Eternal Dawn and Gloaming

Peachy.

2011-06-07T06:34:00.000-07:00

okay, so it took a lot longer than I anticipated, but here it is.

http://subsacred.wordpress.com/2011/06/06/dominion-over-the-earthii/

Also feel free to thumb through the rest of my wordpress.

The Translators

2010-05-13T19:23:00.000-07:00

We were all in the attic, as usual. The three of us had been doing this for some time, now. In our own way, we were playing with our father's guns. It was there, though, that I learned what we could be. We all had our parts to play. The changes on Luke's face were like the changes of seasons. Ryan stood in front of him, describing the rhythm he envisioned. As Ryan beatboxed, Luke's face would slowly turn into a grin of disbelief, as if he wanted to say "you want me to play that, on drums?" Of course, though, he always found a way.

My memory of a great performance did not happen in a concert hall, in front of thousands. There were no flowers thrown, no standing ovations, no million dollar pay days. It was in a small classroom, a very small classroom. There was a dry erase board across the front wall, and there were desks, the space saver kind of desks, with the writing area barely the size of a sheet of paper. Fifteen violin and viola students sat in these desks, facing the white board, facing a lone inexpensive upright piano that was currently not being played. Fahad, however, was playing. His violin was beautiful, with dark varnish and tight grain. He is never satisfied with his instrument. That instrument is already long gone from his possession. At this moment, though, it was serving his purpose. Fahad played a Partita by J.S. Bach, staying fluid on one string and using a wide arm vibrato. We sat quietly, wide awake and wide eyed. When he finished, there wasn't even any need to applaud. Our professor's comment on his performance was almost as gorgeous as the previous moment. "Fahad, that was sensitive and mature playing." This comment, to me, became a grail.

I found out recently that not everyone in the world was a musician. Before I was a music major, I stood out; Ryan, Luke and I stood out. People told me that I loved music just a little more than everyone else, and I believed them. I had done it my whole life. It was only natural to go be a music major. I knew the talk, and I knew the life and so did all the other music majors. I was better at theory than most, I was slightly older than most, and I had more performing experience than most, but the fact remains that I was not the best violist there. I tried, but my constant rank was "most improved." I learned to hate that title. I graduated, cum laud, even, and moved away to find a "day job" and support my family. I found a part time job teaching violin, where I surprised myself when I excelled. I had to rediscover who and where I was. At school, we were all stars, and our luminance was so bright that individuals could not be spotted in the night sky. I have room to shine, now. I play as often as I can, and have earned my own coveted compliment. "When you play, I can hear the words."

Bipartisanship

2010-04-30T21:16:00.001-07:00

I hope no one holds it against me that the oil spill heading for Louisiana and the Bottom Coast has really made me think about politics rather than the impending environmental disaster. I am especially thinking about this bipartisanship business that is such a hot topic in the press right now.

For example, President Obama recently removed the ban on offshore drilling. He called this a concession to bipartisanship, but I don't understand how. To me, it was throwing a bone to the conservatives. "Here is a concession, so shut up." This action could not have pleased the left, though, or environmentalists and people concerned with our planet. Bill Waterson said via Calvin and Hobbes "A Good Compromise Leaves Everyone Unhappy." The second the oil rig blew up, though, he yanked it right out of their mouths. I'm sure this action made his party happy with him (except, of course, for the Democrats on the Southern Coast where the Oil Business is so key) but left others reeling. Are our lawmakers trying? They speak of filibusters, majorities to avoid filibusters, midnight meetings and rush jobs before the other group has time to react.

Is this bipartisanship? Is there really no middle ground? I think most of you know I lean very conservative, but I really despise the righteous indignation that seems to characterize Conservblicans (think Fox News). Everywhere, people are so angry. Are party differences so drastic that this is really and truly war?

I really don't know what to do about it. I am a man of action; I actively take care of my family, and everyone else I can. What can I do for my country, because it is not doing for itself. I vote, but I don't trust anyone for whom I vote; not because I am afraid that they won't make my decision, but because I don't believe that they believe in the decisions that they are making. My current feeling is that I should start writing weekly letters to all politicians who represent me to tell them that I expect them to make the very best decisions they can.

Anyone who wants to be a politician, shouldn't.

new link

2010-04-23T18:33:00.001-07:00

Hey everybody!

We've been seeing some great posts and dialogues here recently, with David M's poetry, my exposition on losing faith, and Dave V's thoughtful look at Avatar providing some really interesting thoughts. Keep it up! I have been unable to find anything that even compares to this blog here in my local surroundings, so I'm really thankful that we have the chance to do this.

Okay, enough cheerleading.

A new link has been added to the blog. Check out Mike Banys' artwork at his new site: http://www.michaelbanysart.org.

I've also added the link to my reverbnation page, where I post all of my music.

Take it easy, friends. And keep the words coming!

Ryan

Dominion Over the Earth (or Nature is for Panthies)

2010-04-23T12:12:00.000-07:00

It’s been a few months since I’ve watched Avatar. I have to say it was a pretty amazing experience and the movie provoked a lot of thought and conviction.

Being a part of the Evangelical Christian world I know there have been mixed reactions to the movie, especially concerning its spiritual themes. Let me just say as a Christian I do not believe we should worship the creation rather than the creator, and in this sense I don’t feel that the Na’vi offer a flawless example of how I ought to revere nature. But despite this, I feel the movie speaks a very powerful message. Since I have yet to see Christians racing to present so vividly and successfully their perspective on the value of nature to the general public, I will make no apologies for admiring the allegedly pantheistic threat to Christianity that is Avatar.

I also realize some may argue that without the special effects and visuals the movie would not be nearly as good because the story wasn’t the greatest. And it is true that the story wasn’t all that original, the acting wasn’t exceptional, and the plot had some holes in it. However, I would argue that the imagery and effects used in Avatar serve as a major component of the story, and at least help to deliver some of the powerful messages found within the story.

The amazing artistry and special effects coupled with the strange, intriguing new world of Pandora helps summon the awe, wonder and respect we’ve lost for our own world. One of the most impressive things we notice about Pandora is how everything in its natural state provides for the Na’vis’ most basic practical needs as well as for their leisurely enjoyment. We are also reminded that this provision only continues in conjunction with the Na’vi treating Pandora with respect and care. However, this seems to come naturally to the Na’vi, for they have not lost their sense of awe and wonder towards their natural home. With that awe and wonder comes respect; and in this they find great contentment and joy relying on their planet and it’s abundant, timely provision. Why seek to replace or outdo such an amazing, faithful source of life?

As our respect and wonder for our planet wanes, rather than gratefully partaking of its natural system of provision we seek to replicate and/or replace it through our own technological advances.

As the big screen swoops us through Pandora’s spiraling forest, oversized leaves, and sideways tree trunks, we are in unspeakable awe of the planet’s beauty, majesty and design. In reality, that should be our reaction to our own planet in everyday real life. The natural planet we reside on ought to fascinate us and inspire in us a deep sense of reverence and loyalty.

For those of us who were overtaken with horror as the troops recklessly plowed through the Na'vi forest to uproot their source of survival and sustenance, we must ask ourselves: do we feel that same sense of horror when we see comparable injustices carried out in our own planet? Does it ache us at all to know that much of our daily life and experience is the result of such injustices-not just towards others, but towards ourselves? When we enjoy the privilege of being amidst unadulterated nature do we wonder why there isn’t more of it? Do we deeply mourn at the sad reality that there once was much more but we did away with it?

I’m not suggesting we pray to trees or find some means of spiritual connectivity with plants and animals. I’m suggesting that as a Christian I ought to see the Earth as something precious, something my God thoughtfully crafted with all of His infinite wisdom and creativity to sustain itself so long as we allow it. And I ought to wonder why we systematically take such crappy care of it all. And maybe as we explore these ideas it will change the way we see everything...or even better, we will change the way we do everything.

I actually plan to blog quite a bit more on the subjects of nature, modernization and Christianity. I'll throw a link here when I get it going.

An Essay of Unbelief

2010-03-15T07:35:00.000-07:00

This is an excerpt from an email exchange I’ve been having with a friend of mine who was curious about my spiritual journey over the last few years. Personal references have, of course, been omitted and I’ve reshaped some of the transitions in order to accommodate this forum. Just so you know, it's pretty long.

I would like to state that this is not a detailed explanation of my beliefs, but merely an overview of my journey and where it’s led me. This writing isn’t about proving that I’m right, but merely demonstrating how I got to where I am.

My struggle with belief rarely had to do with the people involved in local churches, although I was put off by the treatment of people at the hands of some religious people (and still am). I always found joy in a fellowship of believers who were open and honest with each other about their struggles and encouraged each other with love and non-judgement. No, my contentions with faith arose out of intellectual and moral issues I had with belief in a divine being, particularly the one put forward in the bible. Essentially, the more people I met in my life journey, the more I realized that you don't need God to be a good person; that loving people was a universal ability that anyone could have and employ fully. But let me start at the beginning.

All through my years at Central Baptist Church there were questions concerning faith that I was willing to put on hold or not pursue for fear of what they might do to my faith. For me, simply believing in God was more important than satisfying what I perceived to be my fallible curiosity. Questions about the idea of creation and how it lines up with modern science, questions about issues of translation and transmission of the scripture, and also questions about how God sacrificing himself in order to appease his own sense of justice in order for us to love him made any sense.

While at ETBU I took a course in world mythologies comparing different creation myths. We also examined the story of Genesis in comparison with the other myths. While I think that the Genesis story certainly stands out as unique in comparison to other creation myths (in that the earth and man were made out of God's will and not out of violence or sacrifice, as in the other stories), uniqueness does not equal divinity. My discomfort with Genesis and how to make sense of it was finally laid bare. I had begun reading enough science books to understand that I couldn't possibly take it literally. So then I tried to explain it as the creation myth of the Hebrew people which still communicated a vast truth about God; that He created the universe and desires a relationship with man.

This standing back from the scripture enabled me to make sense of some contradictions I could never make sense of before, primarily the difference in the nature and workings of God in the old and new testaments. The more I looked at scripture, the less and less comfortable I got with the conflicted message I was getting. I just could not understand any justification for the genocide and general violence that God commands in the old testament. So I began to see certain parts of scripture as things used by men in order to justify their actions, with some expressions of truth embedded in the midst of it (such as Jesus' teachings on forgiveness, the Beatitudes, God's continual reaching out for the oppressed of Israel, etc.). However, I soon realized that distinguishing between these two views in scripture had no objective basis and that I was simply picking and choosing the things I found to be morally good and those that I found to be morally detestable. Some external morality was guiding me to accept and reject parts of the bible. I'll say that again: I found there to be a morality external to scripture that was determining what I found to be morally acceptable.

I saw that I either believed the scriptures completely and literally, in which case I would have to accept actions done in the name of and at the command of God that I found reprehensible, or that I would accept it as man-made and pick and choose the parts I found acceptable. Either way, I would be picking and choosing which parts would apply to my life, as there is much in the Old and New Testaments that people happily ignore and explain away as "cultural differences."

At the same time, I became more and more focused on the idea of what it means to love and serve God. I was raised to believe that merely professing faith wasn't enough; you had to live it for it to mean anything. And in scripture I saw time and time again God calling for people to be faithful in action, not just in words. The teachings of Jesus emphasized this strongly: it's in our actions and in our treatment of the poor that the Kingdom of God is made actual, not through religious ceremony. And, as Rob Bell says, "it's simply the best way to live." So I set out to love people as God loves them, freely giving of myself, for that was the love I felt I had received from God. God's love was made known to others through me. This idea of loving others freely and completely was all I was holding onto at the time; it was what made my faith unique and what made it worth holding onto, because I felt that nothing else in the world could advocate for and bring about selfless love in people.

Over time, however, I understood that this wasn't altogether true. As I began to meet various people in Chicago and in Texas, I came to see that Christianity does not hold the monopoly on love; that it is a universal concept that anyone can tune into and employ, though it is often difficult. One of my best friends in Chicago is a Buddhist, and through him I saw one of the most selfless and loving people I have known. Not because he gives away all of his possessions to the poor or through some overt action such as this, but through his daily interactions with people; his overwhelming compassion and concern for people that guides his every decision. But if people outside of Christianity can have that kind of love, a love that I thought was impossible to possess without a relationship with Christ, then what does that mean? How could they be judged if their actions mirror those that Christ called his followers to? The concept of God began to become more and more ill-defined. I began to realize that God's unlimited love was the Christian expression of that universal truth, that it's better to love people and live generously in community. But in the end, it's about people loving people.

I finally decided to fully face my declining belief and make a decision about where I stood at the time. I categorized the areas I struggled with into three areas: 1. examining literature on evolution and creationism, because the idea of a creator god is a central tenet to the Christian faith and any faith with a divine being 2. examining issues of translation and transmission, how did we get the bible we have today? 3. Morality, what morality do we derive from scripture, and how can we account for the presence of suffering in light of a loving and all powerful God? Also, what do I make of the fact that a morality of love can exist external to a belief in God? It's what I've spent the last two or three years doing and it's brought me to where I am today.

So where am I today?

I no longer find the idea of a creator God to be tenable in light of modern science, as well as in light of some natural moral issues (e.g. why is Nature such a violent and cruel place? If it's a result of the Fall, then why is all of humanity, and all of the world for that matter, being punished for one man's mistake, if Adam was, in fact, one man? That is not loving or just). While questions concerning the origin of life are still (and probably always will be) unanswered, I think that evolution through natural selection is the best explanation for the diversity and complexity of life that this planet has witnessed.

I don't believe the Christian expression of God to be true anymore, or any belief system that espouses a semi-knowable entity that is present and interacts within time and space. Perhaps there is some sort of "energy" that unites all humans together and helps them find connection with each other, but I believe this stems more from a biological understanding of humans as a species and is not "supernatural."

Similarly, I no longer hold the bible to be a divine or cohesive source of morality for my daily life. The conflicts of morals within it and its inability to address modern day issues in a way that is consistent and humane has led me to reject it as authoritative for my life. It does possess some truths, however. Truths that have and will continue to shape my life and the way I respect and treat others and myself.

The phrase “fallen away from the faith” is one I hear often. However, I believe it to be a misnomer to say that I've "fallen away" from the faith, as that would imply that I simply stopped caring or that something beyond my control pulled me away. Instead, this has been a careful and intentional "walking away" from faith that has come as a result of self-examination and the pursuing of truth. I still seek to lead a moral life while being true to myself and loving to those around me. Because of my conflicts with belief, however, I did not feel that I could do that and continue to call myself a Christian. It has been difficult to walk away from something I have known all my life, something that has bound me together with countless people who I still dearly love and respect. But I feel at peace with my decision, and, I hope that through dialogues like this one, others will as well.

interesting essays

2010-03-15T07:30:00.000-07:00

Greetings fellow writers and thinkers! I just wanted to let everyone know that Mike Banys is in the process of writing and posting an interesting three-part essay on Hinduism on his blog, Unknowing Mind. It's part of an interfaith blog event he participates in regularly with Jon Pennington of C3 in Chicago. You'll find the link on the right hand side of the screen, or you can go to http://unknowingmind.blogspot.com.

It's great stuff for those of us who are gloriously ignorant of common Hindu beliefs (i.e. me).

Enjoy!
Ryan

2010-02-20T20:47:00.001-08:00

Something I wrote a long time ago. It may be the work I'm most proud of.

"slow, the change of time is slow, but nigh.
inside, the sense of my heart belittles my mind.
in time, to a heartbeat quake that quivers with mine."

Another Year

2009-09-27T05:47:00.000-07:00

Hey guys, I know it's been a while, but here are some lyrics I just finished. It's about a family member who recently went through a really rough divorce. I'm not sure if I'm happy with the ending, so any feedback or suggestions would be welcome.

Coming home to lights left on and empty rooms.
All along you knew
This was at the end of it all
But it's still too soon
To be alone again
Will you sleep alone?

Masks let down
We see the actors on the stage
The show is done
The curtain falls
Lights cut down and then they fade
But you're still clinging to the part
Shadows on the stage
Playing to the crowd
You fall away
And leave me to myself
I could never be all you wanted

Let me go
And fade away
Let me go
And fade away

All we can be
Is memories in a frame
All we can see
The lies that we once claimed
And who we are
Will never be the same
Two became one
Now only one remains
Remains

2009-08-17T10:24:00.000-07:00

With all muses silent
and all musing ceased
I release my soul.

Take me down where songs are found.

Getting Older

2009-08-17T10:07:00.000-07:00

Songs don't have ends any more.
They meld and grow,
and wrap around the radio.
The eq is flat;
the announcer's spat
is don't change the dial.

The hair on my arm is still.
Lays straight and fine,
Void of the tell and the sign.
I miss the days,
the power and praise
of writer and his chord.

The Balcony

2009-07-18T09:52:00.000-07:00

The first thought that occurred to him was that it wasn't he who set the building on fire. Regardless of responsibility, the building was on fire and he was stuck on the 9th floor. He had rented a hotel suite on the 9th floor with a cute balcony overlooking the city, and he was on that balcony now being irrational.
But he hadn't set the building on fire. So why was he facing the consequences? He began to imagine what the person who started the fire looked like. Was it a man or woman? It must be a man, he thought, because he had never heard of a female arsonist. There is that irrationality again. He was becoming aware of it. He turned his mind to the matter at hand. He had been forced on the balcony for some fresh air. He had tried to escape the building, but when he opened the door to his room, the hall was aflame and impassable. He had shut the door to the hall and wanted some fresh air.
Now, he wished he hadn't shut the door. He couldn't see what was happening. Was the fire still there? Had it been put out? From his perch above the city, he had heard sirens, but could not identify between police, ambulance or firetruck and did not even know whether the loud vehicle had stopped at the hotel. He didn't see any firetrucks from the balcony.
The fresh air outside was huge relief after a lung-full of the black acrid smoke. Did he smoke, he thought. Could that have been how the fire started? Someone smoking in bed? Were there any rooms in the hotel that could be smoked in? All of them now, and he grimaced at the thought. I didn't start the fire.
And he truly hadn't. So why was he in the midst of this calamity, stuck on a balcony 9 stories up enjoying the fresh air and imagining what the man smoking in bed looked like. Did he die? Was he burned up? Is he so unrecognizable that it didn't matter what he looked like before? Did he get what he deserved, and he was immediately ashamed at the thought. Smoking in bed is not a sin, it's not even a crime. It's just, well, unwise.
Alarmed by a sudden blast of heat, he looked into the room. The fire had burned through the sheet rock into his room. He reached for the glass door that opened to the balcony, and the metal burned as he shut it. He looked at his hands and didn't see any burns. Just hot. Just heat. But not so just. It wasn't just for the smoker to burn in bed, screaming in pain or deep in sleep. And it isn't just for him to burn now. And he started sobbing.
Was he going to die?
He had committed sins and crimes before. He had even gotten a speeding ticket during the journey to the city. But wasn't the ticket punishment paid in full? He had told lies before, and various other things he wasn't proud of. Was this punishment? Looking back inside his room, the fire had caught the blanket that was draped off his bed and half laid on the floor against the burning wall. Was he just unwise?
No, not making the bed was not unwise. The fire is not punishment. So what is the fire? Death, no the fire is not death. But there were not firetrucks and no ladders, and no helicopters and no one standing on the ground 9 stories below. The whole bed, no, the whole room was on fire now, the tongues licking at the glass.
Like a dog, he thought. A dog wanting to come outside. No, the fire is not an animal. What is the fire, but he knew all along. The fire is a catalyst. A catalyst to a choice. And so was the ticket for speeding and punishment in general, it all just forces you to make choices. The heat now on the balcony was unbearable. He had no choices here.

But, he did. There is always a choice. He could jump 9 stories down to no one.

Why would I jump, he thought. I will die when I hit the ground, and I will die getting burned up.
I should jump, he thought. But why! Because I don't know. Don't know what! The fire is a certain death. I will die burning. I should jump. But I'll die hitting the ground too! I don't know that.
Why should I jump? Because I might fly. And he climbed on top of the railing.

Babies are Good

2009-06-30T08:30:00.000-07:00

I think sexual education in this country has backfired, and I think our culture is out of balance.

People like sex, and I don't think any amount of education is going to change that. Most of the sex ed classes talk about having one partner, and if not, practicing very safe sex habits. Here in the South, they will also throw in that it's a really good idea to pick one lady, marry her, and then get after it. However, in every sexual education, tv program or whatever I've heard, there was one subtle reason why you shouldn't have sex. Babies.

Babies will ruin your life. Your life is over after you have babies. You will not go to college. You won't get a good job. I even heard one show tell you that after you have babies you no longer have any friends.

As I look around, especially living in a college town, I am beginning to think that babies are bad is the only thing that people take away from sex ed in school. Rarely is the advice of abstinence heeded, and maybe someone listened carefully about safe sex practices, but it's not done in a relationship, it's to avoid getting all the women one is after pregnant. It is interesting to see the reactions my wife and I get as we move around the campus, or anywhere else there is a large group of "college kids." My wife and I can empty the apartment complex's pool in 10 minutes by showing up with our son to swim. It starts all of a sudden when we walk in, everyone hushes. Then, we get in the pool, and they'll start talking quietly. Then one by one, they'll give some excuse of somewhere they have to be or something they have to do, and exit as fast as possible. I guess baby disease is something that can be spread by the community water of a pool.

My life certainly didn't end with Eli's birth. I will be completing my degree in December, no worse the wear for having a child. Believe it or not, we still have friends! Friends around our age, too, even if they are like us and are young couples who have children. Corey and I still get to go on dates. I think the biggest thing is, that instead of Eli feeling like a burden when he's around, it feels like something is missing when he is not.

I hope to have all the children we are going to have by the time i'm thirty. People I guess wait until everything is perfect to have a baby, if they want a baby at all. Babies come when they come, and I think having one makes you ready. You rise to the challenge. Babies are good.

The Great Buffalo

2009-06-24T10:38:00.000-07:00

The Great Buffalo

The prairie shakes, relaxed greens
and driftwood browns part as they pass
or falter under hoof. Herd traces
pond's path, fragrant flame from many
strides upwind pulls their noses aft-
No fear- no hunt in the west wind.

Invocations rise up, carry me,
kin to man, like a king
on his Royal Stallion.  Their
hearts pulse for me,
chants embrace me
  dum da-dum-dum  dum dum
The hunt is on.

But I remain silent.

We flee and we fight
fear pushing, pulling, but only in
body as Spirit is soothed through
devotional dance and earned respect
for our sinew and meat
our bladder and hide
our bones and our liver
our hair and our dung.

Seduced not but soothed, our spirit
still smiles though bison-bone spear
points pierce buffalo hide.

The prairie shakes, the bison die.

 dum da-dum-dum  dum dum
Their hearts embrace me
Chants pulse for me.

- Mike Banys, 2006

2009-06-04T12:54:00.001-07:00

Thought for the Day
The Movie "The Hangover" is for people who like "Dude, Where's My Car", but are now adults.

Sometimes We Just Need to be Reminded

2009-05-26T09:40:00.000-07:00

Here's a poem I wrote back in 2006. Feel free to critique it, just enjoy it, hate it, whatever seems to fit your mood today.

Sometimes We Just Need to be Reminded

Sometimes we just need to be reminded.
Sometimes we just need to stop the train,
get off, and look
at the sunflowers alongside the tracks.
Sometimes we just need to breathe. Deeply. In.
Out. Abdomen soft.
Sometimes we just need to feel the chair under
our backside.
Sometimes we just need to look at our partner,
really see him or her again.
Sometimes we just need to be reminded.

-- Mike Banys, 2006

Places We Can't Go

2009-05-21T10:53:00.001-07:00

Okay, so it's not a regular post, but it's all I've got to offer right now. Here are the lyrics for a song I'm working on, feel free to absolutely demolish them.

The seasons change
And Spring finds its way
To San Francisco
The light laid down
Now clings to Bay and building
A most beautiful back drop
But it could never be enough for me

I whisper to the winds
“Darling, I am lost”
Lost in thoughts
Of what could have been
What might have been
What never was
If it ever was
Memories of words we claimed

“Let’s step out
Let’s take a chance.”
But there’s no chance
Just patterns that remain
Patterns we can’t change
We can’t change

So we find our own roads
Turn our backs on places we can’t go
Follow what we’ve come to know;
There’s nothing more
To hold us back
No more thoughts to what we lack
I’ll never be the one to say
Love goes easily
I’ll never be the one

Seasons change
Summer’s just around the bend
And I’m running
On my own again
And I am running
to Chicago

The Chronicles of Ryan's Roommate Part I

2009-05-20T19:22:00.000-07:00

Ryan looked in the fridge. His heart sank with the temperature as it hit his face. It had happened again. This would require some brooding. He flopped down on the couch and tried to put things in perspective. He tried to see the truth of the matter. He tried not to be angry.

But He Was Betrayed.

Betrayed by the closest person to him. Their bedrooms were a scarce 10 feet apart. How could he do this! Why couldn't he be considerate! It was a matter important to life or death.

But he forgave his friend. Their friendship could transcend this. He also knew what his friend was dealing with at the time. He knew of the crazy spells, and the rough influence of the female.

After all, it was only another frozen burrito.

2009-05-16T19:09:00.000-07:00

Did you enjoy my last post? I thought it was clever!
And despite the fact that Ryan tells me that it is blog-terrorism to threaten so, I will begin to fill this blog with similar dribble until some more discussion is kindled!

David

Death of a Violist

2009-05-13T21:18:00.000-07:00

"A string quartet is made up of four people; a good violinist, a bad violinist, an ex-violinist, and someone who hates violinists."

And thus, a viola player dies. He spent his life in an unknown clef, playing unheard parts on an unrecognized instrument. From the outside world, he received complete anonymity. From the music world, he received ridicule.

And yet, somehow, he made it to heaven! All those years of practice, frustration, perseverance had paid off. As he went to join the orchestra in the sky, God looked at him and said "Viola, huh? That's like a large violin, right?"

2009-04-22T19:15:00.000-07:00

I don't know what I think anymore.

It's a blessing to live in a nation that supports religious freedom; in a nation that has a seperation of Church and State. Does it mean, however, that one area is blind to the other?

My head is logical. In my head, I love all people, no matter what. People need, deserve, love and acceptance. But my heart feels what it feels. To modify those feelings, by reason, with my head, is only lying to myself.

My head says that homosexuals are people. My head says I should love all people. It says I should accept them, associate and become friends, and support them. And these things I do.

My heart says that marriage is between a man and woman. I have very deep feelings about this with little to no logical reasoning to defend my position.

Do I think that homosexual couples should have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples? Yes. Tax breaks? Yes. Include each other on their health insurance? Yes. Would I consider a couple who commits to this union commited to each other? Yes. Do I want it called a marriage? No.

It comes down to a definition. What is marriage. Do I think that homosexual couples have as strong a bond as a heterosexual couple? I'm not sure. I have a gay friend I used to work with who has been with his significant other for over twenty years. That's a hell of a commitment. Is it the same as my commitment to my wife for the last five? Or the same as my parents for the last thirty? My head says yes. My heart says no.

Of course, i'm dealing with a perfect world, because it is easy to condemn either side in relationships that fall apart, or with people who switch partners they share a "lifetime bond" with every week/month/year. But what if I had examples of an unfaltering commitment on both sides. Is it the same? Logic says it has to be. But my heart says "is it?" And I don't want it called a marriage. It's not the same.

What does it say about my heart if I am fully content with the idea if it has a different name. Yet I recall seperate, but equal, and how well that worked. I suppose a marriage has as much religious implications to me as it does legal. So maybe I feel like it is treading on those toes. For example, what if another religious group wanted to call themselves Christians, with the same altar, church, etc, but they believe something completely different. But religious groups don't do that. We have different names for our sects and are content to have our traditions, even though some things are similar.

I can understand how people want to fit in. To be accepted, and not be singled out for persecution, and they are just in their desires. Would a civil union, or any other term, cause just that?

I think this is something that is fundamental in me, something similar to "I don't like vegetables". I can reason and rationalize things all I want, but it doesn't really change it.

It Is What We Make It.

2009-02-19T09:08:00.000-08:00

There is one expression I always remember being uncomfortable with hearing:

“it is what it is“.

So I decided to sit down and figure out why it flusters me so much.

“It is what it is“

Now, I suppose in the most literal sense, it’s a statement that just can’t be argued with. I mean, let’s say “it” is “blue”. If it is blue, it is blue. Obviously. So, in such a case, it is what it is is about as accurate as you can get. My problem with the expression is that it’s never used in that way. If something unfair, unjust, or just plain stupid is taking place in front of you, there’s always that boss or friend or someone assuring you that “it is what it is”- accompanied by a shrug of powerlessness.

I associate the expression with an attitude of giving up and settling for less. It appears to be an excuse for accepting the unacceptable; a cowardice to make a difference. Its choosing to be powerless. True, if something turns out a certain way, it turned out a certain way- it is what it is. There’s no point in crying over spilled milk. However, shouldn’t we look into why the milk was spilled, so that we don’t spill it again? If something isn’t right, we shouldn’t just accept that it isn’t right. Shouldn’t we acknowledge injustice was done, and figure out how to keep it from happening again? Shouldn’t we call out inefficiencies and seek to replace them with efficiency?

It is what it is, but is it what it should be? Is there something we can do to change that, even if only for the future? Whenever someone says “it is what is” I think in the back of my head, “but does it really have to be?” I wonder why nobody (including myself) is mentioning obvious flaws that need to be addressed; after all, if they were addressed, it would not be what it is.

I realize to challenge the expression could, under most circumstances, make things much more difficult than most people would like. I could lose a job or jeopardize someone else’s, I could gamble with another’s well being, I could make a passing situation much more complicated. Egos could be hurt, authority may feel defied, the comfort of routine could be threatened . Ironically, this seems to suggest that the fearless confidence usually backing the phrase is nothing more than a facade. So really, people tend to use the phrase because they are afraid of what could happen if we question things.

That leads me to say this: “it is what it is” is really just a cowardly way of saying “I’m a coward”.

Why can’t we make it a habit to say “this is what it is, but what can it be?” Accepting the current circumstances, yet seeking to improve. To say “it is what it is” is to deny that we can effect happenings in the world around us, or that anything matters enough to try. Sometimes we are restricted by circumstances, there are things that we just can’t control… there are “its” that can’t be changed. But there are often things that touch the things we can’t control, and if we can access them, eventually we will leave a mark. How about people like Rosa Parks or Martin Luther King Jr….they could have said “it is what it is” because challenging anything would stir up too much trouble with no guarantee of immediate results. That would have been just lovely.

I’m not saying we all need to be revolutionary rebels over every little thing we’re not satisfied with. But no matter what scale of issue is at hand, to me, “it is what it is” reflects a lack of determination, a dormancy of conviction.

But… it is what it is. People tend to settle for whats thrown at them, so we have to make the best of it. Or is there something that can be done to change that?

Whether we can directly influence the outcome of a situation, or if we are facing a circumstance that refuses to be manipulated…

...I believe:

It is whatever you allow it to be.

2008-11-07T14:40:00.000-08:00

For a few years now, I have struggled with the concept that I am not a poet. It's like a weather forecast: all the conditions are right but the storm just isn't happening. I have bipolar disorder, which usually a side effect is the individual being a bit more creative, and has also lead me into situations and experiences that I frankly would rather never have had. I'm fairly intelligent, even bordering into clever. I have a good command of the english language and I typically spell things correctly.

Prose comes to me like music came to Mozart. The best way to describe anything is with a far fetched bizarre analogy, which I even use in my papers for school. In fact, many of my grades on term papers were saved from lousy research by exotically descriptive prose and a good analogy.

But what is poetry? Ryan studied it, and I have not. Sure, I've read books, and discovered that Dickinson is not to my liking, and so forth. Where does one cross the line. It's like traveling in the United States; adjacent states can be so similar that you may not know you've crossed the line except for the sign. I've heard rap called the poetry of the streets, and I've heard rock stars called poets, but I can't usually accept either of those labels. Rap can be very cleverly rhymed, but what does it do? I don't see past the egocentricity and party boasts. Rock lyrics can be so vague. Some of the songs that used to really move me now seem to me to be nothing more than words chosen at random out of a dictionary by a word-sniffing dog. Unfortunately, this kind of writing is what my attempts usually emulate.

go on
favor everyone but myself
to create just to fail,
and thus fail to create
and the world still anticpates.

No one knows what I'm talking about. This wouldn't get any real respect in academia, or from people who are more literate than limericks. Ryan said writing must be practiced, but I can't fix dribble like I fix my intonation or phrasing in music.

Planes Mistaken For Stars wrote a song that really sums up what I'm feeling (at least to me; in true rock fashion I don't know what they intended to mean).

Division

Poet, I'm sick of your pretty lies.
and it was about the song that sang of the shelves I wished you on, now sing along.
and I used to wish my heart as good, my heart as strong.
Don't say it's gone.
I'll pull the truth to you.
And even if it breaks us both down, don't say it's gone.

I like it because of some clever word play and it's unpretentious nature. I think they are singing about not really writing something that may stand the test of time or will be quoted in readings (except for maybe a blog!). I think the style of writing emulates the message: unmetered, unrhymed, unstanza-ed, unsuave. And I think that they (and myself) know the difference.

But they, and I, both know what we really wish for and want. The conditions are favorable. We want a storm.

Introduction

2008-10-22T11:11:00.001-07:00

Hi all,

I just figured I should introduce myself, and since Ryan's looking for deep writing, I thought a good topic would be how I came to my particular faith.

I'm the primary author over at Unknowing Mind, a blog predominantly focused around my Buddhist writings, as well as some poetry. If you want to know more about me, just peruse my writings there; I think a large part of myself comes out in my writing. I'm ridiculously liberal in my viewpoint (i.e. I vote Green Party; I think all other political issues should take a backseat to ecological issues because if the planet dies, it sure doesn't matter how strong our economy is; I am a pacifist, however I do recognize that strong military action might be necessary under extreme circumstances -- though we are not in such circumstances now -- and I'm glad somebody other than me is running for president because I could never declare war on another country).

So how I came to my Buddhist practice... well, I grew up a Catholic and attended Catholic grammar & high schools. My family went to church regularly -- my dad and I would even go to the 7 AM mass together, and if THAT doesn't show dedication, I don't know what does. :) In approximately 5th grade, I began to recognize that the Christian faith just didn't model the world in which I lived. I just didn't see the world in such a black & white dichotomy, with God being the ultimate good. If I had been a stronger person at the time, I would have refused my 8th Grade confirmation as I was completely non-Christian by that point, though I did not. Anyway, back in about 6th grade, I chose to stop going to church, explaining to my parents that I didn't feel it represented my views. They respected that, which I greatly admire about them.

Starting in 7th grade, I started researching other religions, particularly Pagan faiths, as their focus on Nature and the environment, as well as their ancient heritage, really appealed to me. It was my experience -- and still is -- that the world around us is alive and, in some unique ways different from humans, conscious; a very pantheistic thought. Throughout high school, I would have classified myself as a general Pagan in religion. During college, I didn't have time for religion (nor my beloved sport of Baseball!), so both got pushed aside, and my skills as a shortstop waned.

While in grad school, I started training in Aikido, a Japanese martial art. It was there that I was introduced to Zen meditation, as our dojo was affiliated with a Rinzai Zen temple. (though I was NOT new to meditation and mental focus, as that was a major part of my Pagan practices throughout high school). After I graduated with my Masters degree in electrical engineering, I moved out of my parents house, and unfortunately too far from my Aikido dojo to continue training there. Well, I did continue for awhile, even enough to pass my 4th Kyu test, but then the 1 1/4 hour travel time each way became too much.

After a couple years in that location, I moved into Chicago proper, into the Lincoln Park area. I had always been a bibliophile, with a particular interest in religion & spirituality, but for whatever reason I had never read a single book on Buddhism ... until I moved to Chicago. Then one day, I stumbled on a book at Borders. Honestly, I cannot remember which one, but reading this book, I suddenly realized that Buddhism truly fit the beliefs I had developed; it was almost uncanny!

So I don't leave this point too general, let me give a specific example. In Aikido, one of the practices I had to train for was called Randori, or in other words, defending against multiple attackers. For my 4th Kyu test, I had to face a single attacker who would run at me and perform any grab he or she chose, and I had to defend against it. Then once the attacker got up from my throw, he or she would keep coming right back at me with different grabs, which I had to defend. So it's a continuous assault in which I have to demonstrate a wide variety of techniques on an attack that I cannot predict in advance because the attacker can do anything (this is the predecessor to multi-person attacks with no limitations on the type of attack). I struggled mightily with this. Even though I was highly athletic, which had propelled me up the Aikido ranks quite quickly, I just couldn't grasp this skill. Until this one day. It was a saturday, and we had a small turnout in class -- maybe 5 people. Since we were all fairly highly ranked -- I was the lowest -- our teacher decided to make it a Randori day. So I struggled through it, with rather poor results as normal. Until at one point, Sensei said to me, "Slow down, breathe, and just accept the attacker." Of course he had been telling me something similar for weeks, but for whatever reason, this time, something clicked inside me. I knelt down on the mat in position, took a deep breath and focused on a spot about 3 feet in front of me. My mind had that ultra-calm feeling of being "in the zone" that athletes experience -- something I had felt countless times before. But this time, it went beyond all of those previous experiences. Sensei yelled, "Hajime!" (meaning "Begin" in Japanese), and I bolted up and trained my eyes on the attacker. And a strange thing happened. It was as though I could feel in my own body every move he was about to make. He grabbed for my right shoulder. But I already knew he was going to do that before he moved, having felt it in my own body, and so by the time he was moving for me, I was already moving out of the way and preparing my defense. I threw him. He landed hard and came back, running around behind me to grab both wrists. But again, I knew this before he even started his turn around me, and I stepped aside, led his arms up, and propelled him forward away from me. This continued for about 40 seconds, at which point Sensei stopped the randori.

I had experienced true Interbeing, the interconnected nature of us all that Buddhism proclaims (though, again, I did not know it by this name at this time, not having studied Buddhism at all yet). So while in meditation at home, I wondered how such an approach would function outside the dojo -- this being my normal questioning, probing self, as martial arts training is a life-training by nature, and thus a way to live your entire life, but I had to explore if that were true for myself. And explore I did. And I found that my entire life flowed much more smoothly when that view was operative. When I could sense the interconnectedness of myself with others, life was just easier; I was nearly always calm and collected, I could focus at will despite distraction, I was naturally helpful and generous to others without having to think about it, etc.

When I opened that book at Borders, and I came across the Buddhist teaching on Interbeing, I was sold.

That's just one example of how well Buddhism modeled my life experience. And so I began looking for a Buddhist temple to attend, to deepen my practice. And I found an amazing temple that has helped me greatly along my spiritual path.

Let me give one more specific example of how Buddhism modeled my life experience. One of the things I could never understand -- something which occurred to me as early as 5th grade -- is how people can follow a faith that they've never truly chosen for themselves. So many people I've talked to, from 5th grade to the present, call themselves X (insert whatever religion you want here) because that's what they were raised as. I simply don't get that. At some point, I think one has to make the conscious decision to follow X religion, and one has to work out those reasons for one's self. Without this step, it's blind faith, which in my opinion is a waste of energy as well as insulting to the faith. This doesn't mean you have to go through a "Dark Night of the Soul," but you have to make a conscious decision, backed by reasons and life experiences that lead you to that conclusion, to truly be an adherent of a faith.

The problem I saw is that the Western religions in which I had experience, including Catholocism and several Protestant denominations, didn't want you to question. It's not that they would turn you away if you came to your Pastor questioning, but they didn't teach this as a vital part of the practice of that faith, which I most definitely feel it is.

Fast forward to my trip to Borders in Chicago, where I read this from one of the Buddhist Sutras:

Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing, nor upon faith of tradition, nor upon rumor, nor upon what is in a scripture, nor upon mere logical reasoning, nor upon mere philosophical reasoning, nor upon mere outward appearances, nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over, nor upon another's seeming ability, nor upon the consideration, "The monk is our teacher."

But whatever, after due examination and analysis, you yourselves directly know, "These things are wholesome, blameless, prasied by the wise, when adopted and carried out, they are of benefit and lead to well-being, prosperity and happiness," then you should accept and practice them.

It was a Central Buddhist Teaching to always question and confirm for oneself all teachings, including those of the Buddha! Never were we, as Buddhist practitioners, to take teachings at their word. Instead, they must be applied and tested, and only then accepted. This direct knowledge of the truth is the hallmark of Buddhist teachings, and this is a primary reason why I am proud to call myself a Buddhist.

So how about you all? How did you come to choose your particular faith?

Evaluating Truth

2008-09-30T00:53:00.000-07:00

1This one's going to be a doozy. But I figure, why start small? I apologize if this seems over-long, but it's not a light subject and I've been in need of some good conversation for quite some time, so this is a bit of a release for me. Questions are at the end.

2I'm in the midst of reading the book Dissonant Voices: Religious Pluralism and the Question of Truth, by Harold A. Netland. While incredibly thorough in his writing, he makes no attempts to hide his bias towards orthodox Christianity and his belief that it is the only religious system which makes any sense. In his own words, "it is hoped that this book will serve as a kind of defense of Christian exclusivism," which, he concludes, is the only logical end one can attain if they are being, "faithful to the clear teaching of Scripture."

3My initial reaction was to chunk the book and use my time more efficiently playing video games, as he had already admitted that his argument would be contained within the circular logic of scripture. Also, anytime someone refers to the teachings in Scripture as "clear," I'm automatically a bit suspicious, both of their motive and their intellect. However, the more I thought about it, the more I realized that anyone writing about pluralism and world religions is going to be contained within their own bias. The question is, are they willing to look outside of that bias? Are they willing to attempt to step out of their own worldview and into the Other's? So I'm giving it a shot.

4After several lengthy chapters explaining the basic tenets of 5 major world religions (a very thorough and uncharicatured attempt, I must say), he finally gets to the chapter titled "Evaluating Religious Traditions" and I start to get really interested. Early in the chapter, he attempts to show some of the common tools of evaluation used in comparing religions. For instance, he examines different religious worldviews on the relief of suffering and the aiding of the oppressed (bringing about the Kingdom of God in his Christian vernacular), but determines that this cannot be used as an evaluative tool because the priority, the value of such actions is determined by each religious tradition itself. In other words, how can we hold Muslims to the Christian expectation of the Kingdom, when Muslims are more inclined to hold that each man is given his lot by Allah and that we are not to interfere? Each religion determines its set own set of values and priorities; you can't use one to judge the other.

5So then how can one evaluate religions? What absolutes can be given that are not derived from within one religious perspective? Fear not, for Netland will show us the way. Netland rightly asserts that "In evaluating a religious worldview we are concerned ultimately with the question of its truth." He then goes on to define truth as, "a property of propositions such that a proposition is true if and only if the state of affairs to which it refers is as the proposition asserts it to be. Otherwise it is false." We'll come back to this.

6The next ten pages were Netland trying to create 10 different working logic statements, or principles, which could be used to evaluate religions semi-objectively (he openly admits that it's not a perfect system, but better than most). First, he understands that if you're talking about religious systems, you're talking about the particular beliefs that make up that religious system. So he offers up this definition of a "Defining Belief," or the beliefs that are worth considering.

D1: p is a defining belief of religion R if an only if being an active participant in good standing within the religious community of R entails acceptance of p.

And then he tells us what it means for a religion to be true:
D2: A religion R is true if and only if all of its defining beliefs are true; if any of its defining beliefs are false, then R is false. (emphasis added)

So there're the criteria. If one defining belief is wrong, then we can toss out the whole thing. We'll come back to that as well. To spare your eyes and time, I will provide you with a list of the ten principles, sans Netland's elaboration and explanation of each. I'm pretty sure they're self-explanatory.

P1: If a defining belief p of a religion R is self-contradictory then p is false.

P2: If two or more defining beliefs of R are mutually contradictory at least one of them must be false.

P3: If a defining belief p of R is self-defeating it cannot reasonably be accepted as true.

P4: If the defining beliefs of R are not coherent in the sense of providing a unified perspective on the world, then R cannot be plausibly be regarded as true.

P5: Any religious worldview which is unable to account for fundamental phenomena associate with a religious orientation or which cannot provide adequate answers to central questions in religion should not be accepted as true.

P6: If a defining belief p of R contradicts well-established conclusions in other domains, and if R cannot justify doing so, then p should be rejected as probably false.

P7: If a defining belief p of R depends upon a belief in another domain (e.g., history) which there is good reason to reject as false, then there is good reason to reject p as probably false.

P8: If one or more defining beliefs of R are incompatible with widely accepted and well-established moral values and principles; or if R includes among its essential practices or rites activities which are incompatible with basic moral values and practices, then there is good reason for rejecting R as false.

P9: If the defining beliefs of R entail the denial of the objectivity of basic moral values and principles; or if they entail the denial of the objective distinction between right and wrong, good and evil, then there is good reason for rejecting R as false.

P10: If R is unable to provide adequate answers to basic questions about the phenomena of moral awareness this provides good reason for rejecting R as false.

7Again, Netland is very apparent and unapologetic with his bias. Immediately following his last principle statement (P10), Netland writes the following, "Although this cannot be argued here, I should state that the reason I believe one is justified in accepting the Christian faith as true is because it is the only worldview that satisfies the requirements of all the above criteria. Ultimately, this means for Netland that "If indeed one is justified in accepting the Christian faith as true--as I am convinced is the case-- then one is also justified in making judgments about other religious traditions on the basis of Christian teaching, and in rejecting as false those beliefs from other traditions that are incompatible with Christian faith."

So there we have it. We can now objectively evaluate and rank any and all religious systems. So now let's start with the questions! Feel free to discuss or expound upon any part of the questions, or add any of your own. I've numbered the paragraphs for easy reference. For the Principles or Definitions, simply use the references provided (P1, P2, D1, etc.).

Q1: What do we make of Netland's definition of truth provided in paragraph 5? Does the phrase "state of affairs" work for you as an attempt to define reality?

Q2: Is it right to assume, as Netland does, that if there is one "false" principle belief then the entire Religion must be false, as he asserts in D2? As a follow up, how many people do you think fully and completely believe and accept everything their religion teaches as true?

Q3: What do we make of the 10 Principles? Are they as objective as Netland would like them to be? I have serious issues with P8 and P9 because of his use of the phrase "basic moral values" and the failure to define that. Are morals developed independently from religion now to be used as the standard of comparison for those religions? And wouldn't basic moral values be completely determined by geography and cultural settings? P9 seems wrong on a philosophical level, as it requires the assumption that right and wrong exist, that good and evil are indeed factual. Seems like Buddhists are just out of luck on that one. Sorry, Mike.

Q4: I'm very curious as to how Netland thinks Christianity is the only religion that meets the standards he's created. In fact, I'm curious as to how he thinks ANY religion meets the standards he's created. So it's not in the form of a question....sue me. Does your religion hold up to these principles he's created?

Q5: What does it mean to be in "good standing" in a religious community, as provided in D1?

Q6: Just to provide a couple of questions that Netland poses but never attempts to answer, "What constitutes knowledge? Under what conditions is one justified in accepting a particular belief? Must one be able to provide sufficient grounds for, say, belief in God in order to be justified in believing in God? What would constitute such grounds? What kind of contrary evidence would falsify belief in God?"

Q7: Should I finish reading this book? The next chapters are "All Roads Lead to..." "No Other Name: the Question of Jesus," and, "Evangelism, Dialogue, and Tolerance."

I hope all are well and look forward to hearing your thoughts on this one.

Peace,
Ryan

2008-09-24T21:45:00.000-07:00

"The grand show is eternal. It is always sunrise somewhere; the dew is never dried all at once; a shower is forever falling; vapor is ever rising. Eternal sunrise, eternal dawn and gloaming, on sea and continents and islands, each in its turn, as the round earth rolls."

John Muir

The Wilderness World of John Muir, p 312

Dawn and gloaming. The crisp light of sunrise and the slow farewell of the day. For photographers, twilight is often known as the "magical hour," as it produces the softest and most dramatic natural lighting. The true color of an object is concealed in the golden glow of the setting sun, an image painted in a dying light. It is a time when light and shadow intermingle, with one fading into the other as the seconds pass, making each moment that the photographer hesitates a precious vision of beauty forever lost.

So it is with life and the human mind. As we struggle to understand the world around us in all of its complexity, our perceptions of the world are painted in the dying light of the moment. The true hues of the world lie just beyond our ability to see them. And so ideas meld together, as light and shadow, to compose an image, an understanding, a vision of the world that our minds can comprehend and we can accept as real. We frame these moments in words and expressions. Most importantly, we share those words with others, making a dialogue of perspectives, a collection of images that helps us understand the larger picture before us; a mosaic of moments.

That's my hope for this blog, that it can be a place where friends and strangers can come together and examine ideas, whether we be in agreement or discord. A place where questions can be asked, inspirations shared, and our collective images expanded.