desire. A man whose work is free from these bonds of attachment attains<br />
what Krishna terms “the Supreme,” experiencing God in selfless action. In transcending the transient, we are reminded that life is eternal and the body is not.<br />
<br />
Arjuna’s <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">dharma</span> is that of a warrior, and so he must fight. Krishna reminds him that all men on the battlefield must physically die sooner or later, but their souls will never die. The soul is beyond the power of the material world.<br />
<br />
This path of action, of working with devotion, has <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">dharmic</span> consequences by setting an example that helps others find their way to God. (III: 20-21)<br />
<br />
THE YOGA OF VISION<br />
<br />
Next, Krishna speaks of the path of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">Jnana</span> Yoga, the yoga of knowledge: “For if a man thinks of the Spirit Supreme with a mind that wanders not, because it has been trained in Yoga, he goes to that Spirit of Light.” (VIII: 8)<br />
<br />
In <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">Jnana</span> Yoga, knowledge is the practice of recognizing and contemplating the presence of God in all things, a meditation on God and the greatness of His infinite divinity. Those who have all the powers of their soul in harmony and the same loving mind for all are delivered from <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">Samsara</span>, and “go into the Supreme.” The union that this path describes presents a concept of God and Man as One.<br />
<br />
For Arjuna, meditation can bring the understanding that all combatants on the battlefield rush to their own destruction. He is merely the tool of God. The casualties, because of their own Karma, are destined to be slain even before Arjuna raises his sword. (XI: 33)<br />
<br />
THE YOGA OF DEVOTION<br />
<br />
Krishna then speaks of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">Bhakti</span> Yoga, the yoga of devotion: “Some … by the grace of the Spirit, see the Spirit in themselves.” (XIII: 24)<br />
<br />
Like Arjuna, we are encouraged to take this path of devotion – to take refuge in God’s divine nature at all times. In devotion, whatever we do, eat, give, or offer in adoration, we make an offering to God. By practicing this Yoga, we learn to experience God in all things, achieving “a single oneness of pure love, of never-straying love” for God. Like the paths of action and knowledge, this path takes us to the Supreme.<br />
<br />
For Arjuna, devotion can assuage his doubt so that he can fight, and in firm faith can say “Thy will be done.”<br />
<br />
These <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">Yogas</span> represent three seemingly different and separate paths to God. But both the Upanishads and the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">Bhagavad</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">Gita</span> state that these different paths interconnect. The <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">Yogas</span> of Action, Knowledge and Devotion cannot exist separately – the practice of one inevitably incorporates and promotes the development of the others. All three <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">Yogas</span> stress the importance of renunciation, to break away from selfish attachments that hold us apart from God. Each path shows us unique ways to shed these attachments. And each path ultimately brings us to the same destination: a unity with God.<br />
<br />
Although my understanding of the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17">Gita</span> evolves and expands the more I am exposed to it, I sometimes think my greatest insight into its meaning occurred when I read of Arjuna’s plight for the first time. When Krishna was introduced as Arjuna’s charioteer, I immediately recalled a “charioteer” reference from the Upanishads, and found it in the Katha: “Know Atman as Lord of a chariot, and the body as the chariot itself.” I thought it interesting that in The Upanishads, the charioteer is Atman, while in the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_18">Gita</span>, the charioteer is Krishna, synonymous with Brahman. In remembering that Atman and Brahman are one, I entertained the notion that Arjuna might not be having this momentous discussion with an external entity (Krishna), but with his own eternal soul (Atman/Brahman). It follows that, if the conversation is internal, then the battle at the focus of the discussion might be internal as well. Krishna supports this idea by repeatedly using battle as a metaphor:<br />
<br />
“There is a war that opens the doors of heaven. Happy the warrior whose fate is to fight such war.” (II: 31-32)<br />
<br />
“Be a warrior and kill desire, the powerful enemy of the soul.” (III: 43)<br />
<br />
“Kill therefore with the sword of wisdom the doubt born of ignorance that lies in the heart.” (IV: 42)<br />
<br />
For me, the battle-as-allegory removes every reservation regarding the question “Should Arjuna Fight?” If the enemy is Man’s “desire” and “the doubt born of ignorance” – the very things that keep us from God – then we are all warriors in a battle that is unquestionably just.ABOUT THE AUTHORhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04035273164972855608noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9221154140891110444.post-86335477085049530042011-12-09T13:01:00.000-05:002011-12-09T09:30:25.022-05:00Know Your Buddhas and BodhisattvasA cheat sheet for spotting some major Bodhisattvas and Buddhas:<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">BODHISATTVAS</span><br /></div><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Avalokiteśvara<br /></span>Compassion, 10th stage, most popular. Often depicted with (sometimes) 11 heads and (sometimes) 1000 arms, two arms with palms pressed together.<br /><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGXGVjFxG6uK9QtyS7i4-OHESeB44IMyjSipHEX6n2q20SvBzAC0QuMgFXjrxpTqa_tmEqEFrOqIwGdfFchuqJ6QuI69homozYICvqdSZvYonaerlINR9Hci7UUypRRw7gOanUcYfq/s1600/AvalokitesvaraThangka.jpg"><img style="cursor: pointer; width: 240px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGXGVjFxG6uK9QtyS7i4-OHESeB44IMyjSipHEX6n2q20SvBzAC0QuMgFXjrxpTqa_tmEqEFrOqIwGdfFchuqJ6QuI69homozYICvqdSZvYonaerlINR9Hci7UUypRRw7gOanUcYfq/s320/AvalokitesvaraThangka.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5504947062370982562" border="0" /></a><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjM-J5enHfLkUprFRa7KlFmTbiQtnWF_TqcQcQBvlU6dO2cvPEgbe2hSBLAuEvF5Tmob63uClZwERY-hINL9-Ir-qH1RRd41KcSNcSoxHX3i4JtNiIn1DauBGlvbxhehSWsuWvkpGfm/s1600/t_avalokitesvara.jpg"><img style="cursor: pointer; width: 230px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjM-J5enHfLkUprFRa7KlFmTbiQtnWF_TqcQcQBvlU6dO2cvPEgbe2hSBLAuEvF5Tmob63uClZwERY-hINL9-Ir-qH1RRd41KcSNcSoxHX3i4JtNiIn1DauBGlvbxhehSWsuWvkpGfm/s320/t_avalokitesvara.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5504947238305045426" border="0" /></a></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><span style="font-weight: bold;">Maitreya</span><br />The future Buddha of our realm, the only bodhisattva with a "celestial" status. Often depicted sitting on a throne. In Chinese form, he is the fat "Laughing Buddha".<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEis3vC2gEePZ0P7UM1mTYV11lQAJGEQWojFF88EQkztvSxJFPFeRxbaNwIWfkLlEyrtsst0twWj2qYrGtIFzpu9Btm_ce49sBbWXueGyft8hQkUCiAeiHT_mLl3LZEdP7VogeUrzISh/s1600/maitreya2.jpg"><img style="cursor: pointer; width: 238px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEis3vC2gEePZ0P7UM1mTYV11lQAJGEQWojFF88EQkztvSxJFPFeRxbaNwIWfkLlEyrtsst0twWj2qYrGtIFzpu9Btm_ce49sBbWXueGyft8hQkUCiAeiHT_mLl3LZEdP7VogeUrzISh/s320/maitreya2.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5504943448158284706" border="0" /></a><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi3Hm1pLzKK41VOPoq9ejztCH3jwX5O6MTenTPM6cvWL9ajxwI3sCKChhiXyyzKa48UcbiDbw_x6qLG5kON_0Im_cTsW7f7zBasEZwxg69apoJuS42dGIbwjXppeYlT-VYRuj4kPTjC/s1600/Maitreya2laughing.jpg"><img style="cursor: pointer; width: 258px; height: 277px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi3Hm1pLzKK41VOPoq9ejztCH3jwX5O6MTenTPM6cvWL9ajxwI3sCKChhiXyyzKa48UcbiDbw_x6qLG5kON_0Im_cTsW7f7zBasEZwxg69apoJuS42dGIbwjXppeYlT-VYRuj4kPTjC/s320/Maitreya2laughing.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5504943655137497842" border="0" /></a><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br />Tara</span><br />A female bodhisattva in Tantric Buddhism, a well-loved deity in Tibet. The feminine aspect of compassion. Common depictions are the green or white forms. Her right leg rests on a lotus footstool. Her left hand in front of her heart holds the stem of a blue or white lotus while the right arm and hand are extended, palm open, as if handing down blessings. She has seven eyes: three on her face and one in each hand and foot.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHz2T1o0JBMUjAktxZsC9lIOx_OsbS4R6G8zphA4-sOivbHH1Zw8tg5E-V64EMaj8HlLhVImCBa21SD1lREwzyaYNlghCBPDmIM36qaZ0D-fkipkzI2leLw_6XgnzMtpIUXeZ5IT8L/s1600/taraverteaccueil.jpg"><img style="cursor: pointer; width: 236px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHz2T1o0JBMUjAktxZsC9lIOx_OsbS4R6G8zphA4-sOivbHH1Zw8tg5E-V64EMaj8HlLhVImCBa21SD1lREwzyaYNlghCBPDmIM36qaZ0D-fkipkzI2leLw_6XgnzMtpIUXeZ5IT8L/s320/taraverteaccueil.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5504946117742900226" border="0" /></a><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjuwtTSgwDT7oBbuh0k-rX_b1NFAlY2trZygRAg2qPKlWqFnfpSzGBQ7J8BjTZGp1rcUm2vb5qDcxhoyrgRc04Nh81YCeFc0NzvMP4S9Clg-UDGFuHQ0YRN2EQGqlSz-Bo0lHk7MCTN/s1600/tara.jpg"><img style="cursor: pointer; width: 208px; height: 319px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjuwtTSgwDT7oBbuh0k-rX_b1NFAlY2trZygRAg2qPKlWqFnfpSzGBQ7J8BjTZGp1rcUm2vb5qDcxhoyrgRc04Nh81YCeFc0NzvMP4S9Clg-UDGFuHQ0YRN2EQGqlSz-Bo0lHk7MCTN/s320/tara.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5504946668054038674" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Manjusri</span><br />The manifestation of wisdom. A 10th stage bodhisattva associated with the role of interlocutor on questions concerning ultimate truth. Eternally 16 years old. Depicted as a prince seated on a lotus with a sword in his right hand held above his head, and a book in the left. Sometimes in the left hand he holds the stem of a lotus, and the book is placed on a lotus behind his left shoulder. The sword is said to be the sword of gnosis, which cuts aside the bonds of ignorance. In Japanese art, he rides on a lion.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBlDQjjDuGi6vYpOACs8JNQbBOqckLW00fIb_hIpwnpfFyiwOjFhST8I0R2JVbuejzGpACmxmKZ2aXbcJcHxOfQhfIzupY9d8QnIhp6sI4a6lnp1drI-YzM96RxCk2PFnSd8JReTzF/s1600/manjusri4.jpg"><img style="cursor: pointer; width: 234px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBlDQjjDuGi6vYpOACs8JNQbBOqckLW00fIb_hIpwnpfFyiwOjFhST8I0R2JVbuejzGpACmxmKZ2aXbcJcHxOfQhfIzupY9d8QnIhp6sI4a6lnp1drI-YzM96RxCk2PFnSd8JReTzF/s320/manjusri4.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5504945780974777986" border="0" /></a><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwioVeF2zkP6BFT4gsdEv56RtYPTItSpIIWi4weARSsdwpu9b8yf3LJJXk7qSdb8pQJHdYfr_Z855FIYtCjzimc0ChyphenhyphenGBhdRlDkos_nME-BTZMAFPgIZ3TAFO3sReqiagzFxRkiqzg/s1600/guru-manjusri.jpg"><img style="cursor: pointer; width: 243px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwioVeF2zkP6BFT4gsdEv56RtYPTItSpIIWi4weARSsdwpu9b8yf3LJJXk7qSdb8pQJHdYfr_Z855FIYtCjzimc0ChyphenhyphenGBhdRlDkos_nME-BTZMAFPgIZ3TAFO3sReqiagzFxRkiqzg/s320/guru-manjusri.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5504945905484751282" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Ksitigarbha</span> Extremely important figure in East Asian Buddhism, given the particular task of saving sentient beings during the period between the death of Sakyamuni and the coming of Maitreya. Depicted as a shaven-headed monk with a patched robe and a staff with which to strike open the gates of hell. In Japanese versions he has a small medicine bowl and a halo.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhD27XsCN_6mEFQv-0gRZTTogfJkpBdTId7MkzKlMwQcmI_imKBFO-9QZKzxAhG-di7xNzng3c7QDT6z-LLPjJSXTOTY5Tp2glvlXNRQGUjwLAH1KSqfS6AJGIier5NJZ_BH3cKnmuQ/s1600/ksitigar.jpg"><img style="cursor: pointer; width: 154px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhD27XsCN_6mEFQv-0gRZTTogfJkpBdTId7MkzKlMwQcmI_imKBFO-9QZKzxAhG-di7xNzng3c7QDT6z-LLPjJSXTOTY5Tp2glvlXNRQGUjwLAH1KSqfS6AJGIier5NJZ_BH3cKnmuQ/s320/ksitigar.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5504945444913699250" border="0" /></a><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgzHfS8wYsq1we8EOdyh1IB7mSuScJl6bC_QGkXS2AGqnCvoEM6v1rY38fP066tonBzJG8cwb5d6AeldG75RSWBaxPRhZHzWdlWlRN49e-fO41kKSKMa0COmFwU-faNOhfdFEG8LaSL/s1600/ksitigarbha.jpg"><img style="cursor: pointer; width: 162px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgzHfS8wYsq1we8EOdyh1IB7mSuScJl6bC_QGkXS2AGqnCvoEM6v1rY38fP066tonBzJG8cwb5d6AeldG75RSWBaxPRhZHzWdlWlRN49e-fO41kKSKMa0COmFwU-faNOhfdFEG8LaSL/s320/ksitigarbha.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5504945572415124530" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">BUDDHAS</span><br /></div><span style="font-weight: bold;">Amitabha</span><br />Amitabha is the principal buddha in the Pure Land sect, a branch of Buddhism practiced mainly in East Asia. According to these scriptures, Amitābha possesses infinite merits resulting from good deeds over countless past lives as a bodhisattva named Dharmakara. It can be difficult to distinguish Amitābha from Śākyamuni. Amitābha is often depicted, when shown seated, displaying the meditation mudrā (thumbs touching and fingers together (as in the Kamakura statue of Amitābha) or the exposition mudrā, while the earth-touching mudrā (right hand pointed downward over the right leg, palm inward) is reserved for a seated Śākyamuni alone. When standing, Amitābha is often shown with his left arm bare and extended downward with thumb and forefinger touching, with his right hand facing outward also with thumb and forefinger touching. The meaning of this mudra is that wisdom (symbolized by the raised hand) is accessible to even the lowest beings, while the outstretched hand shows that Amitabha's compassion is directed at the lowest beings, who cannot save themselves.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYpbknEJtCHqVI7eU7KNNjwOGL7YZXiipunkXeabQuUT3qEVr8h2o8twY2XEiw0VxVTcvmUJkVxDKZiH1RCDRz0sGufGgGw_Gw5JTXS6T5lUa-sxn8lTgi3l_iSYuSSTpxVxK58XpW/s1600/amitabha.jpg"><img style="cursor: pointer; width: 255px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYpbknEJtCHqVI7eU7KNNjwOGL7YZXiipunkXeabQuUT3qEVr8h2o8twY2XEiw0VxVTcvmUJkVxDKZiH1RCDRz0sGufGgGw_Gw5JTXS6T5lUa-sxn8lTgi3l_iSYuSSTpxVxK58XpW/s320/amitabha.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5504944386041350322" border="0" /></a><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhk7WO2Q7R9lRUfxBLvoLPkom7v7AKSHecoD65dQ4dAkUa9LDckBw95mOd8023Fmp9eD1G4pPKnCg5L8SUsxsENZKbHNT2_i2Bl57t7ffWQZ438PSr3vJc37BEWFaViaC4YWZkzVn5x/s1600/amitabha_japan.jpg"><img style="cursor: pointer; width: 210px; height: 274px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhk7WO2Q7R9lRUfxBLvoLPkom7v7AKSHecoD65dQ4dAkUa9LDckBw95mOd8023Fmp9eD1G4pPKnCg5L8SUsxsENZKbHNT2_i2Bl57t7ffWQZ438PSr3vJc37BEWFaViaC4YWZkzVn5x/s320/amitabha_japan.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5504944548258718290" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Bhaisajyaguru</span><br />The Medicine Buddha – representing healing in all its aspects. The patron saint of medicine. Depicted as a Buddha in full lotus position, the color of lapis or gold with a halo of blue rays. In his left hand on his lap he holds a medicine bowl. His right hand touches a medicinal plant.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhqAzRGwBQFQf5uezmxN8WUKqVTa16hVo2KYPbFjjo5av7Ktam1rfDetrJbXR0798JEMKKUdB1SU9O-dE0aD6LtDo7BiYpqBpsQrrDUpY0OcgF8_ENwnUK9Bm-Zgb6jIIQUOWzTZPy_/s1600/buddha_bhaisajyaguru.jpg"><img style="cursor: pointer; width: 194px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhqAzRGwBQFQf5uezmxN8WUKqVTa16hVo2KYPbFjjo5av7Ktam1rfDetrJbXR0798JEMKKUdB1SU9O-dE0aD6LtDo7BiYpqBpsQrrDUpY0OcgF8_ENwnUK9Bm-Zgb6jIIQUOWzTZPy_/s320/buddha_bhaisajyaguru.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5504945033890120786" border="0" /></a><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUIqUHKkNqEQDoNKzxiHbIWTn-9fEtuwRs-zzOOeLUlAvqCD6MoZJYBICC6rdkcOVgWGTWrjipWmyARGf0h596la9iUYgh8gqwwCTfCyXhBfxtxsHvLrTJg2m_601fmj5B189GSlR0/s1600/bhaisajyaguru.jpg"><img style="cursor: pointer; width: 284px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUIqUHKkNqEQDoNKzxiHbIWTn-9fEtuwRs-zzOOeLUlAvqCD6MoZJYBICC6rdkcOVgWGTWrjipWmyARGf0h596la9iUYgh8gqwwCTfCyXhBfxtxsHvLrTJg2m_601fmj5B189GSlR0/s320/bhaisajyaguru.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5504945158883624674" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Aksobhya</span><br />The earliest Buddha cult after Sakyamuni. Important in Tantric traditions, in Nepalese and Tibetan Buddhism. Represented as a Buddha, sometimes crowned, in a lotus position with his left hand on his lap and right hand outstretched to touch the earth. Often the principal Buddha of the mandala. In such context he is often colored blue and associated with four other Buddhas: Vairocana, Ratnasambhava, Amitabha and Amoghasiddhi.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_OPy7JLj2J6vhllybtv_PwlZ4QPGtH6iTZ8NDjwE7X3xbR17Y8tAJX5yO0kuX-N5cxJebzRzxCOZLlQy0mSwyg0PFrr1luwJKzIeo8Vm8Lm4vaYvcfH_o2BIHkvuuBKaggMbiLzAp/s1600/Aksobhya2.jpg"><img style="cursor: pointer; width: 234px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_OPy7JLj2J6vhllybtv_PwlZ4QPGtH6iTZ8NDjwE7X3xbR17Y8tAJX5yO0kuX-N5cxJebzRzxCOZLlQy0mSwyg0PFrr1luwJKzIeo8Vm8Lm4vaYvcfH_o2BIHkvuuBKaggMbiLzAp/s320/Aksobhya2.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5504943931067233458" border="0" /></a><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEglCbYNmrTRRg916CBlB0dp4R-1r5OwRDRtZnpClkpaQ453kozc0TsyTdr1JedC6DBwR-mvcIYPZ06MquspbyqEr-zvSZphuAoZz4j3DyOaY01acB75nW2J-Rb9cYYE1MxYR1YkyaTv/s1600/Aksobhya.jpg"><img style="cursor: pointer; width: 224px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEglCbYNmrTRRg916CBlB0dp4R-1r5OwRDRtZnpClkpaQ453kozc0TsyTdr1JedC6DBwR-mvcIYPZ06MquspbyqEr-zvSZphuAoZz4j3DyOaY01acB75nW2J-Rb9cYYE1MxYR1YkyaTv/s320/Aksobhya.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5504944047165101410" border="0" /></a>ABOUT THE AUTHORhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04035273164972855608noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9221154140891110444.post-35933207709461402232011-06-07T11:42:00.000-04:002012-07-02T13:58:11.423-04:00In "Houseboat," Cary Grant Explains "Eternal Life"<span style="color: black; font-weight: bold;">[Reel Insights – <a href="http://signpoststoeden.blogspot.com/p/reel-insights.html">A Continuing Series</a> on Movies and Television Programs that Convey Unexpectedly Profound Spiritual Ideas.]</span><br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-weight: bold;">"</span><span style="font-weight: bold;">Houseboat"</span></div>
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXxasToBR8XjU_N0xGxu3XiLJP8muMkImhnKIkh_W9SfbeEDCHSxAG70dwiw3EtcbAsw_b7J-kEKK6YikgQdGHqLpeIQBGbDexfW0UvKhYEnbWGl9f4ElJgs3Rk_S4nMBOCQBOvCV7/s1600/houseboat+still.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5509401099773108114" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXxasToBR8XjU_N0xGxu3XiLJP8muMkImhnKIkh_W9SfbeEDCHSxAG70dwiw3EtcbAsw_b7J-kEKK6YikgQdGHqLpeIQBGbDexfW0UvKhYEnbWGl9f4ElJgs3Rk_S4nMBOCQBOvCV7/s320/houseboat+still.jpg" style="cursor: pointer; float: left; height: 320px; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; width: 221px;" /></a>“Houseboat,” a Paramount Pictures release from 1958, is a comedy starring Cary Grant and Sophia Loren. Grant, a widower with three children, moves the family onto a houseboat and takes Loren in as a housekeeper with no skills at cooking or cleaning. The film is light-hearted, even bordering on slapstick, and Cary Grant sticks to his typical role of the debonair, bemused sophisticate. That is why it is so surprising when, two-thirds of the way into the film, while fishing off the deck of the houseboat, Grant attempts to explain the meaning of “life after death” to his eldest son.<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dwBA6zEUsX2NRDjAEeFpAgNqa03B9J2begY7Cnv6CFOf2KOBiMC4DTmYgSaiC6wYj6ZIk7Nb2QRVmZNcWB27A' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe><br />
Using a pitcher of water as a metaphor for a human being, Grant shows how the pitcher is nothing more than a container for the water, in the same way a man or woman’s body is a container for his or her “life force.” He challenges his son to “lose” the water, and the boy immediately pours some of it into the river. “The only thing is,” Grant observes, “It isn’t lost. It’s [become] part of the whole river.”<br />
<br />
The son pours a bit more of the water onto the deck of the houseboat, but then grasps his father’s message. “I get the idea,” the kid says, “It will evaporate, become a cloud, and come down somewhere else as rain.”<br />
<br />
In death, Grant says, we simply “go back into God’s universe, and the security of being part of all life again and of all nature. And for all we know, that sort of life after death may be very beautiful.”<br />
<br />
This understanding of “life after death” may run counter to that of many religious people. Many Christians, for example, think of "life after death" as a place of reward or punishment that we go to after we die. But there are also many Christians who understand things a bit differently. Personally, I find Christ's teachings focused not on what happens after we die, but on how we are living our lives, and how we treat one another. Cary Grant's idea that we are all part of one giant system of recycled life seems (to me) to fit nicely with Christ's teachings. By understanding our role in the scheme of all life, we grow to appreciate the all living things as bearing an imprint of God's hand, which naturally compels us to "do unto others" as we would have them do unto us.ABOUT THE AUTHORhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04035273164972855608noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9221154140891110444.post-40967893482739347102011-03-03T18:54:00.001-05:002011-03-04T13:00:20.491-05:00Jesus' Existential "Sermon on the Mount"<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUe1DUQH6yeWW0SOUd488VDr1PkGiu7HtoiLdWdwKWqSYkM-aPC5Ah6L21PJmA6FvJoMwVrN2zjx3XVZc6LB7mush_x5QLSnCURBgRvhftn7n2wWw7ji-pTfiYhTJ3L8VeFLSqUByKCe8/s1600/sermon_on_the_mount007.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; width: 320px; float: left; height: 254px; cursor: pointer;" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5496883371037320866" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUe1DUQH6yeWW0SOUd488VDr1PkGiu7HtoiLdWdwKWqSYkM-aPC5Ah6L21PJmA6FvJoMwVrN2zjx3XVZc6LB7mush_x5QLSnCURBgRvhftn7n2wWw7ji-pTfiYhTJ3L8VeFLSqUByKCe8/s320/sermon_on_the_mount007.jpg" border="0" /></a>Two thousand years ago, the followers of Jesus had such a clear understanding of "The Kingdom of Heaven” that Jesus did not need to define it for them. Even today, most Christians can quickly supply a definition for this term: The Kingdom of Heaven is the place where God dwells, a utopia of eternal peace, another world of blissful innocence. Jesus Himself might not take issue with any of these descriptions. But, ask any Christian when he hopes to encounter this Kingdom, and his answer might run counter to the message Jesus delivered in His Sermon on the Mount. The Kingdom of Heaven, the average Christian will likely tell you, is a place of reward he hopes to reach after death. But he may have missed Jesus' point that this Kingdom can be his right now, right here on Earth. The Sermon on the Mount is not so much an eschatological promise (a set of guidelines for securing a future place in heaven), as it is an invitation to live each day immersed in God's love.<br /><br />Within the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus refers to men as the "children of your heavenly Father," equating the profundity of God's love with a parent's love for a child: instinctively selfless, and fully aware of the child's absolute value. He suggests that God expects us to think of our fellow man in this way, and to treat each other with the same profound care. But as we know, man can rarely achieve this level of regard for others. Instead, we view each other through a screen of relativity -- divided by perceptions of inequality, of haves and have-nots, of beauties and beasts, the righteous and the damned. These man-made separations of ignorance create feelings of jealousy, envy, hatred, lust, and other negative emotions that produce endless suffering for humanity. Throughout His Sermon, Jesus exhorts us to transcend these shallow perceptions, and free ourselves from suffering. Knowing this would be a monumental task for the solitary soul, He guides each of us with His first beatitude (Matthew 5:3*):<br /><br />"How blest are these who know their need of God; the Kingdom of Heaven is theirs."<br /><br />Quite simply, Jesus encourages us to recognize our absolute reliance on God. God, the creator, sustainer and destroyer of all things, because God is the source of everything there is. We need God as we need oxygen, food or human contact, and it is in fully knowing our need of God that we are able to transcend ourselves. As we begin to reach this understanding, we can no longer view others through that screen of relativity – we are all equally in need.<br /><br />In this light, all of Jesus' teachings in the Sermon on the Mount become illuminated. Jesus' use of the future tense ("the Kingdom of Heaven shall be yours") is often interpreted as a reference to a future state of being, although it could just as easily be understood to speak of the present tense -- that this Kingdom is here for us now, if we would just see it. Each beatitude is a masterwork of "parallelism" -- a subtle coupling of exhortation and conclusion. Often, flipping the two elements of these "doublets" helps disclose their true message. For instance, reversing the beatitude quoted above would render the message "the Kingdom of Heaven is yours, to the extent that you know your need of God." The second beatitude, "How blest are the sorrowful; they shall find consolation,” can be understood to mean that our sorrows are eased in direct proportion to the forgiveness we seek from others.<br /><br />The Beatitudes, and all of Jesus' teachings which follow, consistently deliver instruction to abandon the self as the center of the universe, and replace it with God. With this understanding in mind, the theme of the entire Sermon is revealed. It starts to make sense that hateful thoughts are the same as hateful acts. We begin to understand that anyone who shows mercy to another is showing mercy to himself; anyone who struggles to make peace is a true child of the heavenly Father; anyone whose heart is pure is able to “see God.” Certainly, a life lived according to these ideals would ensure an eternity of joy, versus the endless misery that would result from a life of selfish disregard for the rest of God's creation. Thus, the Sermon’s "Lord's Prayer" eschews requests for personal gain, instead choosing to revere God and seek His guidance and the protection He grants to all living things.<br /><br />By following Jesus’ teachings in the Sermon on the Mount, we grow to recognize each man as a divine expression of God's creation, experiencing an total respect for him, and seeing him in relation to God – seeing him as we see ourselves. In the fullest flowering of this regard, the "self” is replaced by a oneness with God and His creation, and our sufferings begin to dissolve. In the peace of genuine love for God and our fellow men, we fully realize the meaning of Jesus’ message: the Kingdom of Heaven is ours – right now, right here on earth.<br /><br /><br />* Bible verses quoted from the New English Bible, Oxford Study Edition. Oxford University Press, USA (March 12, 1992).ABOUT THE AUTHORhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04035273164972855608noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9221154140891110444.post-54047780809300448932010-12-09T09:11:00.000-05:002011-12-09T09:16:22.120-05:00This is a test video, to experiment with splicing clips, overlaying text, voiceover narration, and background music. <br /><br /><br /><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dyM9floZGr_i9M0dv-VRbBzxm_8Eyz-5AjZz16HL8T1nk0whu7eB4ePbKR4xfLco6H7Gkibgi8HjSBNS2R4oA' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe>ABOUT THE AUTHORhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04035273164972855608noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9221154140891110444.post-18984608732808973262010-11-24T21:47:00.000-05:002010-11-22T22:50:02.439-05:00Al-Ghazali’s Islamic Explanations of Evil<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi2BdNHf4g4xgejxGXIw_UE1Y9PmcdodkOs5oXNyY-tksHnmFBOSsIP4mKOSnflePpYJLleiKF5M8t_G_mNX4Cq_-Q6oqvPh4R1oLRjNhEz0Ki0YpaGwKBjBxDcbdckA7Lc1GJvoBJf6E4/s1600/Muslim+philosophers.gif"><img style="MARGIN: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; WIDTH: 296px; FLOAT: left; HEIGHT: 320px; CURSOR: pointer" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5496912636941598274" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi2BdNHf4g4xgejxGXIw_UE1Y9PmcdodkOs5oXNyY-tksHnmFBOSsIP4mKOSnflePpYJLleiKF5M8t_G_mNX4Cq_-Q6oqvPh4R1oLRjNhEz0Ki0YpaGwKBjBxDcbdckA7Lc1GJvoBJf6E4/s320/Muslim+philosophers.gif" /></a>The 11th-century essay “There is no Evil in Allah’s Perfect World” by the Islamic Theologian Abū Ḥāmed Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad al-Ghazālī demonstrates that a single religion can offer multiple theodicies (explanations for the existence of evil). Within Christianity, one encounters all kinds of different explanations for evil. The same holds true for Islam. But of the theodicies presented in Al-Ghazali’s text, only one rings true for me personally.<br /><br />The first theodicy he offers is that evil and suffering on earth bring reward in heaven (“All poverty and loss in this world is a diminution in this world but an increase in the next”). This is a commonly encountered Christian perspective as well. I find this theodicy disappointing, if not deplorable, in that it encourages people to accept misery, in hopes of something better after death. This reminds me of a similar theodicy that crops up in Hinduism, regarding reincarnation and the caste system. Some Hindus believe that you are born into a particular caste because of karma, and that you should be content with the caste you are born into, because it will help you refine your spirit and be born into a better life next time. So, if you are born into the lowest caste, and live a life of woe, you are expected to simply accept it. Others around you, who may be in a higher caste, might not make any attempts to help you, because they do not want to interfere with your karmic trajectory.<br /><br />This is definitely not the way all Hindus understand theodicy, but I have encountered it often in India. Many Hindus possess an understanding that I find more “enlightened,” which is that those born to higher castes should help the lowly-born, because generosity and compassion improve one’s own karma. Such a viewpoint creates a theodicy where suffering becomes an opportunity to bring about God’s goodness. The idea of accepting evil and suffering, and hoping for a better life after death, seems to me to ignore God’s ability to work through people.<br /><br />Another theodicy that Al-Ghazali offers is that “good and evil are foreordained.” This is very similar to the first idea, in that it encourages people to believe that they are destined to their fate, and so must accept their lot in the life. I object to it on the same grounds, and would encourage people who believe this theodicy to consider that all people may be predestined to strive for the good – not just for themselves, but for those around them. Such a “caveat” would open up the doctrine of predestination, shifting the focus from the impossible to the possible.<br /><br />The theodicy of Al-Ghazali’s that I relate to most is one that approaches Taoist philosophy. In saying that “were it not for night, the value of day would be unknown,” he evokes the imagery of the Taoist wheel of yin-yang, illustrating the cosmos as an infinite cycle of states of opposition which cannot exist apart from each other – light and darkness, life and death, good and evil. To me, this theodicy offers a better ethic, where in understanding evil’s role in good, we comprehend our own ability to “spin the wheel” in a particular direction.ABOUT THE AUTHORhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04035273164972855608noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9221154140891110444.post-35061869527323844132010-11-23T10:25:00.000-05:002010-11-22T22:47:02.175-05:00Seated Buddha Drawing<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnacNvxWOiqFpusc1paLG6YLLA8JzK-imhndy7OdM9KHvujXHhRGIUaTJsk3qQuFC41ECP14DmwGpArtTP_EIW7oFKERtenf0X02D0dqr389X6ca_3KPhGE9afVt12i8-B1U3IQMPu/s1600/seated+buddha+photo.jpg"><img style="MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; WIDTH: 240px; FLOAT: right; HEIGHT: 320px; CURSOR: pointer" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5504902034592233602" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnacNvxWOiqFpusc1paLG6YLLA8JzK-imhndy7OdM9KHvujXHhRGIUaTJsk3qQuFC41ECP14DmwGpArtTP_EIW7oFKERtenf0X02D0dqr389X6ca_3KPhGE9afVt12i8-B1U3IQMPu/s320/seated+buddha+photo.jpg" /></a><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjCxR1Pn7ARNDiiJclRb1NAei8IinPGFnc9aeaW3f2cI-qvHNurgFegRWkYT-JZ7yKYW_RC0oZRV2TbXAkjhuGWyDgP0AIfv_2HaIkVzPYhjl-z93qdHzLtuwey4cOT7pYp6np0Rm8S/s1600/Seated+Buddha+-+Finished.jpg"><img style="MARGIN: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; WIDTH: 188px; FLOAT: left; HEIGHT: 320px; CURSOR: pointer" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5504901358488557730" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjCxR1Pn7ARNDiiJclRb1NAei8IinPGFnc9aeaW3f2cI-qvHNurgFegRWkYT-JZ7yKYW_RC0oZRV2TbXAkjhuGWyDgP0AIfv_2HaIkVzPYhjl-z93qdHzLtuwey4cOT7pYp6np0Rm8S/s320/Seated+Buddha+-+Finished.jpg" /></a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: center">One minute of sitting, one inch of Buddha.<br />Like lightning all thoughts come and pass.<br />Just once look into your mind-depths:<br />Nothing else has ever been.<br /><br />- the Zen Poem “Manzan.”<br /></div><br /><br />While wandering the halls of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, I encounter the sculpted Buddha sitting on a dais in the center of a room, life-sized, serene and unadorned. He is surrounded on all sides by sculptures of Bodhisattvas, some of them twice the height of a living man, all of them smiling benevolently. The number and variety of Bodhisattvas suggests that the sculptures in the room are the creations of Mahayana Buddhists, who believe that countless enlightened souls deny themselves Nirvana in order to return to earth and help others.<br /><br />I move across the room to see him better. The Buddha is apparently seated in a full lotus position, although this is indefinite because the leg portion of the sculpture is blackened and smoothly worn away, seemingly melting into the very earth. He wears a simple robe in once-vivid reds and blues, his skin a pale gray-blue dappled with faded remains of gold leaf. Both arms extend onto his lap and vanish, as if his missing hands have touched and entered another realm. The dais is raised so that his seated form brings him to eye level with me, and his eyes are open. Standing within arm’s length of this representation of the magnificent Buddha brings me into contact with a real person; a simple man, sitting cross-legged on the ground. His eyes invite me to look beneath his legend and God-like status, and see a simple human being, a teacher.<br /><br />I believe the sculptor has intentionally extended this invitation by depicting the Buddha as a young man. Because of the statue’s unmistakable expression of transcendent insight, I know it is the Buddha I am seeing, and not the seeker Siddhartha. Perhaps he is sitting beneath the Bo tree, just moments after reaching enlightenment. How striking to look into the Buddha’s eyes and consider his illumined view of the world.<br /><br />His illumination was not a quick or easy achievement. Siddhartha began his life in isolated opulence, raised by his father to be a mythic warrior. He might have followed his father’s plan to fruition had not three visions of sickness, old age and death revealed life’s suffering and transience. A fourth vision, of a priest, inspired Siddhartha to go against his father’s wishes, withdraw from the world and seek a path of wisdom.<br /><br />Pursuing this path could have killed him. By following the ascetic example of contemporary sages, Siddhartha fasted until the bones of his spine were visible along his abdomen. But the life experiences of opulence and starvation enabled him to conceive of something entirely new: the Middle Way, a direct path to truth that cut through the extremes of self-indulgence and self-mortification. He was on his way to ultimate comprehension.<br /><br />In the shade of the Bo tree, Siddhartha sat until he was wholly transformed by understanding. In realizing that all things are inextricably linked together, he devised a doctrine of dependent origination. By relating himself to every element of reality, Siddhartha could no longer consider his unique self as the center of the universe – his personal suffering and desires flew way. In this flash of revelation, he attained “moksha” (freedom from the endless cycle of death and rebirth known as samsara), and became the Buddha. This is the moment I believe is captured by the sculptor in his work of art: a man who has transcended life on earth, 40 years before his final death.<br /><br />In looking on the young Buddha, I admire how he managed to carry on so long in the earthly realm, to teach and turn mankind away from its single-minded vanity while his own awareness soared in every direction. Despite my admiration, I initially find myself feeling distant from him, rather insignificant and mired in ignorance. I even feel lonely for a moment, until I notice the traces of a smile on the Buddha’s face. Was that there before? It’s as if he is about to wink at me. What’s the joke?<br /><br />Suddenly, a punch line occurs to me, and I laugh to think that perhaps the Buddha sees me as himself. He has been me. He knows I will be him – he is observing me as the seated statue. For a minute, I am able to enjoy a sense of connection between the Buddha and me, a link that aches to encompass all time and space. Then some tourists ask me to take their picture as they pose in front of him. While snapping the photo, my eyes are on the seated Buddha. Although in enlightenment he must have transcended all emotions, his expression here is filled with compassion and love. I decide these are the feelings he allowed to linger until he made his final departure from the world.ABOUT THE AUTHORhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04035273164972855608noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9221154140891110444.post-83546868991304607682010-11-22T14:19:00.000-05:002010-11-22T22:42:38.942-05:00The Five Pillars of Reality<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiYJt_JEJHXow-c6BvdM7PYNHqQ38vCxvFzjf6TbqLBIASRgYqUnZevLgEdV8cOeFKZVm22leq9ib9ulOrLhQ0gVtUvjZI96-Y-zHsuH9xPjmUSA2OqDPfjEHVEB273FzYYd4i6nzmR/s1600/five+pillars.jpg"><img style="MARGIN: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; WIDTH: 320px; FLOAT: left; HEIGHT: 155px; CURSOR: pointer" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5504962183894892162" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiYJt_JEJHXow-c6BvdM7PYNHqQ38vCxvFzjf6TbqLBIASRgYqUnZevLgEdV8cOeFKZVm22leq9ib9ulOrLhQ0gVtUvjZI96-Y-zHsuH9xPjmUSA2OqDPfjEHVEB273FzYYd4i6nzmR/s320/five+pillars.jpg" /></a>With a piercing cry of pain, a young woman delivers her baby into the hands of a midwife. It is a boy, a son. Immediately, the infant's umbilical cord is snipped, his eyes, ears and mouth swiftly daubed with cotton, and he is passed into the arms of his anxious father, who kisses the child and whispers into his tiny ear the first words he will hear in his life on Earth: "La ilaha ill’ Allah wa Muhammad rasul Allah.”<br /><br />"There is no god but God and Muhammad is the messenger of God." This declaration of faith marks the child's indoctrination into Islam, the beginning of a lifetime of submission to God. As he grows, he will learn to speak these words himself; one day, when he is old enough to repeat this declaration with sincerity, he will have performed the first of the Five Pillars (practices) of Islam. These Five Pillars provide the structure of Muslim life the maturing man can accept and follow with unquestioning devotion, or explore to discover ever-deepening revelations of their meaning. Even the symbolism of the word "pillar" conveys surprising depth: its nature is not just to support but to stand upon, revealing the pillar’s source of strength as both intrinsic and external. Such is the influence each of the Five Pillars will exert upon the man's life, permeating his personal and communal experiences with a theocentric consciousness that will shape his perspective of himself and the world, and ultimately define his understanding of reality.<br /><br />The young man begins his life as a Muslim ("one who submits to God") the moment he performs the first pillar: the declaration of faith known as Shahada. In the opening statement of this declaration, he identifies God as the source and sustainer of all creation (himself included), recognizes his total reliance upon God, and enthusiastically embraces his role as God's servant. With this outlook on the world, his self-awareness, as well as his perception of others, can no longer be measured in the relative notions of wealth, power, or beauty, but is lived with the absolute certainty of mankind's affinity under God. The Shahada's second statement, expressing the authority of Mohammed, makes the Prophet an example of spiritual perfection, and renders the Qur'an the singular intact Word of God, imparting a special link of brotherhood with the man's fellow Muslims.<br /><br />Now, as a servant of God, the Muslim man welcomes the obligation of the four remaining pillars, each of which contain an element of "sacrifice" (a Middle English word derived from Latin, meaning "to make sacred"), and encourage his personal and communal awareness of God. The statement of Shahada is included as a component of the second pillar, Salat (Prayer), which must be performed five times a day -- a sacrifice (or consecration) of time. When the call to prayer issues from the minaret of the mosque, the faithful man puts down his work, performs ritual ablutions to purify his body, then turns himself toward Mecca to devote himself to God for an interlude of praise. Five times a day, he is reminded that time itself is God's creation, and is encouraged to keep the Creator foremost in his mind, heart and actions. Every Friday, if not more often, he performs his prayers at the mosque, in congregation with his brethren. Here, as the author Peter J. Awn writes, "Each Muslim is acknowledged to be the equal of every other Muslim when he or she stands shoulder to shoulder with other community members to perform identical ritual movements and prayers …" (9).<br /><br />Everything the man can possess becomes symbolically sacralized in the third pillar, Zakat (Almsgiving), which requires him to contribute as much as ten percent of the fruit of his labors to the neediest members of his community. This act of charity serves as another reminder that all things ultimately belong to God, and requires the recipient of God's blessings to not just acknowledge the indigent, but to interact with them. While the other pillars seem designed to draw man's attention away from the temporal world, the pillar of Zakat instructs the faithful to look upon the world with an informed perspective, and address the needs of others. "The individuals who make up the society are the primary focus of attention,” write Murata and Chittick, “but their religious well-being demands that they accept some measure of social responsibility" (16).<br /><br />The human body is symbolically consecrated during the ninth month of the Islamic calendar, called Ramadan, an observance of the fourth pillar known as Sawm (Fasting). From the onset of puberty, the man will observe the month of Ramadan by refraining from eating, drinking, smoking, or sexual activity. His constant, nagging feelings of need remind him of the true sacred nature of the human body, a production of God that cannot be controlled by man. "Fasting confronts the believer squarely with his or her physical dependencies," writes Awn. "The individual becomes aware of the extent to which various needs (food, sex, emotional fulfillment) actually control his or her life. Has one become a slave to one's instincts? With this stark realization of physical dependency comes a renewed awareness of one's need for God..." (10). As with all the Five Pillars of Islam, the practice of fasting places God at the forefront of man's attention. It also serves to connect him with family and the community through mutual sacrifice, and the celebrations that follow the breaking of the fast.<br /><br />Additional sacrifices of time, money and personal comfort are combined within the fifth and final pillar, Hajj (the pilgrimage to Mecca). The man of faith longs for at least one opportunity in his lifetime when his health and finances enable him to make the journey to visit the House of God, the Kaaba, said to have been built by Abraham. After arriving in Mecca, he removes his clothing and jewelry, performs ablutions to purify his body, and dons the white, unhemmed robes of a pilgrim. Countless enthralling stories of the hajj have supplied him with an almost instinctive knowledge of the ritual acts he is to perform. In the stifling Saudi Arabian heat, he will retrace the steps of Abraham, Hagar, and Mohammed, like millions upon millions of faithful individuals have done for centuries and will continue to do long after he has passed away.<br /><br />He has practiced theocentric consciousness all his life: on an immanent level, as a grateful and reliant creation of God; and on a transcendent level, as God's devoted instrument. Now, as he is swept into the miasma of humanity, these aspects of his lifetime of worship -- the personal and communal, the finite and eternal, the known and unknown, become indistinguishably united. In this tremendous unity, "...the hajj provides a unique opportunity to experience for a time what the ideal Islamic umma [community] is envisioned to be: multiethnic, egalitarian, and dedicated to the human and religious values embodied in the divine revelation" (Awn, 13). For a brief time, at least, he and his fellow Muslims produce a microcosmic representation of creation, all in universal submission to God. As he circumambulates the Kaaba among a joyous tide of humanity, he fully lives the reality he has known and professed since birth.<br /><br /><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Works Cited</span><br /><br />Awn, Peter J. "Faith and Practice." Islam: The Religions and Political Life of a World Community. Ed. Marjorie Kelly. New York: Praeger, 1984.<br /><br />Murata, Sachiko, and William C. Chittick. The Vision of Islam. St. Paul: Paragon<br />House, 1994.ABOUT THE AUTHORhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04035273164972855608noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9221154140891110444.post-86465201889010288402010-08-28T13:53:00.015-04:002010-09-01T22:17:22.100-04:00In "Titanic" (1953), Clifton Webb Discovers the Greatest Love of All<span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">[Reel Insights – <a href="http://signpoststoeden.blogspot.com/p/reel-insights.html">A Continuing Series</a> on Movies and Television Programs that Convey Unexpectedly Profound Spiritual Ideas.]</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /></span><div style="text-align: center; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-weight: bold;">"Titanic" (1953) and Absolute Love</span><br /></div><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /></span><a style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSn5I2rWIY1MblKzsSKggUBALeVyVr-oTyi_q0C8J8soWnc404sJnhPqHFGDeIWhUXnJ9MBTbS25bUNWrpB89MavomO_FsLz5grQT0jtCwEtqPDjMRPZxl6URLuNS6APVEte_Brr0S/s1600/titanic+still.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; width: 320px; float: left; height: 320px; cursor: pointer;" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5509407630184588706" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSn5I2rWIY1MblKzsSKggUBALeVyVr-oTyi_q0C8J8soWnc404sJnhPqHFGDeIWhUXnJ9MBTbS25bUNWrpB89MavomO_FsLz5grQT0jtCwEtqPDjMRPZxl6URLuNS6APVEte_Brr0S/s320/titanic+still.jpg" border="0" /></a>The film "Titanic" (20th Century Fox, 1953) portrays a number of characters in crisis, which is natural considering the dire situation they face. But don't let all the chaos and pathos distract you from the deeply moving journey of one particular character, who discovers the greatest love of all.<br /><br />Clifton Webb plays Richard Sturges, whose marriage is in crisis and is informed by his wife that their son Norman is not his biological child. Norman, just 13 or so, is unaware of his illegitimacy, and idolizes the man he has always known as his father. But Richard coldly decides to turn away from the boy forever, and leaves the family to wander the decks of the ship.<br /><br />In this scene, Richard suddenly discovers not only that the ship is going to sink, but that there are not enough lifeboats for the men:<br /><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dz4Jt88SeeP9qBX2D7ngG0dmBlXVwzKmS4DbUzSZruz0eTLVAW4XE8hIk2TY3nWszYuLinrgxhCIZKKsoj_Rg' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe><br />The change in Richard's attitude - toward his family in general, and his son in particular - is instantaneous. Without hesitation, he returns to his wife and children to calmly escort them into their life jackets and onto a lifeboat, telling them that it is all just a safety precaution. In watching this scene, I can't help but imagine the wrenching terror Richard is having to suppress in order to help his family. When the son points out that Richard has neglected to put on a life jacket, it is clear that Richard's concern for his own life has completely vanished. In realizing this selfless love, he has happened upon a state of grace.<br /><br />Richard gets his family onto a lifeboat, and says goodbye, lying to them that there is another boat for him on the other side of the ship. But as the boat is lowered into the waters, the son impetuously swaps his place with someone else, and goes to join his father. Richard is shocked to find Norman still aboard, and stunned when he discovers that all the lifeboats are gone, and the boy's life cannot be saved. Notice how Richard instinctively wraps an arm around his son, and never breaks their physical connection for the rest of the scene, as if the two of them have become one in his mind.<br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:0pt;" ><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dyCP-aq1nD52ls7-il667U0FULf3vHkCFGeWCDKcJvh-Fv6Vfv-kbYwYMReuvpyakLiEdHssIhjPqBapv1B' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></span><br />"Well Norman," Richard tells his son, "I didn't count on this." This line is doubly poignant, not only conveying Richard's sadness over their imminent deaths, but also his surprise to discover how much he loves Norman, despite having no biological relationship. Imagine the gratitude Richard must have felt for this boy, and the comfort he derived at the moment of his death, in the realization that he had truly loved and been loved by another human being. What an accomplishment, in life's 11th hour.<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:0pt;" ><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span></span>ABOUT THE AUTHORhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04035273164972855608noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9221154140891110444.post-2091462548242993182010-08-25T21:30:00.012-04:002010-09-01T22:17:40.399-04:00"Outsourced" and the Significance of Baptism<span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">[Reel Insights – <a href="http://signpoststoeden.blogspot.com/p/reel-insights.html">A Continuing Series</a> on Movies and Television Programs that Convey Unexpectedly Profound Spiritual Ideas.]</span><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /><br /></span><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">"Outsourced" and Baptism</span><br /></div><br /><div style="text-align: left;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhsPQk1slmAPPexd2Vs9JxO0A2YA5GddNryQuNZJggvdIFW941a9ZARJHJ0gNDnNmhhyphenhyphen3byXlKQwabPp1Hrab3wRNNzLrFW2u4hdmyxxcFf0tYD9SJm_gjtu9Ox9iMPQv-Hwpa5vHIT/s1600/outsourced+still.jpg"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 176px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhsPQk1slmAPPexd2Vs9JxO0A2YA5GddNryQuNZJggvdIFW941a9ZARJHJ0gNDnNmhhyphenhyphen3byXlKQwabPp1Hrab3wRNNzLrFW2u4hdmyxxcFf0tYD9SJm_gjtu9Ox9iMPQv-Hwpa5vHIT/s320/outsourced+still.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5509392651019951474" border="0" /></a>"Outsourced" (ShadowCatcher Entertainment, 2006) is a cross-cultural comedy starring Josh Hamilton as Todd Anderson, a Seattle call center manager who is relocated to India to train his own replacement. Who would expect this easy-going film to depict a kind of religious "conversion" experience, culminating in a scene of symbolic baptism?<br /><br /></div>Culture Shock strikes Todd (whom the locals can't help calling "Toad") from the moment he arrives. The food plays havoc with his stomach, he clearly doesn't understand local customs, and - as an example of Todd's "dis-ease" with his environment - an apparently homeless child steals his cell phone. But the confused American's experiences are also opening him up to a larger world than the one he knew in Seattle, as he witnesses extreme poverty, compassion, and acceptance.<br /><br />Encountering an expat who has survived India for many years, he is advised to "Give in to India," and Todd eventually learns to let India reveal whatever it has to reveal to him. Todd's "conversion" takes place on the day of Holi, a celebration of spring. Ignorant of the customs surrounding this holiday, Todd takes to the streets and is finally overwhelmed by a world he has struggled to come to terms with. Though Todd's initial reaction is to run from the Holi celebrants, this scene depicts the moment he finally is able to "give in" to India.<br /><br /><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dwPZsnI7nM1ruzVMt64_DAz35j6OyGawBna0geLXBj--a9xFsjJkN36r5-BfOONXT-qXJS0PAsn--yE2KSxbw' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe><br /><br />By the end of the scene, Todd - for the first time completely open to the new world around him - wanders into the bathing pool near his guesthouse, to wash off the Holi colored powder. The screenwriter and director clearly present this action as a kind of baptism, which in its most literal sense is a symbolic re-creation of the death and resurrection of Christ. It is a "dying" of the smaller self that was ignorant of truth, and the "birth" of a new self that encompasses and embraces a greater awareness. Signaling Todd's atonement (read it: "at-one-ment") with the universe, the child returns his stolen cell phone.ABOUT THE AUTHORhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04035273164972855608noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9221154140891110444.post-91601880291808273322010-08-17T12:03:00.008-04:002010-09-01T22:32:27.901-04:00In "The Razor's Edge," Tyrone Power Becomes One with God<span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">[Reel Insights – <a href="http://signpoststoeden.blogspot.com/p/reel-insights.html">A Continuing Series</a> on Movies and Television Programs that Convey Unexpectedly Profound Spiritual Ideas.]</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /></span><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Two Film Depictions of Enlightenment</span><br /></div><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAw4_9TIgE21Y3Mznxb05-_jTCtbwpcNDyxJu5yjUGkF5kpLhjkgi1W-LIGnuCu4VLig5KITF40PeBTS4EI8G5tXifELdLXINGtJ0ZdGftBzDYTQJt1nU2TNpX0e6zoAUWjkFmVJnL/s1600/razors+edge+still.jpg"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 223px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAw4_9TIgE21Y3Mznxb05-_jTCtbwpcNDyxJu5yjUGkF5kpLhjkgi1W-LIGnuCu4VLig5KITF40PeBTS4EI8G5tXifELdLXINGtJ0ZdGftBzDYTQJt1nU2TNpX0e6zoAUWjkFmVJnL/s320/razors+edge+still.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5509400484791068546" border="0" /></a>"The Razor's Edge" (20th Century Fox, 1946) is the first Hollywood treatment of the 1944 novel by W. Somerset Maugham, which tells the story of American fighter pilot Larry Darrell, played by Tyrone Power. A wealthy member of high society back home, Larry's experiences abroad compel him to leave his money, power, and fiance behind, and seek to understand the meaning of life. He works his way across the Atlantic on a steamship, then takes whatever job he can find, in whatever location he turns up in.<br /><br />His quest for truth eventually draws him to India, where he becomes the disciple of a holy man (played by character actor Cecil Humphreys). At this point, the film delivers some surprisingly cogent theology. In their first meeting, the holy man tells Tyrone Power of the three Hindu paths to enlightenment: devotion, work, and knowledge, but that ultimately, all three paths are the same. This is <a href="http://signpoststoeden.blogspot.com/2009/07/bhagavad-gita-why-arjuna-should-fight.html">the same teaching provided by Lord Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita</a>, which is Hinduism's most treasured scripture.<br /><br /><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dxBwk5UKpPFB9cV_y7x1BZ6JmMwC92aRUuD4K0qcn2BxnqdIibXsE-28smuGJFJz9nfe7VoDabdKQd5iPyPlQ' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe><br /><br />After a period of training, the holy man sends Tyrone Power to a hut high in the mountains, to live alone for a time, in contemplative meditation. Eventually, the holy man visits Tyrone at the hut, and senses that he has experienced something profound.<br /><br />Of course, there is a cinematic problem here. How do you visually depict a person's moment of enlightenment? How can the filmmaker convey to the audience that Larry's entire way of thinking has shifted?<br /><br />A 1984 remake of this story (see below) will attempt to depict the actual moment. But in the earlier version with Tyrone Power, the filmmakers have the character describe the experience to the holy man, and to us, the audience.<br /><br /><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dzvoBNckz9giCiUpxnF98bIMxurzaOoUKXXWHQMoQbxQwR08LTX3EaI0EmjqWAx0ZuC8HNqfZ5r180X2W7cDw' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe><br /><span>Having achieved<span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span></span><span>the wisdom he sought, Tyrone declares he could stay with the holy man forever. Here, the holy man instructs his student that the enlightened must return to the world and not remain cloistered.<br /><br /></span><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dxVvyduIb9x9qoyC0b7Z1JDDz5EJ2PWn6yOn7vzZEjnqm8R4imZnb9xTvwgLHWUHdTqnRkyR6NxhJaX_Ke0Wg' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe><br /><span><br />This is the exact sentiment expressed by philosopher Joseph Campbell in what he identified as the third stage of enlightenment, a process he termed "The Hero Cycle." Everyone who attains enlightenment goes through these three stages, Campbell asserts, <a href="http://signpoststoeden.blogspot.com/2009/08/joseph-cambells-hero-cycle-as-it.html">even saviors and prophets such as the Buddha</a>, Jesus, and Muhammad (and even modern day literary heroes such as Luke Skywalker in "Star Wars"). The first stage is withdrawal from the world in order to seek the truth. The second stage is the period where enlightenment is received. And the third stage is a return to the world, to share wisdom with others. "It is not necessary," the holy man proclaims, "to leave the world, but to live in the world, and to love the objects of the world not for themselves alone, but for what there is in them of God."<br /></span><br /><div style="text-align: center;">~~~~~~~<br /></div><br />"The Razor's Edge" (Columbia Pictures, 1984), stars Bill Murray as the seeker Larry Darrell. This version of the film does not delve into theology as deeply, but attempts to depict Larry Darrell's moment of enlightenment in a brief, wordless scene.<br /><br />As instructed by the holy man, Bill Murray carries some books of scripture and a small stack of firewood to a hut high in the mountains, to read and meditate. The hut proves to be nothing but a lean-to, perched on the edge of the snow-covered mountaintop. It is here where Larry has the epiphany that changes him forever.<br /><br />In this film remake, the moment of enlightenment is rendered very simply. Larry builds a fire to keep himself warm, and delves hungrily into the book, eager to discover the truths that have so far eluded him. In time, the fire dies out, and Larry, shivering with cold, realizes that the book can serve him in a way he never imagined.<br /><br /><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dx6tU5GgR86fYTXkpJ7k2jACkgosfRGQtsfc8Arwr7hZ1xMajqP5qdavivQ6p4_v42NvvaqdUYKTz1fdiKA' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe><br />Tearing the pages from the book, he sets them afire and warms his hands over the flames. Bill Murray delivers a surprisingly moving performance here, with such an expression of love and thankfulness as he puts the book of verse into the fire. Though it is an over-simplified dramatization of the "moment of enlightenment," I think it does succeed in showing a shift in perception. When Larry Darrell leaves the hut behind, (as occurs in the earlier version of the film), there is a sense that he now understands himself in context with the virtually endless world of Himalayan mountains and birds in flights - that his spirit has learned to recognize itself in the Spirit of eternal creation.ABOUT THE AUTHORhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04035273164972855608noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9221154140891110444.post-52079896033829066482009-10-31T10:36:00.000-04:002010-11-22T22:41:45.125-05:00Noguchi Water Stone<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhiwVDnmZ1I3WsFfr8tQ9YX1wQn-L4ywfhi-JQ2R7xE7bT-Xk-AiJxXf8-7upbYS9reJ5eb0KUArnsfaW4bn6Kbqmk1FRBQMG4HKWVg6LYrRL0SXRHkYAmtarojFOhJWsHOZaAaLxUq/s1600/Water+Stone+Photo.jpg"><img style="MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; WIDTH: 320px; FLOAT: right; HEIGHT: 212px; CURSOR: pointer" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5504905290565612290" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhiwVDnmZ1I3WsFfr8tQ9YX1wQn-L4ywfhi-JQ2R7xE7bT-Xk-AiJxXf8-7upbYS9reJ5eb0KUArnsfaW4bn6Kbqmk1FRBQMG4HKWVg6LYrRL0SXRHkYAmtarojFOhJWsHOZaAaLxUq/s320/Water+Stone+Photo.jpg" /></a><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKNoKyjm1JUMOaSSinlIdLXWevkHRkuKoEltWqxx05GNNPSjkMQBrY57371qt9CngNVQqxNI7HzNsKk2WF_p-rdTjr-ti1dTq3Vj9gT350wC6QYjeKzb27vCnAEV1vcssoFvJMBNBJ/s1600/Water+Stone+Drawing.jpg"><img style="MARGIN: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; WIDTH: 320px; FLOAT: left; HEIGHT: 230px; CURSOR: pointer" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5504904178580634530" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKNoKyjm1JUMOaSSinlIdLXWevkHRkuKoEltWqxx05GNNPSjkMQBrY57371qt9CngNVQqxNI7HzNsKk2WF_p-rdTjr-ti1dTq3Vj9gT350wC6QYjeKzb27vCnAEV1vcssoFvJMBNBJ/s320/Water+Stone+Drawing.jpg" /></a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: left"><br /></div>While wandering the halls of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, I was getting suspicious. I had asked numerous people to direct me to the Noguchi Water Stone, but no one seemed quite certain where it was. A woman at the information desk was able to direct me to the second floor, but then instructed me to “ask someone up there” for further directions. Two security guards quizzed each other, scratched their heads and pointed me down a corridor, probably just to get me to go away. I meandered through numerous exhibit halls, hoping I was getting closer when the art work on display took on a decidedly Japanese feel to it. But still I wasn’t finding what I had come to see. I began to wonder if perhaps my professor was sending me on some kind of Taoist wild goose chase. Perhaps there was no Water Stone. Maybe I was supposed to imagine it.<br /><br />Then I asked a tour guide who was talking to several tourists. “Just go straight along that way,” she said, pointing through a set of glass doors, “and you’ll begin to hear it.”<br /><br />“Excuse me,” I asked, “did you say I would hear it?”<br /><br />“Yes,” she replied, “you can’t miss it.”<br /><br />She was right. Beyond the glass doors, the hall was very quiet, hardly any museum-goers at all. After a short distance, I distinctly made out the sound of water splashing. I followed the sound until I came to what I immediately knew was Naguchi’s Water Stone. To the best of my knowledge, this is the museum’s only work that can be heard, because it is a fountain. That is to say that it can be categorized as a fountain. In truth, it is more along the lines of a Zen poem, or a haiku.<br /><br />The Water Stone is approachable from two sides, one with a Plexiglas barrier, the other completely open. I took a seat on a bench on the open side and began to contemplate what I was seeing.<br /><br />Nestled among a sort of riverbed of stones, the fountain seems like nothing very much at first. It is a thick, blocky sculpture, no more than waist-high, black and monolithic – a squat, battered-looking version of the object that keeps turning up in “2001: A Space Odyssey.” Yet it is not rectangular or square – odd angles here and there indicate that pieces have splintered off somewhere, as if it were a meteorite that crashed through the roof. At its top, a deep, perfectly circular well issues water from deep inside, and the water pools, creating the illusion that it is not moving. It is smooth as a pane of glass. And yet I knew it must be moving, because I could make out rivulets trickling down the sides, and could hear a loud splashing sound as it flowed into the river rocks and disappeared. The fountain invites study as it confidently teems with water and symbolism.<br /><br />When considering the work as a Taoist metaphor, many ideas began to surface. The first, strongest image that came to my mind was of Lao Tzu’s “uncarved block.” The fountain can easily be interpreted in this way, appearing as if had not been shaped by human hands and were still in its original state. If this were a human being, it would be a person who had transcended sorrow-filled attachments and was living in the world with a sort of “knowing innocence,” a person with no fear of death. Thinking of the fountain in this way lent it a human personality – I could picture a substantial old man sitting cross-legged on the ground, absolutely at one with his environment.<br /><br />The Water Stone also serves as an example of “wu wei,” the Tao concept of “no extra action.” The water doesn’t jet up and splatter down, like a person struggling against the natural flow of life. This fountain accepts and fulfills its role in the universe almost imperceptibly, delivering water without apparent effort, suggesting a person who lives in harmony with the Tao.<br /><br />The Taoist idea of power is conveyed by the water flowing over stone, a direct representation of a verse from Chapter Thirty-Six of the Tao Te Ching: “The gentle and soft overcomes the hard and aggressive.” Just as seemingly powerless water can erode mountains into canyons, a sensitive and vulnerable awareness can enlighten a person in ways that power and glory will not.<br /><br />Finally, the Water Stone exhibits numerous dichotomies. It is a synthesis of nature’s creation and man’s invention, the ancient and modern, the outside-brought-inside. Some of its surfaces are smooth while others are coarse; irregular angles are countered by a perfect circle. The fountain’s apparent motionlessness is belied by a sound of great activity. The soft water coursing over hard stone is the coupling that gives the sculpture its name, as simple and powerful as the object itself. These pairings reminded me of the forces of Yin and Yang, the dark, passive, feminine force that is equaled by a light, active, masculine force. The fountain flows peacefully, blissfully, the representation of an enlightened existence living in unity with these forces. The Water Stone speaks to us from the state of understanding that the human soul yearns to reach, showing us the way.ABOUT THE AUTHORhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04035273164972855608noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9221154140891110444.post-32013879168243482662009-10-11T17:47:00.002-04:002010-10-11T18:10:17.498-04:00Big Bambu Photos and VideoBelow are photos and videos of the "Big Bambu" art installation on the roof of the Metropolitan Museum of Art. The Starn Brothers have been erecting this mass of bamboo poles tied with string for several months now. It has several levels, and visitors to the museum can take tours inside it.<br /><br />PHOTOS:<br /><div style="text-align: left;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtWOZVKwoTvB2dwgHI2Wwc-G3dHqA0OVviLKHEPYwSfgmcoN_QTT86hm1TE8g7D9m7TngZSA7jtGjkxNrWiGmb8-H5hBmrq7-8cGpUkJt-ESAZkRxcopJVida-kJdE9iWL14kqWafY/s1600/bigbambuphoto2.jpg"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 240px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtWOZVKwoTvB2dwgHI2Wwc-G3dHqA0OVviLKHEPYwSfgmcoN_QTT86hm1TE8g7D9m7TngZSA7jtGjkxNrWiGmb8-H5hBmrq7-8cGpUkJt-ESAZkRxcopJVida-kJdE9iWL14kqWafY/s320/bigbambuphoto2.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5526913123656100946" border="0" /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjjQ1rEE62GTxGxTEAEEzfG4rJao4TMSHSmpEnEVSh6m2GU1s8IlIK2KEOQkRQKHKto4p8zPLH9WGF-olcQ3Hlho_cer-D54cQPURaumpmocxyXG8pNCI7rjvJhW9VHcHQBTop3mHSp/s1600/bigbambuphoto2.jpg"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 230px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjjQ1rEE62GTxGxTEAEEzfG4rJao4TMSHSmpEnEVSh6m2GU1s8IlIK2KEOQkRQKHKto4p8zPLH9WGF-olcQ3Hlho_cer-D54cQPURaumpmocxyXG8pNCI7rjvJhW9VHcHQBTop3mHSp/s320/bigbambuphoto2.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5526913991574617938" border="0" /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgB2pel4jtGDFYVyrjZNFbhM5y4sTcOLbgciI6CjnWbJA_9sdqVdNn9wAb9UAOnZXQjhqyo4s4vQ8r4N3tBMOf3h1AVgubZFkP5__WeYn7ShFAmvEGUQ84Ccfb-RiB2YD-sSVQzflMy/s1600/bigbambuphoto3.jpg"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 240px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgB2pel4jtGDFYVyrjZNFbhM5y4sTcOLbgciI6CjnWbJA_9sdqVdNn9wAb9UAOnZXQjhqyo4s4vQ8r4N3tBMOf3h1AVgubZFkP5__WeYn7ShFAmvEGUQ84Ccfb-RiB2YD-sSVQzflMy/s320/bigbambuphoto3.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5526914121803115506" border="0" /></a><br /></div>VIDEOS:<br /><br />This is a 360 degree video taken on the roof, which also shows the beautiful skyline, and trees of Central Park:<br /><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dxnESRS-UxLzCfov3ngcCyA-tvZXPs3HcCKYqFnCl868uAxlwkhASohUdyxbl93TkP4skSwMXJhwN7x8OoD7w' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe><br /><br /><br />This is a video taken from underneath the sculpture. The poles are not anchored to the roof, but are free-standing, and often moving around. Though the video doesn't show it, visitors to the museum are walking around in the sculpture overhead. Scott and I took the tour inside, but we weren't allowed to take photos there.<br /><br /><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dxUsZEXaDcXS6E-Lol58oThHeYQIoSGXjE2ysaVyX-sISOhKbi67dgmku3D13QGq8SXF5oLFi__J79Vf4BDUw' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe>ABOUT THE AUTHORhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04035273164972855608noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9221154140891110444.post-15654466568732128482009-09-24T11:15:00.000-04:002011-10-02T10:28:43.946-04:00<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dz7YZ0f_op9UoaHiHQhoiCggF94hyxoYuwDNO6uEsziOQ9V2x2gwkcJM8UqoFk0Kd6eTjmriC8raUP24yB0qQ' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe>ABOUT THE AUTHORhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04035273164972855608noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9221154140891110444.post-23635161317670925672009-08-14T13:14:00.000-04:002010-08-14T13:54:54.284-04:00Presence in Absentia: Pope Leo I and the Council of Chalcedon<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Presence in Absentia</span></span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Pope Leo I and the Council of Chalcedon</span><br /></div><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-style: italic;">“St. Leo is universally proclaimed as ‘Doctor of the Church's unity.’" (1)</span><br />– Pope John XXIII<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">“There were aspects of Chalcedon that [the Armenian Church objected to]; particularly in Pope Leo’s Letter to Flavian.” (2)</span><br />– Karekin I, Catholicos of the Armenian Apostolic Church<br /></div><br />Though Pope Leo I did not attend the Council of Chalcedon in 451 CE, his influence is indisputably evident in the Council proceedings and decisions, as well as its aftermath. However, it is the nature of Leo’s influence that is debated to this day: while the Roman Catholic Church stresses Pope Leo’s role in formulating the Chalcedonian Definition of Faith, and views his objections to Canon 28 as a defense of apostolic heritage, other churches such as those in Armenia and Egypt perceive Leo’s Christology as dangerously Nestorian, his politics as self-serving. Whether Pope Leo is perceived as bringing unity or division to the Christian Church is largely determined by how one interprets the Christology espoused in his famous Letter to Flavian. Scrutiny of this document and the political maneuverings surrounding it reveal why some regard Leo as the peace-bringing successor to Peter, while others view him as the principal impetus for the post-Chalcedonian schism.<br /><br />To a significant degree, it could be said that the crux of the disagreements that plagued the 5th-century Church was simply a semantic misunderstanding, an impassioned struggle to formulate the vocabulary which would accurately express theological thought; certainly, the use of precise language was considered critical to the parties involved. The Antiochene school of Syrian theologians utilized terms such as two persons, conjoined and person of union, stressing “the distinction between the two constituent elements in Christ, Godhead and manhood.”(3) Meanwhile, "The Alexandrian school... gave prime emphasis to the unity of Christ... expressed with such formulae as one incarnate nature, one hypostasis, [and] two natures in contemplation alone."(4) The difference between the two schools of thought is rooted in their soteriology, and often expressed in terms of direction: the Alexandrian “Christology from above,” where God elevates mankind from sin through Christ’s divinity, versus the Antiochene “Christology from below,” where mankind transcends sin through Christ’s humanity. Such differences in perspective fueled Christological controversy throughout this period of Christian history, spurring countless misconceptions of Christ’s nature which the Church fought off, such as Nestorianism. The latest heretical threat had come from Eutyches, who was perceived as overreacting to Nestorianism by asserting that Christ’s humanity was subsumed by his divinity. For Eutyches, “the flesh of Christ was not in his view consubstantial with ordinary human flesh”(5) – a notion that Leo, like many others, saw as undermining the doctrine of salvation.<br /><br />“Through the most blessed Peter, chief of the Apostles, the Holy Roman Church holds the principate over all the churches in the world” wrote Pope Leo, as quoted by Leo Donald Davis.(6) It is with this self-image as the definitive leader of Christianity that Leo responded to the Eutychian threat in a letter addressed to Flavian, bishop of Constantinople. Composed circa 449, the letter was suppressed at the Council of Ephesus that same year, but was promoted forcefully at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. This Tome, first drafted by Leo’s secretary, Prosper of Aquitaine, was a “committee document, almost a Cento, a cut and paste editorial work that assembles all the traditional aspects of prior Latin theology, with an especial emphasis on Augustine.”(7) C.R. Norcock also points out that numerous sections of the Tome appear to have been taken from an early 5th-century letter by St. Gaudentius of Brescia to “Paul the deacon.”(8)<br /><br />By “drawing upon” the works of renowned Latin theologians, Leo’s letter was assembled in response to the specific crisis identified with the teachings of Eutyches, but was viewed by the Pope as the quintessential statement of theological truth, and promoted by him as a resolution to the general Christological arguments that had been raging for generations between the Antiochene and Alexandrian schools of thought. By presenting his “two natures/one person” conception of Christ, it seemed “the Antiochenes could find … insistence on the reality and independence of the two natures; the Alexandrians, Cyril’s basic insight that the person of the Incarnate is identical with that of the Divine Word."(9)<br /><br />But Leo’s Christology was not straightforwardly identical to that of Antioch or Alexandria. His uniquely Latin understanding of salvation (which he had inherited from his predecessors, including Tertullian, Hilary of Poitiers, St. Ambrose of Milan, and St. Augustine) casts Christ in the role of mediator, who “as man’s representative … might pay the debt [of sin] and remove man’s guilt through an expiatory sacrifice.”(10) The Tome of Leo is replete with this understanding of Atonement, as in the following passages:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">“[The Incarnation’s] whole purpose is to restore humanity … Overcoming the originator of sin and death would be beyond us, had not he whom sin could not defile, nor could death hold down, taken up our nature and made it his own.”(11) </span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">“[The] mediator between God and humanity, the man Christ Jesus could both on the one hand die and on the other be incapable of death.” … “His subjection to human weaknesses in common with us did not mean that he shared our sins. He took on the form of a servant …”(12) </span><br /><br />Leo’s Latin soteriology focuses “attention, not so much (like the Alexandrians) on the meaning of the Incarnation, or (like the Antiochenes) on that of the Resurrection, as on that of Calvary, as they lay stress on the forgiveness which it brings.”(13)<br /><br />The conception of Christ’s role as mediator serves as the centerpiece for Leo’s “two natures/one person” Christology, where the Logos is united with a human body. It is also the point of departure for disputes regarding the degree of unity that Leo’s concept achieved. Pope Leo endeavored to depict a true union, describing it as “co-eternal and consubstantial with the Father,”(14) and stressed that, “though the Incarnation involved a self-emptying, this should be understood as a stooping down whereby the Word underwent no diminution of His omnipotence."(15) But Leo also strove to delineate Christ’s two natures, stating that “The Word performs what belongs to the Word, and the flesh accomplishes what belongs to the flesh. One of these performs brilliant miracles, the other sustains acts of violence.”(16) Such statements of Christ’s dual natures suggested less of a union than a juxtaposition of the divine and human – an idea which alarmed a good number of bishops, who sensed a decidedly Nestorian undertone at work in Leo’s model. Though Leo’s Tome offered strong statements to counter such alarm, it also constantly returned to the idea of separation, asserting that it was Jesus’ human nature that wept over the death of a friend, while insisting it was Christ’s divine nature that walked on water. By posing such seemingly contradictory views, and repetitively emphasizing the separation of the two natures, it is no wonder that the Tome of Leo was met with resistance at Chalcedon, and was seen as fomenting discord in the centuries to follow.<br /><br />Leo’s writings were also problematic because of language. As a western theologian, relying almost exclusively on Latin, the Pope had difficulty communicating with the rest of the Christian world, which was largely Greek speaking. Leo could easily mistranslate Greek writings, just as Greek readers could often misinterpret the Pope’s Latin. Comparisons of early drafts of Leo’s Tome with the later, finished version show revisions which indicate he was aware of this issue, and tried to avoid problems by choosing his words carefully. For example, in one important section: “So it is on account of this oneness of the person, which must be understood in both natures …”(17) the word Naturae “was substituted for substantiae in the original version, clearly to avoid problems in Greek translation.”(18)<br /><br />Unfortunately, Leo was “handicapped through not being able to appreciate that the Greeks could use nature in the sense of persona,”(19) and any confusion between these two terms was dangerous. Leo’s use of the word forma could also cause the same misunderstanding. When Leo wrote that “the activity of each form is what is proper to it in communion with the other,”(20) the phrase “each form” (forma) could be understood as attributing Christ’s actions to two different persons or hypostases, an idea which directly contradicted earlier theological literature, such as the Formula of Reunion, and the Fourth Anathema of Cyril’s Third Letter to Nestorius.(21)<br /><br />Even when Leo did use the term persona correctly, he did so in a controversial context. In declaring that “for although there is in the Lord Jesus Christ a single person who is of God and of man,” the Pope came close to rightly emphasizing the singularity of Christ’s humanity and divinity. But he shifts the focus back to a duality, by beginning the statement with the conjunction although, and completing the sentence with the words “the insults shared by both have their source in one thing, and the glory that is shared in another.”(22) Riddled with potential language landmines such as these, the Tome was destined to be met with suspicion at Chalcedon.<br /><br />Pope Leo, following a long-established precedent, refused to attend the Council of Chalcedon, sending in his place a number of legates who “attempted to create an impression of being in charge. Their role, they insisted, was not to deliberate along with the assembled bishops but rather to inform them of the pope’s judgments.”(23) As far as everyone from the Roman camp was concerned – including the dictatorial Emperor Marcian – there was little to do at the council other than to officially endorse Leo’s Tome. Though the Pope regarded himself as the supreme leader of the ecumenical Church, it is likely that most bishops at Chalcedon “understood their relationship to Rome in less subordinate terms."(24)<br /><br />The shortcomings of the Tome became immediately apparent the moment the document was read at the Council of Chalcedon’s second session, with Illyrian and Palestinian bishops loudly objecting to those sentences which stressed a separation of natures: The Word performs what belongs to the Word, and the flesh accomplishes what belongs to the flesh. One of these performs brilliant miracles, the other sustains acts of violence. “This led, presumably, to detailed discussion that was reduced in the record to a series of citations from Cyril of Alexandria, intended to demonstrate agreement between Leo and Cyril.”(25)<br /><br />If there is anyone whose presence in absentia was felt more keenly at the Council of Chalcedon than Pope Leo’s, it was that of Cyril of Alexandria, who had died some seven years prior. In numerous letters composed from his see in Egypt, Cyril had long-ago mapped out a Christology of “one incarnate nature of the divine Logos,”(26) providing new terminology to define the unification of the Logos with flesh as a hypostatic and natural union. It was Cyril’s views that were almost universally accepted within the Church, and whose writings provided “the yardstick of orthodoxy”(27) for everyone at Chalcedon. Only by comparing the inflammatory statements in Leo’s letter to similar ones made by the venerated Cyril of Alexandria was the council able to accept Leo’s Letter to Flavian as orthodox. And when, at the fourth session of the council, each bishop was called upon to affirm Leo’s Tome, “Of the one hundred and sixty one bishops who registered their official ‘acclamations’ in the Acts of the council, almost every one of them included a specific judgment that Leo had been faithful to Cyril.”(28)<br /><br />The council almost certainly would not have incorporated Leo’s Christology into their Definition of Faith were it not for the deceased Cyril, and the living Roman Emperor Marcian. When it was finally resolved to produce a Definition of Faith (after protracted arguments that it was unnecessary), a first draft was rejected by Leo’s legates at the council for not adequately incorporating the Pope’s “two natures” philosophy. At the fifth session, when resistance to a new definition continued, the Emperor Marcian threatened to move the council to the West (insinuating that Leo would personally take over the matter), and elected a council subcommittee to act. Marcian and the Roman legates - and Leo, from afar – insisted upon “a formal affirmation of a continuing duality in Christ after the union."(29) It became clear that the council could not adjourn without producing a new Definition of Faith that in some way embraced Leo’s Tome.<br /><br />The final product was a statement that appeared in agreement with Leo’s Tome while utilizing as little of it as possible. After first introducing the synodical letters of Cyril, an entire paragraph is dedicated to the introduction of Leo’s letter, making much of Leo himself, and his role as the “primate of greatest and older Rome.”(30) When the definition finally gets round to its profession of faith, a kind of tight-rope walk can be detected in its wording as the bishops labored under the Roman order to provide a clear statement about two natures existing after the incarnation, while simultaneously attempting to satisfy those who took a more Alexandrian, miaphysite stance.<br /><br />Once again, the council members looked to Cyril as the ultimate authority, couching the thorny terms of Leo’s Christology in familiar and comfortable Cyrillian expressions. Every reference to “two natures” is made with an emphasis on unity, as in the following excerpt:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">“The property of both natures is preserved and comes together into a single person and a single subsistent being; he is not parted or divided into two persons, but is one and the same only-begotten Son, God, Word, Lord Jesus Christ, just as the prophets taught from the beginning.”(31) </span><br /><br />Numerous sections of the definition quote virtually verbatim from Cyril’s letters.(32) The definitional clause “the difference of the natures being in no way destroyed by the Union” was taken word for word from Cyril’s Second Letter to Nestorius. And at least three major statements in the Chalcedonian Definition of Faith (CHALCEDON) appear to have been lifted directly from Cyril’s Letter to John on Antioch (CYRIL):<br /><br />1. CHALCEDON: “We all with one voice teach the confession of one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ … truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and a body.”<br /><br />CYRIL: “We confess that Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God is perfect God and perfect Man, of a rational soul and body.”<br /><br />2. CHALCEDON: “In these last days for us and for our salvation was born of the virgin Mary according to the manhood.”<br /><br />CYRIL: “In the last days the same for us and for our salvation from Mary, the virgin God-bearer, as regards his humanity.”<br /><br />3. CHALCEDON: “The same one is consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the manhood.”<br /><br />CYRIL: “Consubstantial with the Father as regards his divinity, and the same consubstantial with us as regards his humanity.”<br /><br />Even sections of the definition often attributed to Pope Leo can be argued to have come from Cyril, such as the definition’s oft-cited “four adverbs”:<br /><br />CHALCEDON: [the two natures undergo] “no confusion, no change, no division, no separation.”<br /><br />A case might be made for Leo as the author of these striking terms. In his Tome, the Pope discusses Christ’s earthly manifestation and its relationship with God as being “not later in time, not lower in power, not unlike in glory, not distinct in being.” That Leo employs four lyrical qualifying terms regarding the union can be seen as the inspiration for the more succinct four adverbs used in the Definition of Faith. But a clearer link can be identified between the definition and a statement made by Cyril in his First Letter to Succensus, where he writes that [the Word and the flesh are united] “without confusion, without change, and without alteration.” These three terms seem obviously akin to the four used in the definition. Especially considering the council members’ attitude toward Cyril as the “yardstick of orthodoxy,” it is unlikely they would have been inclined to use Leo’s writing as their inspiration when Cyril had anything to say on the subject.<br /><br />With so much of Cyril’s imprint on the Chalcedonian Definition of Faith, one has to wonder exactly how and where Leo’s Tome was utilized. McGuckin writes that “The main Leonine contribution to the Chalcedonian settlement is the phrase: ‘the property of each nature being preserved and concurring in one prosopon.”(33) Leo’s Tome states it as “The proper character of both natures was maintained and came together in a single person.” Yet even this bit seems included as a Leonine confirmation of Cyril and the Alexandrian Christology which stressed that “in this one Person are clearly evident the two elements of Godhead and manhood.”(34)<br /><br />Leo’s supporters at Chalcedon, including the legates who were technically presiding over the council, as well as the formidable emperor, sensing that the emerging definition was short on Leonine representation, pushed for one small change in wording. The phrase “in two natures” (as opposed to “of two natures”) was considered a definitive assertion of Latin Christology, as it maintained a distinction of natures after the Incarnation. By making this revision, the subcommittee was able to satisfy the Latin contingent, and offer a finished Definition of Faith to the council. Though this may have been perceived as some small victory on the part of Rome (and a clear refutation of Eutyches), in truth it was another restatement of Cyrillian belief. Cyril had never objected to the appreciation of two natures in Christ after the Incarnation, as long as the union was never compromised. This, in the end, epitomized the difference between Leo and Cyril: Leo observed two sides to a coin, while Cyril perceived the coin as a whole.<br /><br />This difference in perception incited the divergent reactions to Leo’s Tome and the Chalcedonian Definition of Faith. To those with Alexandrian leanings, Chalcedon had added to the faith of Nicaea, and innovation to this most revered first council was considered blasphemous. What’s more, the Definition of Faith had not clearly proclaimed the hypostatic union, nor had it plainly declared who suffered on the cross, or “that the person of the union was the pre-existent person of the Word.”(35) Acclamation of Leo’s Tome was perhaps the worst offense, convincing many of the Council of Chalcedon’s Nestorian inclinations, with repetitive insistence that “Jesus Christ was capable of death in the one nature and incapable of death in the other.”(36) To the dissenters, Leo’s emphasis on the two natures “so separates, and personalizes, what is divine and what is human in Christ that the hypostatic union is dissolved.”(37) What would conclusively be dissolved after Chalcedon was the ecumenical Church, as controversy over the council and its statement of faith crystallized two outlooks which for many were irreconcilably opposed: dyophysitism (maintaining Christ’s two natures) and miaphysitism (emphasizing unity).<br /><br />For Leo, Chalcedon was a failure, and initially he rejected it entirely. With his self-image as Christ’s chosen leader of the Church, the Pope had expected nothing from this council other than the official acclamation of his Tome. The fact that so little of his work actually made its way into the Definition of Faith could not have escaped his notice, and would likely have wounded his sense of pride, and perhaps even alarmed him that the Church was falling into heresy (by rejecting his dictates). But the Pope expressed his objections to Chalcedon almost exclusively on the adoption of canon 28, which confirmed an elevated status to the see of Constantinople, reading (in part):<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">“The fathers rightly accorded prerogatives to the see of older Rome, since that is an imperial city; and moved by the same purpose the 150 most devout bishops apportioned equally prerogatives to the most holy see of new Rome, reasonably judging that the city which is honoured by the imperial power and senate and enjoying privileges equaling older imperial Rome, should also be elevated to her level in ecclesiastical affairs and take second place after her.”(38) </span><br /><br />Though it’s highly unlikely that recognition of the see of Constantinople was intended by the Council of Chalcedon (or the Council of Constantinople, which established the precedence in 381) as an affront to Rome, it is difficult to imagine that Leo could have seen it as anything less than threatening. The wording of the canon implies that top ecclesiastical primacy was conceded to the Church of Rome not because of apostolic succession, or Rome’s association with the martyrs Peter and Paul, but because of Rome’s original role as the center of government. Having witnessed the fall of Rome as the imperial power, the Roman papacy was now witnessing the meteoric rise of Constantinople as an ecclesiastic power. Leo could not help but fear that, “while in earlier centuries eastern churchmen had often appealed to the Roman see, such appeals would in future be directed to the emperor or archbishop at Constantinople, with the result that the status of Rome would be effectively reduced to that of the patriarchal see of the western provinces. In this sense rivalry for influence between Rome and Constantinople was the root cause of the debate over Canon 28.”(39)<br /><br />Discreetly, Leo officially objected to canon 28 as an innovation of canon 6 of Nicaea, which had formally recognized the major sees of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch (at a time when Constantinople was just coming into existence). He also claimed sensitivity to the usurpation of Alexandria and Antioch’s authority. Both protests could be interpreted as evidence of the Pope’s sense of peril: if canon 6 of Nicaea could be modified, and the once sacrosanct status of Alexandria and Antioch be overthrown, how long before Rome would lose its place of honor to the Eastern upstart? Ultimately, not wanting to appear as a supporter of heretical views, Leo approved the Council of Chalcedon, though he never accepted canon 28.<br /><br />To this day, Pope Leo I’s reputation in Christian history is disputed, the role of his Tome as a unifier or divider of the Church still contested. But in terms of the 5th-century semantic struggle to articulate theological thought, Leo and his Letter to Flavian certainly played an important role. His particular use or avoidance of terms such as nature, person, and hypostasis helped theologians engage in debate, forcing them to standardize their terminology, and better communicate what they did and did not believe. Such communication is apparently ongoing, as representatives of all sides continue to discuss what theologians like Leo and his peers at Chalcedon truly intended.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">FOOTNOTES</span><br /><p class="MsoFootnoteText">1. Speech delivered on Nov. 11, 1961, archived online by the Vatican Holy See.<br />2. Guaita 102.<br />3. Acts of the Council of Chalcedon Vol. I, Introduction, 61.<br />4. Ibid.<br />5. Davis 171.<br />6. Ibid. 193.<br />7. McGuckin, “The Long Road to Chalcedon,” 14.<br />8. Norcock 595.<br />9. Davis 176.<br />10. Sellers 184.<br />11. Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils Vol. I 77.<br />12. Ibid. 78.<br />13. Sellers 184.<br />14. Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils Vol. I 80.<br />15. Davis 175.<br />16. Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils Vol. I 79.<br />17. Ibid. 80.<br />18. Green 213.<br />19. Sellers 233.<br />20. Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils Vol. I 79.<br />21. “If anyone interprets the sayings in the Gospels and apostolic writings, or the things said about Christ by the saints, or the things he says about himself, as referring to two prosopa or hypostases, attributing some of them to a man conceived of as separate from the Word of God, and attributing others (as divine) exclusively to the Word of God the Father, let him be anathema.” McGuckin 274.<br />22. Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils Vol. I 80.<br />23. Acts of the Council of Chalcedon Vol. I, Introduction, 11.<br />24. Ibid. 21.<br />25. Acts of the Council of Chalcedon Vol. II, 4.<br />26. Sellers 141.<br />27. Acts of the Council of Chalcedon Vol. I, Introduction, 66.<br />28. McGuckin 235.<br />29. Acts of the Council of Chalcedon Vol. I, Introduction 69.<br />30. Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils Vol. I 85.<br />31. Ibid. 86.<br />32. In the following section, all statements from the Chalcedonian Definition of Faith and the “Tome of Leo” are quoted from Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils Vol. I; all statements taken from the letters of Cyril are quoted from McGuckin.<br />33. 238.<br />34. Sellers 143.<br />35. Davis 197.<br />36. Ibid. 196.<br />37. Sellers 266.<br />38. Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils Vol I. 100.<br />39. Acts of the Council of Chalcedon Vol. III 72.<br /><br /></p><span style="font-weight: bold;">BIBLIOGRAPHY</span><br /><br />The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon: Vols. I-III. Trans. Richard Price and Michael Gaddis. Liverpool: Liverpool UP, 2005.<br /><br />Davis, Leo Donald. The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1983.<br /><br />Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils. Ed. Norman P. Tanner S.J. London: Sheed & Ward, and Washington, D.C.: Georgetown UP, 1990.<br /><br />Green, Bernard. The Soteriology of Leo the Great. London: Oxford UP, 2008.<br /><br />Guaita, Giovanni. Between Heaven and Earth: A Conversation with His Holiness Karekin I. New York: St. Vartan Press, 2000.<br /><br />McGuckin, John. Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2004.<br /><br />Norcok, C.R. St. Gaudentius of Brescia and the Tome of St. Leo. JTS 15. 1913-1914, pp. 593-596.<br /><br />Pope John XXIII. AETERNA DEI SAPIENTIA. ENCYCLICAL OF POPE JOHN XXIII ON COMMEMORATING THE FIFTEENTH CENTENNIAL OF THE DEATH OF POPE ST. LEO I. Nov. 11, 1961. Vatican Holy See web site, accessed April 11, 2010. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_xxiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_j-xxiii_enc_11111961_aeterna-dei_en.html.<br /><br />Sellers, R. V. The Council of Chalcedon: A Historical and Doctrinal Survey. London: S.P.C.K., 1953.ABOUT THE AUTHORhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04035273164972855608noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9221154140891110444.post-73015105505293385502009-08-14T11:59:00.004-04:002010-09-01T22:18:04.741-04:00MST3K - The Cast "Dies," in Their Fun-Loving Way<div style="text-align: center;"><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">[Reel Insights – <a href="http://signpoststoeden.blogspot.com/p/reel-insights.html">A Continuing Series</a> on Movies and Television Programs that Convey Unexpectedly Profound Spiritual Ideas.]</span><br /></div><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br />Death as Transformation</span><br /></div><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dy70OXUdTmUb7WNbWe_j43TwriS6m2ymu-8Ws8kdi7rZFyikSbItgCvmQzcoXXnzwHc9ex3tqAgtSlvcFws' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe><br /></div><br />This clip is from the final episode of a TV show called "Mystery Science Theater 3000." In their spaceship called the Satellite of Love, the hosts of the program, Mike Nelson and his robot pals Crow, Tom, and Gypsy, bump up against the edge of the universe, and - essentially - die. But, of course, they do it in their unique, fun-loving way! Watch them as they drop their corporeal bodies and become pure energy.ABOUT THE AUTHORhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04035273164972855608noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9221154140891110444.post-66626471824842978352009-08-14T11:16:00.000-04:002010-08-14T11:24:08.188-04:00Welcome to Religion Roundtable<span style="font-style: italic;">The following essay is an imaginary conversation between several of the key "framers" of Christian theology - specifically, the Apostle Paul, the author of the Gospel of John, the writer of the Book of Revelation, and the unknown author of the Letter to Hebrews - to demonstrate the differences (and similarities) between their respective "versions" of Christianity. </span><br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Religion Roundtable</span><br /></div><br />TREVOR: Good evening, everyone. My name is Trevor Waxman, and I am the host of this week’s installment of Religion Roundtable. Tonight, our subject is "Christ's Sacrifice and Salvation". Joining us are some of the foremost authors of Christian scripture, whose works in the New Testament have sold billions of copies worldwide. In our studio, we have the mystic writer John, author of Revelation, an eschatological masterpiece and favorite source for The National Enquirer; and another John, author of the Gospel that bears his name – for clarity’s sake, we will refer to the former John as “Rev”. Also in our studio tonight is the mysterious author of the Letter to Hebrews, a man so reclusive that we could only persuade him to appear on the show by protecting his identity with a clever disguise. And finally, joining us by satellite from our bureau in Damascus is the Apostle Paul, author of the wildly popular Epistle series. I welcome you all, gentlemen. Rev, let’s begin with you. Can you tell us who, in your view, is Jesus Christ?<br /><br />REV: I'd love to, Trevor. (Meekly) Jesus Christ is a lamb with the marks of slaughter upon him… (More strongly) He is the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the avenger of wrongs! (Loudly, wagging index finger) He is the son of God, who will arrive one day upon the clouds and SWEEP MY EVIL ENEMIES INTO THE PITS OF HELL! (Contritely) Ahem, I mean "our” evil enemies.<br /><br />JOHN and HEBREWS shift in their seats uncomfortably. PAUL bounces in his chair anxiously.<br /><br />TREVOR: Paul, you seem want to respond to Rev’s definition of Christ. But first, let's hear from the others. John, Hebrews, what do you think?<br /><br />HEBREWS: I think Rev has missed the point. Jesus Christ is not an avenger. He is the highest priest, delivering the Word of God. He is the sacrifice that alters the form of humanity. All of creation is a manifestation of his majesty and power. <br /><br />JOHN: I suppose I agree with Hebrews, if I understand him correctly. I would say that all of creation is like a single human body, whereas Jesus Christ would be the mind of that body – the Word, which has existed as long as God has. It might be even clearer to say that Jesus Christ is God incarnate, period. Sure, Jesus was a man, but a purely divine man, unlike you and me.<br /><br />PAUL shakes his head in bewilderment.<br /><br />TREVOR: Paul, you clearly have something to say.<br /><br />PAUL: (emphatically) Yes, Trevor, I do. I have to wonder where any of my esteemed colleagues obtained their information. I couldn't disagree with them more. Jesus Christ was no more -- and no less -- God than you or me (the other members of the panel gasp). Jesus Christ was a man who achieved the near impossible: he managed to transcend his relative self. He sacrificed his ego, and in so doing became the example we all must strive to emulate.<br /><br />JOHN, REV, HEBREWS: Blasphemy! Disgrace! Sinful!<br /><br />HEBREWS: Certainly it is the sacrifice of Jesus' blood that we must focus on. Prior to Jesus Christ, man consecrated his spirit through animal sacrifice. Christ was the human sacrifice that sacralized all humanity. I see Paul's perspective as dangerous, and sinful.<br /><br />JOHN: Jesus did tell His disciples that the drinking of His blood is essential for eternal life.<br /><br />PAUL: (shuddering) Yikes, you give me the willies with this nonsense. You missed out, John, on Jesus' talk at the Last Supper about His body and blood. He equated His body with bread, and His blood with wine. But His point was that, because God is all there is, there is no difference between body and bread, or blood and wine -- it is all God.<br /><br />TREVOR: Well, this is the kind of passionate discussion we like to see here on Religion Roundtable. Paul, your colleagues have labeled your remarks on Jesus' sacrifice as "sinful" -- can you tell us the meaning of sin?<br /><br />PAUL: Certainly. Sin is relative thinking, and egocentrism. It's as simple as that – seeing yourself as separate from, and superior to, others. <br /><br />HEBREWS: I suppose I can relate to what Paul’s saying here. It is conceivable to me that egocentrism can be found at the root of people’s wicked actions. <br /><br />PAUL: It isn’t just bad deeds that are wicked. Any kind of egocentrism is wicked – thinking of yourself as a righteous person, for example, automatically infers that others are not righteous. <br /><br />REV: And they aren’t! Most people are terrible sinners that are going to be punished after death! <br /><br />PAUL: (looking askance at REV) But even the righteous can be guilty of self-righteousness! For example, what good is it to give money to the poor, if you are doing it to serve your own pride? Don’t you see, Rev, that in viewing those people as sinners and yourself as righteous, you are denying God’s truth? In truth, you and I, as well as those terrible sinners, are all manifestations of the divine. <br /><br />REV: You talk as if we are all equal. But we are not, because there are believers and unbelievers in the world. There is no way that Jesus Christ will welcome the sinner into the Kingdom of Heaven. The sinner will be cast into a lake of fire.<br /><br />PAUL: You might be surprised to hear me say I can agree with you there -- at least in part. The sinner can never enter the Kingdom of Heaven, because, by the nature of his sin (which is egocentrism), he views himself relatively. There is nothing relative about the Kingdom of Heaven -- it is absolute, infinite and eternal. The sinner's "lake of fire" is the suffering and fear he endures by defining himself in temporal terms. But you view the Kingdom of Heaven as some place in the future, after death; what I am saying is that this Kingdom can be experienced right now.<br /><br />TREVOR: And with that, we will pause for a word from our sponsor...<br /><br />TREVOR: Welcome back to Religion Roundtable. We were discussing the Kingdom of Heaven. John, you had something to say?<br /><br />JOHN: Just that Paul's idea of the Kingdom of Heaven as a state of mind doesn't sound too far-fetched to me. Although I would define the Kingdom as the knowledge of truth, whereas the lake of fire is ignorance. <br /><br />REV: Balderdash on both counts! The lake of fire is a real place, and it's sinners like you two who are going to burn in it forever. This is what the Last Days are going to be about, when all of creation comes to an end and all the souls are finally judged based on the way they lived their lives, on how they followed the law.<br /><br />HEBREWS: Rev, you seem a little hell-bent on the lake of fire idea, but I do agree that there will be a future judgment, and that people will be rewarded for obeying the law.<br /><br />PAUL: Perhaps Rev’s apocalyptic thought should be viewed metaphorically. Because we are always striving to live in absolute consciousness, but are always failing, we are constantly judging ourselves. The judgment -- the Apocalypse -- is happening constantly.<br /><br />JOHN: I really don't know where you are coming from with this talk about lakes of fire and Apocalypse and all. As for the law, it came from Moses, and foretold of the coming of Christ. Christ brought truth, which fulfills the law. I'm sure Paul would agree with me on this. <br /><br />PAUL: Don't get me started on the law! The law is what makes us aware of our relative condition to begin with. We don't need the law!<br /><br />HEBREWS: But we MUST obey the law. Even Jesus said He had not come to abolish the law. It is in obeying the law that we prove our faithfulness, how we find salvation. The law helps us differentiate between right and wrong.<br /><br />PAUL: (sighing) Differentiating between right and wrong... don't you see that this is just abetting relative consciousness? Who is right and who is wrong? Look, you don't need the law in order to know what is right. What you need is the correct outlook. If you understand the truth of our existence, of reality, then you realize the interconnectedness of all life. You're very nature becomes changed, and you no longer need to make distinctions between right and wrong, because you instinctively live the right choice.<br /><br />REV: Oh, come on. That's a wonderful sentiment, but who do you know that actually lives like that? People are incapable of total selflessness, which is why the world is full of sin. The law is necessary to provide guidelines for people to follow faithfully, regardless of personal desires. That is why those who manage to follow the law faithfully will be rewarded in heaven. That is their salvation.<br /><br />TREVOR: It would seem that we have differences of opinion, gentlemen, when it comes to defining sin and the purpose of the law. Rev has brought up the concept of salvation. Can we talk a little about this? <br /><br />JOHN: Salvation is freedom from death, and...<br /><br />REV: (interrupting) No! Salvation is God's forgiveness for our sins. It is our entry into heaven after death. The only way we can make ourselves worthy of that forgiveness is through righteous living.<br /><br />HEBREWS: I'm with Rev on this, although I would say that by believing in the existence of God, His forgiveness of our sins is granted prior to death. In fact, God's forgiveness transcends time -- it has always existed. We just need to believe in God in order to be forgiven. <br /><br />TREVOR: Paul, I see you shaking your head. You have a different take on this?<br /><br />PAUL: I hate to keep harping on the egocentric idea, but it really is at the heart of everything. Hebrews talked of transcendence -- my position is that salvation is attained when man transcends his relative self. Defining himself in relative terms insures his death, because relative terms are temporal, and will come to an end. Seeing himself in absolute terms reveals his eternal life, because the absolute is eternal. Ergo, absolute consciousness equals salvation. It is your attitude, and not your actions, that matter.<br /><br />HEBREWS: But, Paul, your theology is devoid of faith.<br /><br />PAUL: Not at all. Faith is living day to day in absolute reality.<br /><br />REV: Alright, I think that perhaps we are using different vocabularies to explain the same understanding. Paul says that if you live your life in absolute terms, you will naturally do the right thing, and therein arrive at salvation. I say that if you live your life in obedience to God's law, you will be a good Christian, and be rewarded for that. What’s the difference? <br /><br />HEBREWS: I agree with Rev when it comes to obedience to God's law, but I would add that you must also believe that God is a being who exists. Regardless of logic, science or anything else, you must simply believe that God exists. That is the faith that will bring you reward in heaven.<br /><br />JOHN: Your ideas are compelling to me, Paul, but I find myself siding with Hebrews and Rev on the subject of faith. What is faith, but a belief in something? True faith, as I understand it, has to be belief in the divinity of Jesus. A person must believe this in order to be a Christian.<br /><br />PAUL: All of you want to make faith about believing in something that cannot be proven -- like a child's wish. Why make things so difficult? Why not use the intelligence God has given you to think about the world, and try to comprehend its truth? Logic and science do not refute the existence of God.<br /><br />TREVOR: So, how can we know God?<br /><br />PAUL: Unfortunately, Trevor, God is unknowable -- we cannot fully understand the absolute transcendent or the absolute imminent. Because we are parts of both of them, we are unable to objectify them. But we can grasp the unknown through reason. We can see infinity in the finite.<br /><br />TREVOR: Anyone else?<br /><br />HEBREWS: Paul is an idiot. Faith belies reason. Noah believed in spite of what he saw as reality. Through faith we can see the invisible in the visible. Don't think, just accept. <br /><br />PAUL: That theology should win a lot of converts -- they don't have to change a thing about their lives or their attitudes. It’s the lazy man’s way to heaven. <br /><br />REV tosses the contents of his water glass in PAUL's direction, and in so doing knocks HEBREWS' disguise from his face. A melee ensues.<br /><br />AUDIENCE: (primal chanting) Tre-vor! Tre-vor! Tre-vor!<br /><br />TREVOR: It's clear that these arguments cannot be easily resolved. I'm afraid that's all the time we have for this evening. (A chair sails over his head.) Thank you for tuning in, and please remember to watch next week when Religion Roundtable will invite an Islamic militant cell to discuss righteousness with a group of Southern Baptists. I'm Trevor Waxman, and this is Religion Roundtable! (Cue music).ABOUT THE AUTHORhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04035273164972855608noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9221154140891110444.post-45835732094775438342009-08-13T18:14:00.000-04:002010-08-13T18:17:40.225-04:00Fashioning God - Ancient Sources for a Modern GodThere is significant evidence that the Hebrew God Yahweh was simply an innovation in the understanding of a past god or gods. Traces of Egyptian and Mesopotamian religions and societies appear throughout the Hebrew Bible, with that of Canaan ascribed as particularly influential. In sacred Ugarit texts, the god “El” appears as a storm god and head of a polytheistic pantheon of gods. In the relatively newer Bible, “El” is borrowed as a name for the monotheistic God who has subsumed all other gods. An evolution of the concept of God seems apparent by these developments, which spans centuries and crosses geographic and cultural divides. <br /><br />Throughout the ancient Near East, from Egypt, across the Sinai Peninsula, to the upper reaches of Mesopotamia, the collective body of religious writings shows that a “formula” for religious literature had long been well-established. By the time of the creation of Biblical texts, it would have been taken for granted that clearly formulated literary traditions must be followed when writing about sacred matters. Regardless of doctrine, faith, or even which God or gods were recognized, the "story" of any religion in this ancient time needed to follow recognized protocols.<br /><br />One standard protocol was the use of repetition. Because some of these writings may have been recited or even sung at ritualistic events, they are stylized as poems or songs, where important phrases or thematic lines are repeated rhythmically. Sometimes, a particularly important event in the story may be repeated at length several times, as news is carried from one character to another. <br /><br />The repetition always serves a purpose. For example, in Mesopotamian texts, anyone venturing into the Netherworld must move through a series of chambers, removing an article of clothing in each chamber until they appear, naked, before Erishkigal, the goddess of the realm of Death. In leaving “the land of no return,” they must pass again through this series of chambers, putting on what they had earlier taken off. This element of repetition, which perhaps becomes monotonous to read each time a character moves into or out from the netherworld, is important as it emphasizes the seriousness of the passage between life and death. Repetition emphasizes what is most important. <br /><br />A subtle change of details within the duplicated event can carry significant meaning. In the book of Genesis, Abram asks his wife Sarai to pose as his sister before the Pharaoh of Egypt. The ruler is captivated by Sarai’s beauty and takes her as his wife, until he discovers she is already married, whereupon he confronts Abram about the lie: “Pharaoh sent for Abram and said, 'What is this you have done to me! Why did you not tell me that she was your wife? Why did you say, 'she is my sister,' so that I took her as my wife?’” (Gen. 12:18-19). In this first version, we are left to understand that the Pharaoh had sexual relations with Sarai. Later in Genesis, the same events unfold again in the region of the Negeb, with a king named Abimelech. This time, the ruler is warned by God in a dream that the woman must remain untouched as she is already married. In anger, “Abimelech summons Abraham to confront him. ‘What have you done to us? What wrong have I done that you should bring so great a guilt upon me and my kingdom?’” (Gen. 20: 9). The single difference between these two otherwise duplicate stories is of paramount importance, and is marked by a change in name of the married couple: Abram and Sarai have become Abraham and Sarah. Her protection from harm in the second story is a result of God’s covenant with Abraham, demonstrating the divine protection that God bestows upon those who worship Him. <br /> <br />The Hebrew authors could easily tap into the power and sacredness of past writings by evoking them in their new works. In the Bible, the God Elohim (a plural form of “El”) says to Noah: "I am about to bring the flood -- waters upon the earth -- to destroy all flesh under the sky in which there is breath of life; everything on earth shall perish. But I will establish My covenant with you, and you shall enter the ark, with your sons, your wife, and your sons' wives. And of all that lives, of all flesh, you shall take two of each into the ark to keep alive with you" (Gen. 6:17-19). This exact speech is seen in the much older Mesopotamian tale of Gilgamesh, although the divine order comes from a different god. Here, the God Ea says to Utnapishtim: "Tear down your house and build a ship. Abandon your possessions and works that you find beautiful and crave and save your life instead. Into the ship bring the seed of all living creatures" (Mason 77).<br /><br />Dramatic scenes have always been reused by storytellers, as a kind of shorthand to express what people already well know. In the following example, a young man’s righteousness is demonstrated through a woman’s attempt to betray him. As the story is told in the Bible:<br />"After a time, his master’s wife cast her eyes upon Joseph and said, 'Lie with me.' But he refused.... She caught hold of him by his garment and said, 'Lie with me!’ But he left his garment in her hand and got away and fled outside. ... She kept his garment beside her, until his master came home. Then she told him, `The Hebrew slave whom you brought into our house came to me to dally with me, but when I screamed at the top of my voice, he left his garment with me and fled outside'" (Gen. 39:12-18).<br /><br />This mythological plot likely came from a much older Egyptian story etched on papyrus. Here, a man named Bata is approached by his brother’s wife:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">“She got up, seized hold of him, and said to him, `Come, let’s spend an hour lying together.’ … Then the youth became like an Upper Egyptian panther in furious rage over the wicked proposition she had made to him.” He storms out. Later in the day, when her husband comes home, his wife tells him that his brother had “found me sitting alone and said to me, ‘Come, let’s spend an hour lying together’… but I refused to obey him’”</span> (Simpson 83). <br /><br />In addition to repetition, the authors of sacred texts in the ancient world often strove for emotional intensity, to create believable characters whose situations would touch the hearts of people and draw them into the deeper spiritual messages being put forth. The writers of the Bible loved to depict a moment of poignancy, as occurs in the story of Joseph. Years after being sold into slavery by his brothers, the favor of God has placed Joseph in a high position of authority in Egypt. When a period of desperate famine descends over the entire land, his brothers, unaware of his identity, are brought before him to humbly plead for food. Not disclosing who he is, Joseph assumes a strict manner that could only have made them wonder if they were to be turned away hungry. Shaken to the core at the sight of his youngest brother, Benjamin, Joseph cuts the meeting short: <br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">"With that, Joseph hurried out, for he was overcome with feeling toward his brother and was on the verge of tears; he went into a room and wept there. Then he washed his face, reappeared, and -- now in control of himself -- gave the order, 'Serve [them a] meal'" </span>(Gen. 43:30-31).<br /><br />Characters in painful situations are an essential component of ancient sacred writings. Again, in the Bible, we are moved by the emotional intensity of Esau. Isaac, on his deathbed, is tricked into bestowing his blessing upon his second-born son. When Esau, the first-born (and traditionally the unquestioned heir), arrives at his father’s bedside, the two men learn of the deception too late – Esau’s inheritance has been given away, leaving him with nothing. Clinging to his stunned father, Esau is overcome with despair:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">“Esau burst into wild and bitter sobbing, and said to his father, 'Bless me too, Father!'... 'Have you not reserved a blessing for me?'... 'Have you but one blessing, Father? Bless me too, Father!' And Esau wept aloud" </span>(Gen. 27:33-39).<br /><br />The genuineness of the Bible characters and their raw emotional intensity was nothing new. It had been passed on to the writers of the Bible from those authors who had written countless other texts of mythology or in praise of their gods. Emotional power was simply one of the literary tools used to reveal the divine. Arguably, no writer reached a level of passion more heartrending than the Mesopotamian authors of “Gilgamesh.” In this epic story, Gilgamesh and Enkidu are two men whose friendship has made them both better individuals. They each find completion in the other, and during their short, adventure-filled relationship, have never given a thought to their mortality. Now, Enkidu has suffered what will clearly be a mortal wound, and, with Gilgamesh at his side, the two men face imminent, eternal separation. As their emotions surge from disbelief to anguish, Gilgamesh calls out to the gods, to his mother, to the world, to somehow stop what is about to happen. Softly, Enkidu utters a few final words to his dearest friend:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">"You are crying. You never cried before.</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">It's not like you.</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Why am I to die,</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">You to wander on alone? </span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Is that the way it is with friends?</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Gilgamesh sat hushed as his friend's eyes stilled.</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">In his silence he reached out</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">To touch the friend whom he had lost”</span> (Mason 50).<br /><br />Naturally, when dealing with subjects as profoundly serious as death, betrayal and righteousness, religious writers knew they could not avoid issues of theodicy (the justification of evil), and doubt. From the beginning, religious texts from all cultures sought to address these issues. In early Egyptian works, such as “The Man Who Was Weary of Life,” we eavesdrop on an argument between a man and his soul. Embittered by the evilness of the world, the man sees no reason to prolong his already temporary existence. His soul, on the other hand, is buoyant and resilient, and focuses on the eternal aspect of existence itself. Similarly, the subject of the Mesopotamian “Poem of the Righteous Sufferer” feels that he has been driven to the depths of despair for reasons he cannot fathom. He regards his god, Marduk, as an unpredictable power that can swiftly shift from support to oppression. In this case, the man’s steadfast adherence to faith in his god does eventually bring about the god’s favor.<br /><br />In the Bible, the character of Job has no hope of winning God’s favor. This examination of spiritual doubt presents dual perspectives on reality: the relative consciousness of Job, whose egocentric viewpoint makes God seem indifferent and heartless; and the absolute consciousness of God, whose theocentric view shows no discrimination or malice. <br /><br />With a monotheistic understanding of God, it was much more difficult and important for Biblical writers to try to explain and justify the existence of evil in the world. We encounter one possible justification in the story of God’s instruction to Abraham to sacrifice his son:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">“Some time afterward, God put Abraham to the test. He said to him, ‘Abraham,’ and he answered, ‘Here I am.’ And He said, ‘Take your son, your favored one, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the heights that I will point out to you’”</span> (Gen. 22: 1-2). <br /><br />The implication of this story is that the evil which befalls a righteous man is actually a “test” from God – a challenge of faith that could ultimately bring reward. But a different justification for evil is presented in a statement attributed to Joseph:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">"Although you intended me harm, God intended it for good, so as to bring about the present result -- the survival of many people"</span> (Gen. 50:20). <br /><br />Here, Joseph suggests that evil exists as a tool for the creation of God’s intended good; and that, in examining evil through his individual viewpoint, a man cannot comprehend God’s greater perspective. <br /><br />The Bible authors undoubtedly borrowed elements of repetition, style, detail, emotional intensity and range of thought that had been known to work effectively in the past. By following a tested and recognized formula, they created new sacred literature. The formulaic production of sacred texts continued long after the Hebrew Bible, on into the era of Christian and Islamic texts. Even sacred writings produced very recently reflect these same literary traditions (i.e. The Book of Mormon). Such is the literary formula by which God is revealed. <br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Works Cited</span><br /><br />The Holy Bible. New International Version. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989. <br /><br />Foster, Benjamin R. From Distant Days: Myths, Tales, and Poetry of Ancient Mesopotamia. Bethesda, Maryland: CDL Press, 1995.<br /><br />Mason, Herbert. Gilgamesh: A Verse Narrative. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1970. <br /><br />Simpson, William Kelly. The Literature of Ancient Egypt: An Anthology of Stories, Instructions, Stelae, Autobiographies, and Poetry. New Haven: Yale UP, 2003.<br /><br />Smith, Mark S. The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel. Grand Rapids: HarperCollins, 1990.ABOUT THE AUTHORhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04035273164972855608noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9221154140891110444.post-83885090528044744242009-08-13T18:09:00.000-04:002010-08-13T18:12:48.903-04:00Personal Piety in the Ancient Near East<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Balancing the Scales</span><br /></div><br />Man had been inseparable from the spirit world from the very beginning. Even as the people of ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia gathered into tribes, their personal gods coalesced into communal divinities, and provisional leaders evolved into kings, each individual remained fundamentally connected to the divine. The Universe was a spiritual realm, and man stood at the center – a principal contributor to the precarious balance between chaos and order. <br /><br />Each person in this realm played a vital role. In his palace, the king offered obeisance to his “family” of gods; in the temples, the priests maintained intricate official rituals to appease them. These elite of society interacted with the gods most directly. But in the countless tents, huts and homes, man encountered god in much the way he had in primordial days – through the forces of nature, the volatility of personal fortunes, and the ghosts of ancestors. Each man was certain his every move would echo across the spirit world and return to help or hinder him – and so he moved accordingly. <br /><br />For the Mesopotamian, "the individual matters to [his] God, God cares about him personally and deeply" writes historian Thorkild Jacobsen (147). But the care of the gods was both familiar and fearsome, the gods seen as a parental force not only of creation and sustenance, but of punishment. Man could never hope to fool the gods, and could even offend them unintentionally; he was behooved to approach them most carefully, and with open honesty. A man would draw near his god with an offering of respect and devotion, humbling himself before the god and confessing his wrongdoings (including those he was not aware of committing). He would pray for forgiveness, and, ultimately, for protection and favor, as in this “Prayer to a Personal God”:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">"Turn your face to the pure godly meal of fat and oil,</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">That your lips receive goodness. Command that I thrive,</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Command (long) life with your pure utterance.</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Bring me away from evil that, through you, I be saved.</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Ordain for me a destiny of (long) life,</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Prolong my days, grant me (long) life!" </span>(Foster 267)<br /><br />Life was important to the Mesopotamian, who knew of death only that it was a “netherworld” from which no being returned. Seeking to avoid the realm of death as long as possible, man knew to appease his gods and fear them. But he also demonstrated a more informal association with them. Their awesome power was his to use in certain situations. When a man felt in need of divine intervention or retribution, he could entreaty his gods; magic and divination were regular acts of faith. In an excerpt from a text called “The Cedar,” we hear a prayer uttered over the exposed entrails of a lamb, as a diviner prays to the Sun god for vindication:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">“Cleansed now, to the assembly of the gods</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"> draw I near for judgment.</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">O Shamash, lord of judgment, O Adad, lord of prayers</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"> and acts of divination.</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">In the ritual I perform, in the extispicy I perform,</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"> place the truth!” </span>(Foster 288)<br /><br />A truly righteous man naturally expected answers and guidance from his gods. But when a response was not always forthcoming, man had to question why. In the face of terrible misfortune, that virtuous man naturally felt abandoned and betrayed. The writer of “Let Me Praise the Expert” has clearly concluded that the gods operate on whimsy and lack of concern for mortals: <br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">"What seems good to oneself,</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"> is a crime before the god.</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">What to one's heart seems bad,</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"> is good before one's god.</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Who may comprehend the minds of gods</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"> in heaven's depth?</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">The thoughts of (those) divine deep waters,</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"> who could fathom them?</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">How could mankind, beclouded, </span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"> comprehend the ways of gods?”</span> (Jacobsen 162) <br /><br />The evidence for personal piety appears initially in Mesopotamia, seeming to grow outward from there to soon emerge in Egypt. The earliest Egyptian archaeological record testifies mostly to the role of kings and priests, perhaps because their artifacts were produced in greater abundance and treated with the utmost care, and were protected over the millennia within the ruins of substantial palaces and temples. The smaller, simpler structures of daily life, along with the relics of personal piety that they contained, slowly eroded away. But, from the beginning of the New Kingdom, evidence begins to appear, and a window into the average man’s understanding of the spiritual world begins to open. <br /><br />Acts of penitence are encountered in the workmen’s village of Deir el-Medina in western Thebes. Like the Mesopotamian, the Egyptian approached his gods to praise them, admit his own failings, and ask for favor. In this hymn, the writer tells how he failed to see his total reliance on his god, the Peak: <br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">“(I was) an ignorant man and witless,</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Not distinguishing good from bad.</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">I made the mistake of transgressing against the Peak,</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">So she chastised me,</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">I being in her hand / by night as by day,</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Sitting upon brick(s) like a woman in labor.</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">I called out to the wind, but it did not come to me …” </span>(Simpson 284).<br /><br />Then, in beautiful literary style, the author comprehends his mistake, and returns to his god like a prodigal son. The Peak accepts him lovingly: <br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">“I called out to my mistress.</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">I found that she came to me as a pleasant breeze.</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">She forgave me after she had made me see her hand.</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">She turned round to me in mercy;</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">She made me forget the pangs / that were in my heart.</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Lo, the Peak of the West is merciful when she is called upon” </span>(Simpson 284).<br /><br />Like the Mesopotamian, the Egyptian could also take a more active role in the dynamic between him and his gods. Spells were common practice from the Old Kingdom until the fourth century. Some were employed in reaction to misfortune, as in this treatment for burns:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">“Make a mixture of milk of a woman who has borne a male child, gum, and ram's hair. While administering to the patient say: </span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Thy son Hours is burnt in the desert.</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Is there any water there?</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">There is no water.</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">I have water in my mouth and a denial between my thighs. I have come to extinguish the fire” </span>(Brier 285).<br /><br />But incantations also had the power to harm: <br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">“To Make a Man Blind:</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Drown a shrew-mouse in water and give the water to the victim to drink” </span>(Brier 290).<br /><br />Spells gave man a degree of control over his life and world. With the favor of his gods, a man’s fortunes would seem unquestionably secure. But when prosperity turned to calamity, Egyptians could not help but doubt. In "The Man Who Was Weary of Life", we see that when man loses his gods, malevolence is unleashed ubiquitously:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">"Whom can I trust today?</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">I am laden down with sorrow,</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">And there is none to comfort me.</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Whom can I trust today?</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Evil runs rampant throughout the land,</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Endless, endless evil” </span>(Simpson 185).<br /><br />At least, for the Egyptian, death need not be terrifying. If he lived a good life, if his body were properly prepared and buried, and if his descendents continued to observe his name, his life could continue indefinitely in the afterlife. But life on earth was always in peril – evil ran rampant throughout the land whenever men tipped the scales the wrong direction. “In Egypt, the notion of evil overlapped to a great extent with that of disorder", writes Oxford Egyptologist John Baines (163). The immorality of man could "threaten the fragile constitution of the cosmos" (Baines 141). <br /><br />Man, then, through the weight of his actions, determined not only his own fate, but the fate of the Universe. With such responsibility, he clearly saw himself to be the supreme concern – perhaps even the raison d’être – of the gods. <br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Works Cited</span><br /><br />Baines, John. “Society, Morality, and Religious Practice.” Religion in Ancient Egypt: Gods, Myths and Personal Practice. Ed. Byron E. Shafer. Ithaca: Cornell UP: 1991. <br /><br />Foster, Benjamin R. From Distant Days: Myths, Tales, and Poetry of Ancient Mesopotamia. Bethesda, Maryland: CDL Press, 1995.<br /><br />Jacobsen, Thorkild. The Treasures of Darkness: a History of Mesopotamian Religion. New Haven: Yale University, 1976.<br /><br />Simpson, William Kelly. The Literature of Ancient Egypt: An Anthology of Stories, Instructions, Stelae, Autobiographies, and Poetry. New Haven: Yale UP: 2003.ABOUT THE AUTHORhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04035273164972855608noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9221154140891110444.post-44616925797211253322009-08-13T18:01:00.000-04:002010-08-13T18:06:09.099-04:00The Birthplace of Gods and Kings<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjr0-Ibek6GbC8uge_11WGcyGAxF4YitPWS71cb-xz3vTsvdQR53QDQJKO3QySkg3ED22M39NWhjZKLAKqHny6nfAiKOZjnsy-RgbkREAVMRasi6tCPm2ActfneqNshClVfgWnYwIQZ/s1600/god+and+king.jpg"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 169px; height: 298px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjr0-Ibek6GbC8uge_11WGcyGAxF4YitPWS71cb-xz3vTsvdQR53QDQJKO3QySkg3ED22M39NWhjZKLAKqHny6nfAiKOZjnsy-RgbkREAVMRasi6tCPm2ActfneqNshClVfgWnYwIQZ/s320/god+and+king.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5505019108605345218" border="0" /></a>Gods are dead and the age of kings has long since passed from the earth, or so it has been said of the modern age. And yet it seems that now, more than ever, debate is fierce over who should lead a country, while wars are waged in the name of holy righteousness. In fact, the twin threads of gods and kingship are woven throughout human history, and together can be traced back to their very beginnings in the lands of ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia. In the nascent days of civilization, these dual concepts of gods and kings arose as one in response to man’s greatest need. <br /><br />Early man was in constant danger. Fleeing the threat of death at every turn, he trembled at the crash of thunder and drew back into the protection of shadows to evade attack from animals. The chaotic universe to which he was entirely subject became his first god. Fearing its power, and begging its mercy, he knew beyond doubt that this awesome force was evinced in two dominions: the world of the Seen, and the realms of the Unseen. God was hidden and yet clearly present in the forces of nature, in the illuminating moon and life-giving rain, in the soaring falcon and the earth-bound serpent. Man taught following generations to scratch an image of birds and snakes onto rocks and trees, and to sleep secure in their protection.<br /><br />Over time, small units of families and their personal gods merged into clans, and clans into communities. This provided defense against the dangers of existence, and the personal gods evolved into communal powers. But then a new threat appeared. “With the beginning of the third millennium B.C.” the historian Thorkild Jacobsen writes,<br /><br />“Sudden death by the sword in wars or raids by bandits joined famine as equally fearsome threats” (77). To face this new menace, communities banded together into nations, blending their gods and choosing leaders in times of crisis. When the dangers failed to subside, leaders assumed permanent positions of power. With a ruler on the throne, and a national god in the heavens, the world of the Seen and the realms of the Unseen united – kings joined the gods as co-protectors of the people.<br /><br />In Bablyon, the similarity between gods and kings is illustrated in the creation story “Enuma Elish”. Tiamat and Apsu – the earliest, formless gods of fresh and salt waters – intermingle to produce primeval gods, who in turn give birth to many others. Soon, a rift develops among the now numerous gods. As the threat of destructive confrontation looms, the god Marduk offers to defend his branch of the god-family, but only if they will agree to make him king. When Marduk proves his power by destroying and re-creating an entire constellation, the gods happily comply:<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Joyfully they hailed, “Marduk is king!”</span> <span style="font-style: italic;">They bestowed in full measure scepter, throne, and staff,</span> <span style="font-style: italic;">They gave him unopposable weaponry that vanquishes enemies (Foster 28).</span><br />Marduk, who first appeared in Mesopotamia as “a vegetation deity and warden of spring waters,” has been elevated to supreme deity (Foster 247). He conquers Tiamat, forms the universe from her body, then creates his capital city, a holy abode in which to dwell:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">“I shall call [its] name [Babylon], Abode of the Great Gods,</span> <span style="font-style: italic;">“We shall hold fe[stival]s with[in] it” </span>(Foster 37)<br /><br />With little fanfare, Marduk also creates humans, for no other purpose than to labor for the gods. With this creation myth, the responsibilities of ancient man are clearly defined: man’s role is to support his king, who in turn must protect and defend his people.<br /><br />The Enuma Elish was composed in Babylon around the time of the reign of King Nebechudnezzar I. Perhaps it is not surprising, then, to discover other compositions that directly tie the divine king to this earthly one. The “Marduk Prophecy” claims to be the words of god Marduk himself. After his statue is stolen from the city of Babylon, Marduk foretells of a great king (Nebuchadnezzar) who will appear to restore it:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">“A king of Babylon will arise, he will renew the marvelous temple… </span> <span style="font-style: italic;">He will lead me in procession to my city Babylon…” </span>(Foster 216).<br /><br />And the king’s brilliance will bring great prosperity to Babylon and its people:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">“The harvest of the land will be bountiful, market prices will be favorable. Wickedness will be rectified. Obscurities will be brought to light … Brother will have consideration for brother, son will revere father … There will always be consideration among the people” </span>(Foster 216).<br /><br />In these texts, the king is depicted as the only being capable of bringing man and god together in harmony; he is the linchpin of order. The message is clear: recognize and serve the divine king, and the gods will reward you.<br /><br />Texts are not the only method for delivering the message of kingly divinity. In ancient Egypt, one of the earliest archaeological discoveries yet found is a work of sculpture called the “Narmer Palette”. This two-sided stone artifact is completely covered on both sides with images of men and animals. The principal scene on the obverse side of the palette is of a king, wearing the “red” crown of Lower Egypt, in some type of victory processional. On the reverse side is another depiction of a king, this time wearing the “white” crown of Upper Egypt, driving a stake into the head of a foe. This artwork is believed to have been buried as a sort of time capsule commemoration of King Narmer, who united the two realms of Egypt into one land in 3000 B.C.E. If this is true, then the Narmer Palette is a snapshot of the moment when regional clan gods were first drawn together into what will soon become the national pantheon of great Egyptian gods. As if to underscore the king’s role, the Palette presents the conquering king face-to-face with a falcon, the definitive Egyptian god of kingship.<br /><br />The falcon god, Horus, is present throughout the literature of Ancient Egypt. His family lineage comprises the Ennead, or nine principal gods of Egypt, in a story of miracles and treachery. His great-grandparents, Shu (dryness) and Tefnut (wetness) combine to form Nut (sky) and Geb (earth). They, in turn, give birth to four children. Among them is Osiris, who is named from the outset as king. When he is murdered by his brother Seth, their sister Isis manages to resurrect Osiris long enough to become pregnant by him and give birth to their son, Horus. The stage is set for an eternal drama, as Horus assumes supreme power which Seth forever seeks to undermine.<br /><br />In “The Contendings of Horus and Seth,” we witness Horus’ jubilant coronation:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">“Then Horus, son of Isis, was brought, and the White Crown was set upon his head and he was installed in the position of his father Osiris. He was told, ‘You are a good King of Egypt! You are good lord, l.p.h., of every land unto all eternity!”</span> (Simpson 102).<br /><br />In the Egyptian view, kings were of the gods, and permanently connected to them. Painted on the wall of the tomb of King Ay (18th Dynasty) is a scene of a barque populated by the nine gods of the Ennead*. They are depicted in descending order, ending with Isis and her husband (the dead king Osiris), followed by Horus; they have come to escort King Ay to the underworld. “The Ancient Egyptians envisioned in their ruler both a being and an office, the former originally mortal and the latter always divine,” writes Professor David P. Silverman. “When the two were amalgamated, divine kingship began” (67). King Ay, the entombed descendent of the gods, has passed from his status as Horus, the living god-king, to become Osiris, the kind of the dead.<br /><br /><br /> Gods and kings were born in the ancient lands of Mesopotamia and Egypt. Five thousand years later, the universe remains chaotic and modern man continues to imbue the roles of leadership (presidents, kings and dictators) with sacredness. Like the Egyptians, we recognize that the individual leaders are mortal; but we sense intuitively that the office they hold is more enduring. The unbroken threads of god and kingship continue to run through civilization’s history, connecting us to the dawn of humanity, and the first god of power and mercy.<br /><br /><br />* See Silverman, page 48.<br /><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Works Cited</span><br /><br />Foster, Benjamin R. From Distant Days: Myths, Tales, and Poetry of Ancient Mesopotamia. Bethesda, Maryland: CDL Press, 1995.<br /><br />Jacobsen, Thorkild. The Treasures of Darkness: a History of Mesopotamian Religion. New Haven: Yale University, 1976.<br /><br />Silverman, David P. “Divinity and Deities in Ancient Egypt.” Religion in Ancient Egypt: Gods, Myths and Personal Practice. Ed. Byron E. Shafer. Ithaca: Cornell UP: 1991.<br /><br />Simpson, William Kelly. The Literature of Ancient Egypt: An Anthology of Stories, Instructions, Stelae, Autobiographies, and Poetry. New Haven: Yale UP: 2003.ABOUT THE AUTHORhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04035273164972855608noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9221154140891110444.post-83796396348945371842009-08-13T17:19:00.000-04:002010-08-13T17:22:01.892-04:00Mesopotamian Incantation Bowl<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijqbnhE-dHulfGhBR-BnHCJehipuKnqNTvUQF18zas6s-qNCWtwoROCby_ISzuj1XiQbAFQrNoUJ_9aMv7UbyGSjlk3T46paHNq4vy6qUF92EK9b-GO7_K1KevNaHON6RnGKDp8cio/s1600/incantation+bowl.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 314px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijqbnhE-dHulfGhBR-BnHCJehipuKnqNTvUQF18zas6s-qNCWtwoROCby_ISzuj1XiQbAFQrNoUJ_9aMv7UbyGSjlk3T46paHNq4vy6qUF92EK9b-GO7_K1KevNaHON6RnGKDp8cio/s320/incantation+bowl.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5505007457338104738" border="0" /></a>Incantation Bowl with Aramaic Inscriptions<br />Ceramic<br />Mesopotamia Sasanian Period, 6-7th century AD<br />University of Pennsylvania Museum 1st Babylonian Expedition, 1889.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />The artifacts in the Ancient Near Eastern galleries of the Metropolitan Museum are not always easily identifiable as obviously religious or secular. The legs of chairs, bases for urns, and handles of tools are often carved depictions of animals or human-like figures that could easily be interpreted as religious in nature. But occasionally, as you move through the exhibit, you spot a relic here or there that is clearly religious, and there are sections of the galleries where religious relics are displayed together.<br /><br />Of these, I found my imagination most captivated by a number of “incantation bowls.” The bowls were all about the same size, similar to that of a large modern soup bowl. But incantation bowls were created to hold something altogether different from soup: they were meant to hold demons.<br /><br />The bowls are all made of clay, smooth and simple in form. The outer side of the bowls can be entirely devoid of design, but often they are decorated with writing, and some are adorned with images of a demon or demons in bondage. Sometimes the demon in bondage appears on the inside of a bowl. In the bowl I chose to draw, such an image is placed at the bottom – the dead center. Although I am a poor artist, I do think that I copied the primitive, almost goofy portrayal of this particular demon. He looks a bit like the Tin Woodsman from “The Wizard of Oz,” with his pointy hat and barrel chest. In his hands he holds a sword and spear. His legs are bound in chains. He is smiling.<br /><br />Like every other incantation bowl, the inner side of this one is covered with writing – spells that lure the demon, or that secure the demon’s captivity. Among the people of ancient Mesopotamia, these bowls indicate not only a strong belief in the presence of invisible forces at work in the world, but a conviction that mankind has a hand in these forces. Magic was seen as a tool that could be employed to change men’s fortunes, and alter the course of events.<br /><br />I picture a priest or pious religious practitioner using this bowl to perform a ceremony that will rid them of an evil influence that is at work in their midst. They recite the inscribed incantations, and possibly perform some additional rituals, to draw the demon into the bowl. At a critical moment, the bowl is then inverted, and the demon is trapped inside. Although evil spirits would normally be able to pass through solid objects, the spells that cover the inner walls of the bowl render the demon powerless to escape, and it is trapped forever. Or at least until some archaeologist comes along a few thousand years later, and upturns the bowl out of curiosity.ABOUT THE AUTHORhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04035273164972855608noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9221154140891110444.post-42756846657903177252009-08-13T17:15:00.000-04:002010-08-13T17:16:31.533-04:00Joseph Cambell's "Hero Cycle" as it applies to BuddhaThe story of the Buddha begins with his immaculate conception. A white elephant enters the womb of Queen Maya, who, when her time is due, ventures into a secluded garden to deliver her child beneath flowering trees. The radiant baby immediately declares that he has been born for supreme knowledge, and that this will be his final life. At the same time, a prophetic sage visits the majestic household and predicts that the royal son will one day abandon his kingdom in a search for truth. The King, disturbed by this prediction, determines to thwart it by diverting his son with a life of wealth and pleasure. <br /><br />So is the stage set for an epic tale that Joseph Campbell calls “the Hero Cycle” of myth. Through myth, Campbell asserts, the grandest, most vital issues of human existence are expressed and esteemed. Specifically through the symbolism of the Hero Cycle does man undertake life’s most universal journey, through the darkness of his own ignorance and fear of the unknown, to a realm of self-understanding and peace. “It has always been the prime function of mythology and rite to supply the symbols that carry the human spirit forward” (Campbell 11). <br /><br />The elements of the hero myth are surprisingly similar across all cultures and times. For example, it is easy to draw parallels between the Buddha’s story, and that of Jesus or Muhammad, countless ancient tribal heroes or the champions of modern cinematic tales. The crucial elements are recognizable. Campbell shows us that "the standard path of the mythological adventure of the hero is a magnification of the formula represented in the rites of passage: separation -- initiation -- return.” <br /><br />True to Campbell’s formula, the future Buddha’s adventure begins with a tale of separation, from his family, his wealth, from all that he knows and has heretofore understood as his destiny. He travels into a park with his charioteer, and there encounters age, disease and death, causing him to consider that man has no control over life, and to realize that the pleasures of the world are temporary. After seeing a monk in the park, the Buddha decides to retire from the world. Taking a last look at his wife and child, he mounts his horse and flees the city, his servant clinging to the horse’s tail. As they approach the edge of the metropolis, the massive gates open miraculously, and the Buddha casts away with indifference "a universal sovereignty already in his grasp." Leaving behind his established self and the known world, he embarks into the unknown, free for becoming.<br /><br />At this point, the Buddha’s story immediately takes him into Campbell’s second stage – that of initiation, and into the momentous trials that will dispel the relative gloom of his mortal life and reveal the absolute brilliance of life eternal. Once outside the city, the future Buddha dismisses his horse and servant, cuts his hair, takes on the garments of a monk and begins the long expedition toward enlightenment. Though this journey is marked by external events, “the passage of the mythological hero” Campbell writes, “is inward -- into depths where obscure resistances are overcome, and long lost, forgotten powers are revivified, to be made available for the transfiguration of the world". Our hero surmounts impediments and overcomes temptations, starving himself to the very point of death, and rebuking the plagues of the satanic figure of Mara. Having defeated the mortality that these threats represent, the future Buddha enters into the first of three “watches of the night,” each one a deeper penetration through the veil of cosmic chaos. <br /><br />Then, just at the break of day -- as if the universe itself has emerged recreated -- the perfectly enlightened Buddha is born. <br /><br />Similar to the resurrected Jesus, the Buddha "comes back as one reborn, made great and filled with creative power." This marks the final stage of the Buddha’s hero cycle, that of return. True to the Campbellian formula, the Buddha doubts his ability to deliver his wisdom to others, fearing that the earthly eyes of mankind will be blind to spiritual truth. But the god Brahma, the very creator of the universe, descends from the heavens to implore the Buddha to teach. And so the Buddha returns to his former world, to instruct those who are ready for his message. For 40 years, he serves as a beacon on the path to illumination. Then, at the end of his life, he asks his followers three times if they have any final questions for him. They respond with silence. Seeing that they understand his lessons, he takes leave of the earthly realm. <br /><br />Today, the story of Buddha continues to show mankind the way, one human life at a time. One man may emulate the details of Buddha’s adventure, renouncing the world and adopting an ascetic lifestyle. Another man may simply recognize in the Buddha’s story a kernel of truth that helps him along his own unique path. Each man is undertaking his own heroic adventure. And, as Campbell makes clear, "the hero is symbolical of that divine creative and redemptive image which is hidden within us all, only waiting to be known and rendered into life.” The hero is each of us, and each us the child of God.ABOUT THE AUTHORhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04035273164972855608noreply@blogger.com0