Smerom k novému vzdelaniu
Človek je považovaný za vrchol a pýchu stvorenia. „Človek nielenže stál pri zrode rozvoja, nielenže je jeho nástrojom i príjemcom, ale predovšetkým je jeho účelom a opodstatnením.“ Človek, ako povedal Pán Ježiš, ktorého Boh stvoril k obrazu svojmu, by mal dokázať, že je hodný Jeho požehnaní. Ale beda, človek dneška zlyhal vo väčšine našich očakávaní. Vďaka svojej márnivosti sa postupne začal považovať za stred sveta a zabudol na svoje nedostatky. Vzdelávaci systém, ktorý mohol vyliečiť všetky jeho choroby a podporiť jeho vývin, sa ukázal byť žalostne nedostačujúci. Dnešný študent nemá kde prísť k skutočnému poznaniu, ktoré by mu pomohlo získať pravé porozumenie života a viedlo by k pravým myšlienkam, pravej reči a pravému činu. Skutočný cieľ vzdelania je rozvinúť charakter a individualitu žiaka, jeho myseľ, vôľu a duševnú silu. Najlepšie vzdelanie je to, ktoré nás učí, že na konci poznania je služba.
Táto „služba“ je iným menom pre lásku a družnosť, ktorá stelesňuje samotnú podstatu osobného a spoločenského života. Láska a družnosť priniesli so sebou pokoj, láskavosť a pokoru, základné hodnoty života, ktoré opakovane zdôrazňovali mudrci a proroci Indie a sveta. Starať sa o tieto hodnoty, praktizovať ich, a prijať ich celým srdcom do života, je to čo poznáme ako Duchovnosť. „Duchovnosť“ nie je pomenovanie zopár náboženoských dogiem. V skutočnom duchovnom živote nie je miesto pre dogmy. Huen Tsang sa raz spýtal Shil Bhadru, riaditeľa Nalandskej Univerzity: „Čo je Poznanie?“ Shil Bhadra odpovedal, „Dieťa moje, Poznanie je vnímanie princípov a zákonov života. A najkrajší princíp je spolupatričnosť – zdieľanie toho, čo máš, s ostatnými.“ Shil Bhadra vraví, že tí, čo varia len sami pre seba, sú zlodeji. Ježiš sa raz spýtal svojich učňov, „Aký prospech má človek, ktorý by získal celý svet a pritom stratil svoju vlastnú dušu?“ Hlas, ktorý priniesol odpoveď, „Žiadny, Ježiš, žiadny,“ bol hlasom Duchovnosti. Desiaty Guru vraví, „Tí, ktorí položia jedlo do úst chudobných a núdzných, tí ho položia do úst mojich.“
Táto schopnosť zdieľať je známa ako Duchovnosť, bez ktorej je celé vzdelanie obyčajnou precvičkou v márnosti. Ako veľký mysliteľ Gentile vraví „Škola bez duchovného obsahu je nezmysel.“ Moderné vzdelanie je veľmi egocentrické a robí ľudí duševne a spoločensky neschopných. Tí potom čakajú od života peňažný zárobok a potlesk pre ich vlastné osobné potešenie, zabúdajúc, že pravé šťastie leží tam kde človek opúšťa svoje malé ja – ego – a hľadá väčšie Ja.
Najdôležitejšia vec na vzdelaní je jeho vzťah k životu. „Poznanie bez činu je prázdne ako tieň.“ Vzdelanie nie je vyschnutý pergamen, je to Duchovná Živá Voda. Škola by mala byť domovom pre učiteľov a žiakov, v ktorých štúdiu, na ihrisku i v denných životoch je odzrkadlená opatrovaná cnosť pokory. Pokiaľ nám naše poznanie neumožňuje vstrebať vznešenosť života, neslúži svojmu účelu. Osvietený a učený muž Al-Ghazali vraví v jeho knihe Dieťa, „Vedz, dieťa moje, že poznanie bez činu je šialenosť, a najvznešenejším činom je služba.“
Hlavná nemoc súčasného vzdelania je, že vo výsledku rozdeľuje hlavou so srdcom. Pokladá dôraz na vývoj hlavy, a do určitého rozsahu zostruje intelekt. Dôležitejšie je však oslobodenie srdca. To sa stane, až v rozume bude vzbudená sympatia k chudobným, slabým a núdznym. Obetavosť pramení zo srdca, a preto srdce potrebuje byť rozprestrené.
Mladí by mali: (1) sa usilovať o ideál obetavosti a nie o city (2) byť prostí, pretože prostota je sila (3) naučiť sa spolupracovať so všetkým, a nenechať rozdiely vo vyznaní alebo v politických názoroch stáť v ceste solidarite (4) prijať tvorivý ideál, ktorý považuje ľudstvo za jedno a službu ako cieľ všetkého poznania. Učitelia by mali školiť žiakov v duchu sympatie a lásky, miešať informáciu s inšpiráciou a poznanie s láskou. Človek môže zložiť univerzitné skúšky a stále zostať nevšímavý voči skutočnostiam života. Môže prečítať tisíce kníh, a stále nebyť nič viac než hrubián. Skutočné vzdelanie ho však spraví skutočne kultúrnym; a dušou kultúry je zdvorilosť. Učenosť môže byť pyšná; kultúra je skromná.
Paradoxne, kultúrna a agrokultúra sú v mnohom podobné. Duševné Kshetra (pole) musí byť kultivované pomocou kázne citov a túžieb. Kto by to mohol povedať lepšie než Buddha, ktorý,
zatiaľ čo rozvíjal analógiu, poznamenal, „Ja oriem a sadím a pestujem, a z mojej orby a sadzby zbieram večné ovocie. Moje pole je náboženstvo; burina, ktorú vytrhávam, sú vášne; môj pluh je múdrosť; moje semeno je čistota.“ Naši Rishis sa modlili, Tamso ma Jyotirgamaya („Veď ma od temnoty k svetlu“).
Táto temnota však nemôže byť osvietená za deň. Tehly, malta, pohodlie ani prepych to nemôžu ponúknuť. Je to vhodná atmosféra, ktorá môže splniť očakávania; preto by dôraz mal byť viac na atmosfére než na pravidlách, príručkách či budovách.
Nežné srdce dieťaťa vyžaduje veľmi jemné ruky. Vzdelanie sa v skutočnosti začína ešte pred samým pôrodom, a tak každá tehotná matka musí mať poskytnutú lepšiu starostlivosť. Je to neustálá spoločnosť láskavosti, ktorá vychováva cnostné osoby. Dieťa je centrum tvorivého života. Potrebuje byť otvorené ako kvet, nežne, so sympatiou, nie silou. Nenechaj dieťa uväzniť v kolotoči skúšiek; nikdy mu nedaj vynadať ani vyhrešiť.
Družnosť má štyri ovocia. Prvé ovocie je Artha, ktoré vyjadruje ekonomickú stránku vzdelania. Druhé je Dharma, ktoré káže úctu k zákonu. Kama poskytuje ľudským bytostiam slobodnejší a plnší rast. Samozrejme, najdôležitejšie je štvrté ovocie, t.j. Moksha, úplné oslobodenie. Je to oslobodenie od našich malicherných ja, ktoré nás pobádajú k všetkej našej neznášanlivosti, obmedzenosti a šovinizmu. Ak nám vzdelanie neumožňuje povzdvihnúť sa z úrovne naších obyčajných ja, naše priemerné mysle do výšiek nad našim bežným vnímaním, nespĺňa svoj pravý zmysel. Je to poľutovaniahodný fakt, že súčasné vzdelanie, ktoré by malo zaistiť celistvý rast ľudskej osobnosti, poskytuje veľmi neúplnú a nedostatočnú prípravu do života.
Podstatnú úlohu v tomto procese má tiež poloha školy. Nemecké slovo kindergarten je v tejto súvislosti veľmi podnetné. Kinder znamená detský a garten záhrada, čo naznačuje, že každá škola by mala byť umiestnená v pôvabnom prostredí prírody. V prastarej Indii bol každý Ashram záhradou prírody. Manav Kendra je umiestnená v zdravom a malebnom prostredí v Údolí Doon s nádherným a vábivým výhľadom na zasnežené štíty Himalájí. V pravej tradícií Manav Kendra – Centrum Človeka – patrí celému ľudstvu pre vytváranie pokoja, pokroku a porozumenia. Inštitúcia bola
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Thursday, April 23, 2009
The Heretic's Feast: A History of Vegetarianism
Along with the essay on Islam (which takes me longer than I thought) I started to read The Heretic's Feast by Colin Spencer, a history of vegetarianism and, among other things, how it was (is) related to the philosophy of religions. The reason why I chose to give a priority to this book rather than the books I planned before is just because it is not my book, and so while other books I can read any time at home, I "have to" read this one while I'm here. :)
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Essay on Islam (in progress)
Islam is a monotheistic religion and it is a descendant of Judaism and Christianity. These three “religions of the book” believe in the same omnipotent God and have the same ancestors like Abraham or Moses, but my general impression gives me three different “spiritual systems” with same roots and goal, but with a different way and approach to God. I feel the evolution from the elitism of Judaism (a belief in the chosen nation) and the majesty of Christianity (e.g. Catholic cathedrals) to the humanism and equality of Islam. Truly, the latest is very simple, honest and straightforward in nature without complicated hierarchies like the Church or clergy, when it offers the same relationship with God to every believer.
In contrast to Christianity, Islam denies divine nature of any persons, places or objects. The only manifestation of God on Earth is the Koran (Qur'an, “the recitation”), for Moslems His eternal and literal word revealed to the prophet Mohammed by the angel Gabriel. It is said that it is less narrative than the Bible, and it is focused on moral issues more than on historical stories. Koran is divided into suras, that are basically of two kinds. Suras from Mohammed's early years, when the God's message was revealed to him, are poetic, whereas suras from his life in Medina, when he established Islamic community, are more pragmatic.
The picture of universe drawn in the Koran is common to the monotheistic religions. Everything is the part of divine order, and a man is the highest God's creature, who can freely enjoy the fruitage of the world as long as he obeys God (Islam does not teach asceticism). On the other hand, to my knowledge the imagery of the Koran is unique. For instance the vision of Paradise, “a garden watered by running streams,” creates an absolute contrast to scorched deserts of the Arabic land, though it is a very “temporal” vision, in the terms that it appeals more to senses than to spirituality. I was particularly impressed by the description of the Apocalypse, when “the heavens shall become like molten brass, and the mountains like tufts of wool scattered in the wind” and “to redeem himself from the torment of that day the sinner will gladly sacrifice his children, his wife, his brother, the kinsfolk who gave him shelter, and all the people of the earth, if then this might deliver him.” (70:8) Ancient scriptures are highly inspirational, and I really would like to read the Koran sometimes, though obviously it would require more concentration and time than usual books.
Koran is also considered as the perfect example of the potential of the Arabic language and in the view of Islam the Arabic is the only “true” language of Koran, while its translations are just mere “interpretations.” Every language has its own unique “sound” and structure, and so along with translations every work necessarily loses a piece of its authenticity. On the other hand, I think that every language originates from the same pattern, and so I believe that a sensitive translation can successfully “transplants” a work to a different language, although it still would lack some of its originality.
Mohammed, the founder of Islam, is in its view the last divinely inspired prophet, but in any case he was a strong individual who had significantly left his trace in the world. It is said that he was a honest and pragmatic man, and as I perceive it his character is precisely reflected in the character of Islam. He is the example of a perfect man, but even he does not have any special relationship with God and in contrast to Jesus he did not make miracles, and when he was asked to show the evidence of God, he pointed out that all life and nature was God's miracle.
Mohammed had a “direct contact with divinity” in two mystical experiences. In the first one the angel Gabriel revealed to him Koran. The second one is known as a “night journey,” when he was “transported” to Jerusalem, “the sacred city of monotheism,” and then he ascended to Heaven. The night journey has also an important symbolical value in the cohesion of monotheistic religions.
Physical symptoms of these experiences resembled epilepsy, and therefore it is likely that Mohammed was an epileptic. Critics use to point this out as the only cause of his visions, but visionariness of any kind is frequently accompanied with some mental disease (it is enough to see how many artists were schizophrenics or suffered with bipolar disorder), so epilepsy would not deny the divine nature of his experiences.
The essential religious duties of Islam are the Five Pillars. The first one is shadaha, “the profession of faith,” which embraces the basic beliefs of Islam (a belief in one omnipotent God and Mohammed as his prophet...). The second one is a “ritual prayer.” In Islam, believers are required to pray five times per day, and the prayer is universal. It does not require any special place, which just has to be clean and a believer has to face the direction of Mecca and Kaaba. Mosques can be understood as the equivalent of churches, but they are simply the places where believers come to pray together. The equality of Islam can be seen in practice here, when every believer pray shoulder to shoulder without any distinction, as well as in the third pillar, zakat or the requirement of the support of the poor. The fourth pillar is fasting during Ramadan, the feast of the first revelation of Koran. It teaches man to control his wants and by the refusal of secular enjoyment it moves him closer to God. It also increase compassion for the poor, which is so stressed in Islam, by an experience of hunger and thirst.
The fifth pillar is the pilgrimage to Mecca. The description of it is really impressive and I believe that for the most Moslems it is the strongest spiritual experience of their lives. Mecca has to be a magical place. It is “the birthplace” of the religions of the book, and the setting of Abraham's story of his absolute obedience of God, when was willing to sacrifice his son Ishmael (in contrast to Judaism and Christianity, where it is Isaac). It has to be a very strong moment for a believer to be close to the places where the ancient stories of the Bible and Koran happened. In the Kaaba, the chief shrine of Islam, is Black Stone, the only remnant of the house of prayer built by Abraham. It is a habit for pilgrims to kiss it, although with current numbers of them it is probably impossible, and it is understood just as a gesture, not as a worship of an object, and so it is consistent within Islam. Near the Kaaba is the well of Zamzam. When Hagar, the handmaiden of Abraham's wife Sarah, and her son Ishmael were in exile, it is believed that the well was opened by the angel Gabriel to save them from thirst. Hagar and Ishmael founded the community of Mecca around it. The well is still active and pilgrims usually drink water from it, or eventually take it to bottles with them. Here Abraham on the visit to his son agreed to sacrifice Ishmael, and later built the Kaaba as a house of worship. In commemoration of Abraham's obedience believers ritually sacrifice an animal. This is a rare act during pilgrimage and killing and hunting is otherwise prohibited, because the pilgrimage is “the moment of peace and harmony with all God's creation.” In Mina, where Abraham drove away Satan by throwing stones on him, are three stone pillars and pilgrims commemorate this act by throwing seven pebbles on one of them.
The pilgrimage is probably the moment where the ideals of Islam are in its purest form. It has to be a fascinating experience in the sense of the Moslem community, when every believer undertakes together with his “brothers” the spiritual way in the steps of his religious ancestors.
Although the Five Pillars are basic religious duties, they are not sufficient just by themselves and they are just “pillars” of a virtuous life. In Islam there is no dualism of “spirituality” and “secularity,” and the religious and temporal side of life are in balance. A behaviour of a believer has to reflect the religious belief. The example is mostly found in Sunna, the scripture recording the life of Mohammed. The set of codes and laws according to Islam is called sharia, which is not definite, but it takes a shape with a technological and social progress.
Logically, in Islam there is no division between religious and temporal power. On the one hand, it is less hypocritical and more “compact,” on the other hand some particular ideals of Islam can be enforced this way to “unbelievers” and it can be very easily abused.
In my eyes, the biggest problem of Islam is that the world is in it devoid of any divine attributes and it is impossible to have a personal relationship with God, therefore he is distant from people. The most sympathetic branch of Islam is for me Sufism. It is Islamic mysticism, and its core is love and sentiment instead of mere obedience. Sufis were inspired by Mohammed's night journey and sought a personal experience of God. They used prayer-beads and poetic expressions and introduced music and dance to the rituals. In the terms of left and right brain, Sufism “originated” in the unconscious, wild, artistic and “demonic” side of mind. The Sufi teacher Al-Hallaj even found Satan as one of his teachers. The summary of his teachings is a good insight to Sufi teachings. He taught that the uncreated Divine Spirit can be revealed to a created spirit by mystical visions, and it can be connected through asceticism and suffering. Saints in his eyes were personal witnesses of God, and he commited probably the greatest heresy when he claimed that the Five Pillars are not absolute and could be replaced.
The original Islam is more intellectual and sentimental, and understandably Sufism is often in conflict with it. The Islamic scholar Ibn Taymiyyah, in the chapter “Demonic Visions” from his Essay on the Jinn, wrote that mystical visions were just mere illusions created by jinns to deceive believers, and had no divine nature. In absolute contrast to Sufism is Wahhabism. It was a reasoning movement focused on the original Mohammed's teachings. I particularly like the individualism of Wahhabism, as it is reflected for example in a belief in an “intellectual independence of every believer,” when it prefers an individual interpretation of Koran rather than scholastic commentaries.
Whereas the moral side of Islam is deeply rooted in the tradition of monotheism, its imagery is as well influenced by local folk mythology. Islam believes in angels, made of light, humans, made of clay, and jinns, made of fire. Angels are purely spiritual beings, but jinns have corporal needs and they eat and drink like humans. They live in the world unseen by us, and they are more tended to be evil than humans (Satan according to Islam is a jinn), and they often try to deceive believers by illusions (as in “Demonic Visions” by Taymiyyah). Both angels and jinns appear in many forms, for example the angel Gabriel appeared to Mohammed as his companion Dihyah.
The Islamic and Persian culture eventually (with the advance of Islam) merged (the most famous example of this fusion is The Thousand and One Nights). Here, in culture, can be recognized the “symbiosis” between religions. During the European Dark Ages, the Islamic empire was the center of religious and scientific knowledge. It preserved the ancient (Indian, Greek, or Roman) works and it invented e.g. the decimal system and zero. Europe became this “focal point” of knowledge again in the Renaissance and then it continued with the scientific and technological progress, while Islamic countries were in crisis and then began to develop back in 20th century.
In contrast to Christianity, Islam denies divine nature of any persons, places or objects. The only manifestation of God on Earth is the Koran (Qur'an, “the recitation”), for Moslems His eternal and literal word revealed to the prophet Mohammed by the angel Gabriel. It is said that it is less narrative than the Bible, and it is focused on moral issues more than on historical stories. Koran is divided into suras, that are basically of two kinds. Suras from Mohammed's early years, when the God's message was revealed to him, are poetic, whereas suras from his life in Medina, when he established Islamic community, are more pragmatic.
The picture of universe drawn in the Koran is common to the monotheistic religions. Everything is the part of divine order, and a man is the highest God's creature, who can freely enjoy the fruitage of the world as long as he obeys God (Islam does not teach asceticism). On the other hand, to my knowledge the imagery of the Koran is unique. For instance the vision of Paradise, “a garden watered by running streams,” creates an absolute contrast to scorched deserts of the Arabic land, though it is a very “temporal” vision, in the terms that it appeals more to senses than to spirituality. I was particularly impressed by the description of the Apocalypse, when “the heavens shall become like molten brass, and the mountains like tufts of wool scattered in the wind” and “to redeem himself from the torment of that day the sinner will gladly sacrifice his children, his wife, his brother, the kinsfolk who gave him shelter, and all the people of the earth, if then this might deliver him.” (70:8) Ancient scriptures are highly inspirational, and I really would like to read the Koran sometimes, though obviously it would require more concentration and time than usual books.
Koran is also considered as the perfect example of the potential of the Arabic language and in the view of Islam the Arabic is the only “true” language of Koran, while its translations are just mere “interpretations.” Every language has its own unique “sound” and structure, and so along with translations every work necessarily loses a piece of its authenticity. On the other hand, I think that every language originates from the same pattern, and so I believe that a sensitive translation can successfully “transplants” a work to a different language, although it still would lack some of its originality.
Mohammed, the founder of Islam, is in its view the last divinely inspired prophet, but in any case he was a strong individual who had significantly left his trace in the world. It is said that he was a honest and pragmatic man, and as I perceive it his character is precisely reflected in the character of Islam. He is the example of a perfect man, but even he does not have any special relationship with God and in contrast to Jesus he did not make miracles, and when he was asked to show the evidence of God, he pointed out that all life and nature was God's miracle.
Mohammed had a “direct contact with divinity” in two mystical experiences. In the first one the angel Gabriel revealed to him Koran. The second one is known as a “night journey,” when he was “transported” to Jerusalem, “the sacred city of monotheism,” and then he ascended to Heaven. The night journey has also an important symbolical value in the cohesion of monotheistic religions.
Physical symptoms of these experiences resembled epilepsy, and therefore it is likely that Mohammed was an epileptic. Critics use to point this out as the only cause of his visions, but visionariness of any kind is frequently accompanied with some mental disease (it is enough to see how many artists were schizophrenics or suffered with bipolar disorder), so epilepsy would not deny the divine nature of his experiences.
The essential religious duties of Islam are the Five Pillars. The first one is shadaha, “the profession of faith,” which embraces the basic beliefs of Islam (a belief in one omnipotent God and Mohammed as his prophet...). The second one is a “ritual prayer.” In Islam, believers are required to pray five times per day, and the prayer is universal. It does not require any special place, which just has to be clean and a believer has to face the direction of Mecca and Kaaba. Mosques can be understood as the equivalent of churches, but they are simply the places where believers come to pray together. The equality of Islam can be seen in practice here, when every believer pray shoulder to shoulder without any distinction, as well as in the third pillar, zakat or the requirement of the support of the poor. The fourth pillar is fasting during Ramadan, the feast of the first revelation of Koran. It teaches man to control his wants and by the refusal of secular enjoyment it moves him closer to God. It also increase compassion for the poor, which is so stressed in Islam, by an experience of hunger and thirst.
The fifth pillar is the pilgrimage to Mecca. The description of it is really impressive and I believe that for the most Moslems it is the strongest spiritual experience of their lives. Mecca has to be a magical place. It is “the birthplace” of the religions of the book, and the setting of Abraham's story of his absolute obedience of God, when was willing to sacrifice his son Ishmael (in contrast to Judaism and Christianity, where it is Isaac). It has to be a very strong moment for a believer to be close to the places where the ancient stories of the Bible and Koran happened. In the Kaaba, the chief shrine of Islam, is Black Stone, the only remnant of the house of prayer built by Abraham. It is a habit for pilgrims to kiss it, although with current numbers of them it is probably impossible, and it is understood just as a gesture, not as a worship of an object, and so it is consistent within Islam. Near the Kaaba is the well of Zamzam. When Hagar, the handmaiden of Abraham's wife Sarah, and her son Ishmael were in exile, it is believed that the well was opened by the angel Gabriel to save them from thirst. Hagar and Ishmael founded the community of Mecca around it. The well is still active and pilgrims usually drink water from it, or eventually take it to bottles with them. Here Abraham on the visit to his son agreed to sacrifice Ishmael, and later built the Kaaba as a house of worship. In commemoration of Abraham's obedience believers ritually sacrifice an animal. This is a rare act during pilgrimage and killing and hunting is otherwise prohibited, because the pilgrimage is “the moment of peace and harmony with all God's creation.” In Mina, where Abraham drove away Satan by throwing stones on him, are three stone pillars and pilgrims commemorate this act by throwing seven pebbles on one of them.
The pilgrimage is probably the moment where the ideals of Islam are in its purest form. It has to be a fascinating experience in the sense of the Moslem community, when every believer undertakes together with his “brothers” the spiritual way in the steps of his religious ancestors.
Although the Five Pillars are basic religious duties, they are not sufficient just by themselves and they are just “pillars” of a virtuous life. In Islam there is no dualism of “spirituality” and “secularity,” and the religious and temporal side of life are in balance. A behaviour of a believer has to reflect the religious belief. The example is mostly found in Sunna, the scripture recording the life of Mohammed. The set of codes and laws according to Islam is called sharia, which is not definite, but it takes a shape with a technological and social progress.
Logically, in Islam there is no division between religious and temporal power. On the one hand, it is less hypocritical and more “compact,” on the other hand some particular ideals of Islam can be enforced this way to “unbelievers” and it can be very easily abused.
In my eyes, the biggest problem of Islam is that the world is in it devoid of any divine attributes and it is impossible to have a personal relationship with God, therefore he is distant from people. The most sympathetic branch of Islam is for me Sufism. It is Islamic mysticism, and its core is love and sentiment instead of mere obedience. Sufis were inspired by Mohammed's night journey and sought a personal experience of God. They used prayer-beads and poetic expressions and introduced music and dance to the rituals. In the terms of left and right brain, Sufism “originated” in the unconscious, wild, artistic and “demonic” side of mind. The Sufi teacher Al-Hallaj even found Satan as one of his teachers. The summary of his teachings is a good insight to Sufi teachings. He taught that the uncreated Divine Spirit can be revealed to a created spirit by mystical visions, and it can be connected through asceticism and suffering. Saints in his eyes were personal witnesses of God, and he commited probably the greatest heresy when he claimed that the Five Pillars are not absolute and could be replaced.
The original Islam is more intellectual and sentimental, and understandably Sufism is often in conflict with it. The Islamic scholar Ibn Taymiyyah, in the chapter “Demonic Visions” from his Essay on the Jinn, wrote that mystical visions were just mere illusions created by jinns to deceive believers, and had no divine nature. In absolute contrast to Sufism is Wahhabism. It was a reasoning movement focused on the original Mohammed's teachings. I particularly like the individualism of Wahhabism, as it is reflected for example in a belief in an “intellectual independence of every believer,” when it prefers an individual interpretation of Koran rather than scholastic commentaries.
Whereas the moral side of Islam is deeply rooted in the tradition of monotheism, its imagery is as well influenced by local folk mythology. Islam believes in angels, made of light, humans, made of clay, and jinns, made of fire. Angels are purely spiritual beings, but jinns have corporal needs and they eat and drink like humans. They live in the world unseen by us, and they are more tended to be evil than humans (Satan according to Islam is a jinn), and they often try to deceive believers by illusions (as in “Demonic Visions” by Taymiyyah). Both angels and jinns appear in many forms, for example the angel Gabriel appeared to Mohammed as his companion Dihyah.
The Islamic and Persian culture eventually (with the advance of Islam) merged (the most famous example of this fusion is The Thousand and One Nights). Here, in culture, can be recognized the “symbiosis” between religions. During the European Dark Ages, the Islamic empire was the center of religious and scientific knowledge. It preserved the ancient (Indian, Greek, or Roman) works and it invented e.g. the decimal system and zero. Europe became this “focal point” of knowledge again in the Renaissance and then it continued with the scientific and technological progress, while Islamic countries were in crisis and then began to develop back in 20th century.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Transcendental religion
“Transcendentalism, with its roots in progressive Unitarianism, brought an infusion of fresh blood to the waters of religion. Unitarian preacher William Ellery Channing, who strongly influenced the movement, focused in his essay “Humanity's Likeness to God” instead of the eternal punishment for the primal sin on the divine human nature and on the relation of human to God which is the relation of a child to its father. Human is what is most godlike on the Earth, not Church or any other secular authority. Ralph Waldo Emerson as a preacher refused Eucharist and wanted individuals to find their own rituals and ways how to celebrate their relationship with God. Transcendentalism was influenced by the wisdom of the East, so its vision of Christianity is universal and liberal and harmonizes with “the perennial wisdom,” the pattern I believe is pictured by every religion. Emerson's concept of divine Self in every human, beautifully versified by Walt Whitman in his poem “To You,” is an equivalent of Hindu Atman, true Self within us and the individual side of the ultimate reality Brahman. English Romantic poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge distinguished Reason, “inward beholding” which appeals only to itself and its knowledge is spiritual, from Understanding, the instrument of external knowledge, which appeals to senses and its knowledge is phenomenal. This difference had become a typical Transcendental conception and is parallel with Hindu distinction between universal Consciousness and symbolical Mind. In the matter of time I can write a few more analogues. The absolute Christian perception from Genesis to the Apocalypse can be perceived as the part of the Hindu cycle and Shiva's Dance, when he destroys and reveals the universe, can be the equivalence of Last Judgment. Hinduism and Christianity then more clearly seem to be “two paths on the same mountain.” As Henry David Thoreau observed in his essay “Christianity and Hinduism Compared,” the latter is more intellectual and the former more moral. Though extremely simplified, Hinduism is then “the path of wisdom” and Christianity “the path of love,” but all in all it is just the matter of an angle. “ (the fragment from my essay "Improvised meditation on American Transcendentalism," that I used as an introduction)
One of the most important and significant religious “works” was the oration by Ralph Waldo Emerson known as “Divinity School Address.” Emerson's vision and ideas are really impressive and even today very fresh and liberal. He sees the very essence of the religion in a virtue and moral sentiment, “the embalmer of the world” and emphasizes the path of an individual. Everyone has to seek his own divine illumination; “the spirit only can teach,” scriptures can serve just as a guide, the true religious experience cannot be gained second-hand. The key part (and probably the most radical opinion in his time) is his focus on Divinity “here and now,” i.e. on the divine nature of the reality. He points out that God, in his vision more Supreme Wisdom than in Christianity typical personified Creator of the universe, exists as much in the presence as in the past. Divinity of Jesus Christ, “the true prophet” who “saw with open eye the mystery of soul,” is just the instance of divinity of every man; his miracles are just a metaphor for everyday miracles like rain or sunrise.
He makes a distinction between the true religion and the historical Christianity (the religion of scriptures, dogmas, Church, clergy...), which he finds as based on words more than on ideas (“tradition characterizes the preaching of this country; that it comes out of the memory, and not out of the soul.”) His reproach, that the historical Christianity has a tendency to adore the past and overlook the presence, is a very usual failure (not only) of religions. Time flows away what is unimportant, so we can see of the ancient times their substance, whereas the current age is usually obscured by the daily stereotype. Therefore it is not a surprise that we often can see “miracles, prophecy, poetry, the ideal life, the holy life, exists as an ancient history merely.”
Emerson has a great respect for the ancient wisdom (“the sentences of the oldest time, which ejaculate this piety [the expression of moral sentiment] are still fresh and fragrant.”) and finds it as the very source of religious sentiment, but on the other hand he finds the same wisdom in his presence and expects the new prophet who “shall see them [ancient texts] come full circle.” As I understand it, who shall develop the universal language for mythologies and religions.
Such a radical speech obviously arose a lot of responses. Andrews Norton, one of the most important Unitarian preachers in his age, strongly disagreed with Transcendentalist views in general and with Emerson in particular. However, the fragment from “The New School in Literature and Religion” is a very rash response with practically no reasoning at all. The fragment from “A Discourse on the Latest Form of Infidelity” is better, but Norton's opinions are still very conservative and “ossified.” He defends understanding and theological knowledge as the real source of religion, and he claims that if Christ's miracles are denied, then “nothing is left that can be called Christianity.” I think that it would have to be a really poor religion, if its truth could not stand without its supernatural nature. George Ripley in “The Latest Form of Infidelity Examined” briefly refutes Norton's “theological elitism” when he writes that “Christ established no college of Apostles“ and emphasizes, that the equal access to God of all persons is the fundamental principle of Jesus, as well as of the early Unitarianism.
Much more pleasant and reasonable response to “Divinity School Address” is “God's Personhood Vindicated” by Henry Ware Jr. In his eyes, Emerson “took away the Father of the Universe” and left just “a company of children in an orphan asylum.” I can understand this point, but it works only with assumption that a human was born as a mere servant, though loved, who needs perpetual guidance and his highest mission is just to obey God. Emerson's view is much more progressive, because although it takes this loving and carefully watching parent, it embraces a free will and a responsibility for it and it assumes that every human can be his own God and therefore lead his own life.
Another important and impressive work that defines “Transcendental Christianity” is “A Discourse of the Transient and Permanent in Christianity” by Theodore Parker, and it has many ideas in common with “Divinity School Address.” As Emerson distinguished “historical Christianity” from the true religion, so Parker makes a distinction between permanent Christianity, the substance and ideas, which are “the eternal truth of God,” and transient Christianity, the doctrines, rituals and forms, which are “the thought, the folly, the uncertain wisdom, the theological notions, the impiety of man.” The former is in the service of Spirit itself and is absolute; the latter one is just a “robe” of it, and it is in the service of life and age. Parker compares religion to Nature. As there is only one true system of Nature, but scientific theories and philosophical doctrines differ, so there is just one true Christianity, different are only theological views. Therefore, we should not take scriptures as the infallible truth. In particular, he describes Bible (as the most sacred of texts) as the oriental poetic work, imbued by the wisdom of God, which is by mistake taken as the literal and absolute word of God (besides, Bible itself does not claim that it is infallible). I can confirm it with my own experience (I have read five books of Moses.) If it is taken as a figurative and metaphorical art, it is very deep and imaginative work, but if it should be taken literally, it is a nonsense full of contradictions and it immediately fails in comparison with modern scientific knowledge.
He points out as the example of transitoriness the different views of the nature of Jesus (whether he was God, God and man at once, or just a man), but it does not affect the core of Christianity, because the truth of Jesus's words stands by itself. However, if he was a man, he was the example of the ideal character, of a beautiful and divine person, whereas if he was God, all his life was just a charade and has no relevance for humans. I think, that as the beauty of tree, plant or animal is most purely seen only in its natural habitat, so the ideas of Jesus (or Mohamed or Zarathustra) can be fully understood only in the context of all philosophy and the wisdom of all sages and saints, so when just one of them is glorified and placed over others, his ideas therefore suffer.
Parker concludes that the permanent Christianity is simple in nature; it is a pure love and, as Emerson in “Divinity School Address,” he emphasizes the diversity of individuals and own access to God of every person through its Reason, Conscience and Faith.
“The Sympathy of Religions” by Thomas Wentworth Higginson is direct example of the effort to find “the common pattern of religions.” It is a thoughtful work of comparative religions, and I especially respect Higginson's sensitive and warm attitude. Every religion has the same “mycelium,” only with its own unique mythology, imagination and symbolism, but often with common ideas and stories (he mentions the Egyptian symbolism in early Christianity, I would mention for instance the myth of deluge in Hinduism, Christianity and/or Greek mythology).
Because of my love to European culture, which is deeply related to and entwined with Christianity, I have also felt affinity with Christian mythology and symbolism. However, the vision of Christianity portrayed by Transcendentalists is the most beautiful I have ever seen, and it is the one I could most purely identify myself in both belief and philosophy.
One of the most important and significant religious “works” was the oration by Ralph Waldo Emerson known as “Divinity School Address.” Emerson's vision and ideas are really impressive and even today very fresh and liberal. He sees the very essence of the religion in a virtue and moral sentiment, “the embalmer of the world” and emphasizes the path of an individual. Everyone has to seek his own divine illumination; “the spirit only can teach,” scriptures can serve just as a guide, the true religious experience cannot be gained second-hand. The key part (and probably the most radical opinion in his time) is his focus on Divinity “here and now,” i.e. on the divine nature of the reality. He points out that God, in his vision more Supreme Wisdom than in Christianity typical personified Creator of the universe, exists as much in the presence as in the past. Divinity of Jesus Christ, “the true prophet” who “saw with open eye the mystery of soul,” is just the instance of divinity of every man; his miracles are just a metaphor for everyday miracles like rain or sunrise.
He makes a distinction between the true religion and the historical Christianity (the religion of scriptures, dogmas, Church, clergy...), which he finds as based on words more than on ideas (“tradition characterizes the preaching of this country; that it comes out of the memory, and not out of the soul.”) His reproach, that the historical Christianity has a tendency to adore the past and overlook the presence, is a very usual failure (not only) of religions. Time flows away what is unimportant, so we can see of the ancient times their substance, whereas the current age is usually obscured by the daily stereotype. Therefore it is not a surprise that we often can see “miracles, prophecy, poetry, the ideal life, the holy life, exists as an ancient history merely.”
Emerson has a great respect for the ancient wisdom (“the sentences of the oldest time, which ejaculate this piety [the expression of moral sentiment] are still fresh and fragrant.”) and finds it as the very source of religious sentiment, but on the other hand he finds the same wisdom in his presence and expects the new prophet who “shall see them [ancient texts] come full circle.” As I understand it, who shall develop the universal language for mythologies and religions.
Such a radical speech obviously arose a lot of responses. Andrews Norton, one of the most important Unitarian preachers in his age, strongly disagreed with Transcendentalist views in general and with Emerson in particular. However, the fragment from “The New School in Literature and Religion” is a very rash response with practically no reasoning at all. The fragment from “A Discourse on the Latest Form of Infidelity” is better, but Norton's opinions are still very conservative and “ossified.” He defends understanding and theological knowledge as the real source of religion, and he claims that if Christ's miracles are denied, then “nothing is left that can be called Christianity.” I think that it would have to be a really poor religion, if its truth could not stand without its supernatural nature. George Ripley in “The Latest Form of Infidelity Examined” briefly refutes Norton's “theological elitism” when he writes that “Christ established no college of Apostles“ and emphasizes, that the equal access to God of all persons is the fundamental principle of Jesus, as well as of the early Unitarianism.
Much more pleasant and reasonable response to “Divinity School Address” is “God's Personhood Vindicated” by Henry Ware Jr. In his eyes, Emerson “took away the Father of the Universe” and left just “a company of children in an orphan asylum.” I can understand this point, but it works only with assumption that a human was born as a mere servant, though loved, who needs perpetual guidance and his highest mission is just to obey God. Emerson's view is much more progressive, because although it takes this loving and carefully watching parent, it embraces a free will and a responsibility for it and it assumes that every human can be his own God and therefore lead his own life.
Another important and impressive work that defines “Transcendental Christianity” is “A Discourse of the Transient and Permanent in Christianity” by Theodore Parker, and it has many ideas in common with “Divinity School Address.” As Emerson distinguished “historical Christianity” from the true religion, so Parker makes a distinction between permanent Christianity, the substance and ideas, which are “the eternal truth of God,” and transient Christianity, the doctrines, rituals and forms, which are “the thought, the folly, the uncertain wisdom, the theological notions, the impiety of man.” The former is in the service of Spirit itself and is absolute; the latter one is just a “robe” of it, and it is in the service of life and age. Parker compares religion to Nature. As there is only one true system of Nature, but scientific theories and philosophical doctrines differ, so there is just one true Christianity, different are only theological views. Therefore, we should not take scriptures as the infallible truth. In particular, he describes Bible (as the most sacred of texts) as the oriental poetic work, imbued by the wisdom of God, which is by mistake taken as the literal and absolute word of God (besides, Bible itself does not claim that it is infallible). I can confirm it with my own experience (I have read five books of Moses.) If it is taken as a figurative and metaphorical art, it is very deep and imaginative work, but if it should be taken literally, it is a nonsense full of contradictions and it immediately fails in comparison with modern scientific knowledge.
He points out as the example of transitoriness the different views of the nature of Jesus (whether he was God, God and man at once, or just a man), but it does not affect the core of Christianity, because the truth of Jesus's words stands by itself. However, if he was a man, he was the example of the ideal character, of a beautiful and divine person, whereas if he was God, all his life was just a charade and has no relevance for humans. I think, that as the beauty of tree, plant or animal is most purely seen only in its natural habitat, so the ideas of Jesus (or Mohamed or Zarathustra) can be fully understood only in the context of all philosophy and the wisdom of all sages and saints, so when just one of them is glorified and placed over others, his ideas therefore suffer.
Parker concludes that the permanent Christianity is simple in nature; it is a pure love and, as Emerson in “Divinity School Address,” he emphasizes the diversity of individuals and own access to God of every person through its Reason, Conscience and Faith.
“The Sympathy of Religions” by Thomas Wentworth Higginson is direct example of the effort to find “the common pattern of religions.” It is a thoughtful work of comparative religions, and I especially respect Higginson's sensitive and warm attitude. Every religion has the same “mycelium,” only with its own unique mythology, imagination and symbolism, but often with common ideas and stories (he mentions the Egyptian symbolism in early Christianity, I would mention for instance the myth of deluge in Hinduism, Christianity and/or Greek mythology).
Because of my love to European culture, which is deeply related to and entwined with Christianity, I have also felt affinity with Christian mythology and symbolism. However, the vision of Christianity portrayed by Transcendentalists is the most beautiful I have ever seen, and it is the one I could most purely identify myself in both belief and philosophy.
Work in progress
Books
The Heretic's Feast: A History of Vegetarianism by Colin Spencer
Antichrist by Friedrich Nietzsche
The Crown of Life by Kirpal Singh
Projects
Influence of Divine Comedy on the European culture (waiting for time)
Essays
On Understanding Islam
The Heretic's Feast: A History of Vegetarianism by Colin Spencer
Antichrist by Friedrich Nietzsche
The Crown of Life by Kirpal Singh
Projects
Influence of Divine Comedy on the European culture (waiting for time)
Essays
On Understanding Islam
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Influence of Divine comedy in European culture
Influence of Dante's Comedy on the European Art is really immense and If I wanted to embrace it all, necessarily it would be extremely brief and superficial. Therefore I will choose some works that I am interested in and I will try to study them more deeply and more than on technical details I will focus on the atmosphere of Dante's work and its perspective in the eyes of influeced artists. I am not exactly sure what will be the form of the result of my research, respectively if it will be some kind of essay, review or what, but I will figure it out somehow.
The focus of my research will be in music, particularly on two musical works. The first one in album Inferno by Metamorfosi, one of the most reputable albums of Italian art rock scene1. This work, as it can be seen in the title, is a musical adaptation of Dante's work (i.e. it is a conceptional album) and even in lyrics are the fragments of cantos. Although lyrics are obviously in Italian, I have seen some translations on the Internet and even if I don't find them all, I will focus on musical side. I would say that this will be my personal holiday, because I was interested in this album for a long time and Dante's Inferno made me buy it.
The second musical work is Symphony to Dante's Divine Commedia by Franz Liszt, consist of two movements: Inferno and Purgatorio. I am not much familiar with Liszt's composition, but I really love romantic music; so I believe it will be a valuable experience. For the same reason I would like to listen to Francesca de Rimini (subtitle: “Symphonic fantasy after Dante”), symphonic poem by Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, but I don't have and I don't know if I find it.
I am less sure as for visual arts. I briefly looked it up and I have found paintings that I really would like to look closer at, but the main problem here is if I am able to locate them somewhere. Certainly there will be the set of paintings for Divine Comedy by Sandro Boticelli (because it is probably the most famous set related to Dante, it should not be a big problem to find it somewhere) and particularly I saw that Salvador Dalí painted some series for it, so if I can find it, it will be definitely there. Anyway, when I am sure what exactly I am going to focus on, I will write it down.
1Italy, due to its rich cultural history and strong background of classical music, was a “promise land” for art rock and after England (with bands like Pink Floyd, Yes, Genesis, King Crimson, Jethro Tull, Emerson, Lake & Palmer...) it is probably a country with the most recognizable progressive rock scene.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Islam: abbreviate notes
- a moslem is one who believes that there is no god but God, and Mohammed is the messenger of the God.
- the God is omnipotent and eternal deity, constant and immediate presence without physical attributes. It is the same God as the Christian and Hebrew god, but Christians and Hebrews "betrayed" the path.
- Koran, the Holy Book of Islam, the literal word of God, His will and commandments revealed to and transmitted by prophet Mohammed of Mecca in seventh century, the fundamental, immutable word of Islamic doctrine and practice. It is definite; no other prophets are expected.
- the sunna, "the path," the way of the prophet and his example and teachings, expressed in his deeds and words. These are word of Mohammed, not God. They are recorded in hadith, compilation of his utterances on religious practice, social affairs and Koranic interpretations. In principle is haddith accepted by all Moslems, ways of its interpretations vary.
- Islam means submission (to the will of God), Moslem or Muslim is the one who submits.
- Day of Judgment, the Last Day, when everyone will be judged by his acts and will be admitted into Paradise or condemned into Hell.
"No man stands between the believer and the God"
- all moslems are equal before God, even Mohammed claimed no special relationship with God.
"I do not tell you that I possess the treasure of Allah or know what is hidden." Koran, (6:50)
-in contrast to Christianity, in principle of Islam there is no Church, no clergy, saints, hierarchy, central authorities. Moslems worship only the God; no people, places or objects are sacred.
- obviously, the practice and theory sometimes differ
- even that there is no official priesthood, the mullahs of Iran have a big impact on the Islam practiced there and are often considered as clergy.
- some Moslems have created devotions and shrines to "saints" and believe that they interceded with God, even if Koran says that they cannot. Also many Moslems make pilgrimages to the tombs of "holy men" and pray to them.
-the Caliph is the successor of prophet, but he does not have a divine authority.
...
- the God is omnipotent and eternal deity, constant and immediate presence without physical attributes. It is the same God as the Christian and Hebrew god, but Christians and Hebrews "betrayed" the path.
- Koran, the Holy Book of Islam, the literal word of God, His will and commandments revealed to and transmitted by prophet Mohammed of Mecca in seventh century, the fundamental, immutable word of Islamic doctrine and practice. It is definite; no other prophets are expected.
- the sunna, "the path," the way of the prophet and his example and teachings, expressed in his deeds and words. These are word of Mohammed, not God. They are recorded in hadith, compilation of his utterances on religious practice, social affairs and Koranic interpretations. In principle is haddith accepted by all Moslems, ways of its interpretations vary.
- Islam means submission (to the will of God), Moslem or Muslim is the one who submits.
- Day of Judgment, the Last Day, when everyone will be judged by his acts and will be admitted into Paradise or condemned into Hell.
"No man stands between the believer and the God"
- all moslems are equal before God, even Mohammed claimed no special relationship with God.
"I do not tell you that I possess the treasure of Allah or know what is hidden." Koran, (6:50)
-in contrast to Christianity, in principle of Islam there is no Church, no clergy, saints, hierarchy, central authorities. Moslems worship only the God; no people, places or objects are sacred.
- obviously, the practice and theory sometimes differ
- even that there is no official priesthood, the mullahs of Iran have a big impact on the Islam practiced there and are often considered as clergy.
- some Moslems have created devotions and shrines to "saints" and believe that they interceded with God, even if Koran says that they cannot. Also many Moslems make pilgrimages to the tombs of "holy men" and pray to them.
-the Caliph is the successor of prophet, but he does not have a divine authority.
...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)