Drop it

Zen Buddhists hold that the path to nirvana entails a giving up of all wants and desires (even for enlightenment). Jesus says a similar thing when he says "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God. Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." We are people with needs, some invented by our eyes, some which are real in our hearts. The need for material things and wealth happens to be of our eyes.

Once we understand and can appreciate all that we do have now, we suddenly notice those around us. When we no longer want, we can be satisfied. The American dream includes the pursuit of happiness because under that model you will never actually get it. You are always going for the next bigger and better thing. Our society runs on and promotes the natural human error of greed. We don’t think in terms of the betterment of America and of our neighbors in society anymore, but we think about what is best for ourselves. The Chinese mentality is what can I do to advance China? The Indian mentality is what can I do for India? Many cultures in the world follow collectivistic thinking. We are just now starting to see the power of that kind of thinking. JFK said a long time ago. “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”

In light of the government bailing out major corporations, perhaps an economy based on intrinsic human flaws was not the best idea. If we were really to follow laissez-faire philosophy and let the market correct itself, we’d just watch it crash. Perhaps we’ve come full circle to watch the great Depression happen again. Perhaps what we see now is a pre-emptive version of FDR’s new deal. I don’t see why people get pissed off about it, it’s the only thing keeping people from giving up hope to spend. I think we’ve been so ingrained with the mentality of fairness (Why do they deserve handouts when I’ve been working hard my whole life and never went into debt? Where is mine!), we think we deserve fairness without sacrifice. You gave up certain rights by agreeing to live in America for the safety and benefit of the whole. Does there need to be an immediate reward, and instant gratification, for satiation? If we take what we can get now, our future does not hold any promise, but sacrifice and hard work now pays off in the future. We’ve been enjoying the hard work and sacrifice of the past generation a little too long now. It’s time to do a little ourselves.

A New Genderation

So what makes a man? Biologically we could say that a man would be any person that has a Y chromosome, but that is what makes someone male, not masculine, and even still there are aberrations to the rule. If we try and define a man by certain characteristics (both inner and outer), it proves to be problematic. Clearly, with all the surgery that is available to us, a penis and testicles does not a man make. But what then, are those inner attributes that would deem one masculine or feminine? It terms of westernized society, men can be neatly classified as either heterosexual, bisexual, or homosexual. This narrows the view of society into different groups. But where does that leave the effeminate male? They are isolated from what western society has deemed “men” or “straight”, into a category all their own. Now there has been a label put out on this group of people, as queer or gay, regardless of their sexual preferences or innate gender. It seems then what defines men in western culture are those people who follow the pressures of social manhood (such as exaggerating one's sexual need for women, and suppressing one's sexual need for men).

Anytime when people are put into groups, conflict breaks out, even if the groups are completely arbitrary. Feelings of superiority, fear of being part of the other group and losing identity as a member of the current group, and stereotypes all arise from this social view that groups people like this. This is problematic to the functioning of society as a whole.

Sexual orientation has become a social construct to explain any aberrations from the general male or female structure set up in western culture. This is evident by the fact that within the “queer” group, there have been terms such as lesbian, gay, transgendered, bisexual, questioning, intersex, and many more coming about every time one doesn’t quite fit. Obviously trying to define people through their sexual preferences is a complex matter. Homosexuality as a term did not exist prior the mid 1900’s. It’s been argued that men in the early 1900’s did engage in male-male sexual relations more commonly than today, but with the invention of the word sexual orientation, males decline from doing so because of the social stigma’s and pressures on sexuality now present. Men who do continue to feel sexual attractions towards men will often be isolated. There is a definite stigma that has resulted with the invention of the term.

Is this correct thinking? Is it unnatural for men to have such desires? Cross culturally, in many non-western areas, the concept of male sexuality towards other males is universal, and not the characteristic of a minority of males. In India, same-sex desire may be openly acknowledged in spaces socially defined as male but denied in formal or mixed gender spaces. The non-western way of thinking about gender is in terms of the active vs. the passive. Everyone has an innate gender which would make someone simply a man or a woman. A masculine man to them would be someone who engages actively in sex and the man who likes to receive (orally or anally) pleasure would be deemed the effeminate male, which is also known as the “third gender”, being partly male and female.
Now a “homosexual”, as westerners call it, in non-western culture, is one who exhibits the female characteristics, even if he only has sex with women. A man in an exclusive relationship with another man could be deemed not homosexual if he is always in the active role. Homosexuality denotes not sexual orientation, but the third gender.

It seems then as a consequence to the western approach to sexual orientation and gender roles, any and all male/male affectations are seen as “gay”, where in other cultures it is perfectly normal (holding hands, hugging, kissing on the cheek). It is the fear of being considered “one of them” than keeps the social pressures of masculinity in place. This process has been called heterosexualization. Men can have the desire for relationship with other men, as I will discuss later, but by no means should it be the definition.

In Christian religion, the act of sodomy is deemed wrong, however the word homosexual was nonexistent as we know it today. There is nothing in the Bible which would suggest that close male relationships were wrong, but in fact there are often clear examples of same sex relationships that went beyond the normal scope of friendship. King David and Jonathan, Ruth and Naomi, Jesus and John, Paul and Timothy were amongst those in the Bible with deep love for each other. David was quoted in 2 Samuel 1:26 as saying “Your [Jonathan’s] love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of a woman.” It seems that deep male relationships were a thing to be admired rather than scorned for being “homosexual”. Ruth said to Naomi in Ruth 1:16-17 “Don’t urge me to leave you or to turn back from you. Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die and there I will be buried. May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so severely if anything but death separates you and me.” This is used today in many heterosexual marriage ceremonies, but it describes a deep, nonsexual, bond between to same gendered people. These relationships weren't sexual at all, but their intimacy surpassed that of friendships we know today. There is no evidence that would suggest these types of bonds to be wrong or immoral.

Even among historical figures outside religion, romantic relationships are respectable things. Shakespeare wrote 26 sonnets about a woman, but 126 sonnets about a man called “Fair Lord”, and looking through the lens of western society, many speculate that Shakespeare was bisexual or homosexual, but there isn’t anything describing sexual acts between them. In fact sodomy was a crime in Shakespeare’s time, but it was still socially acceptable to have relationships such as his. Elizabethans tended to write about friendships in more intense languages than today as well.

Western culture has all but stigmatized close same sex relations. People are forced into roles or risk exile. What we see now as the gay pride movement is actually a backlash to this isolation and repression. When you isolate a bunch of people together, they naturally will form a group against their suppressors. There is nothing wrong with the man who desires close contact and deep relationship with another man, regardless of sexual intent. Western culture has in essence created homosexuality, and consequently heterosexuality where previously no such things existed. Homosexuals and heterosexuals as we know it today are not what we define them to be. Certainly the words came into use from a basis, but have been taken to mean something they do not. A homosexual is not a man who desires a deep companion relationship with another man (though it does not preclude this desire) but rather a man who experiences sexual arousal from other men. It is biologically instinctual in some to desire other men, regardless of sexual intent, and what society has constructed homosexuality to be is clearly problematic.

We need to be careful in what we deem homosexual, two men holding hands isn't gay, desiring to be with another man in such a deep fashion is no homosexual either. There is no sexuality associated with those acts, rather it is the explicit intent to want sexual bonds with other men that is homosexual. This repression of one’s innate desire to connect to humanity in their own preferred way only leads to negative consequences: hurt, confusion, and rebellion. In a western society, there are men who experience desires for other men who do not know what to do with themselves. They are caught in a purgatory between homosexuality and heterosexuality, but clearly if this need for companionship is nonsexual, it cannot be homosexual. Desires for the same sex should not be confused with homosexual desires.

In short, this process of heterosexualization in western culture needs to be reversed. Men should not be defined by their basic innate desires for intimacy which all people possess. The homosexual man is no less of a man than the heterosexual one, nor is the man who expresses desire of relationship without sexual intent any less masculine than the man who wants female attention all the time. There is an exclusion of people deemed inferior, where in actuality no such thing as the better person exists. I find it funny the phrase how the phrase "No homo" has worked itself into society as a way of expressing male desire for other men other than that of homosexuality. The two are distinct, but western culture has deemed both platonic and sexual love to be homosexuality. This needs to be reconciled if we are to make advancements in this view of human sexuality.

If you meet a Buddha, Kill a Buddha: Crucifixion

Instead of being bored, I decided to take a page out of Professor Raposa's book (literally) and reflect on spiritual things. I've been reading Living Buddha, Living Christ and have found some really interesting ideas in it which I preceded to think about. This probably isn't pure philosophy, and may border on theology. I could probably write a book on the exact same subject, but with my leanings on the Christ side. Let me point out my standpoint is that of a practicing follower of Christ, not Buddhist. However, I think Buddhism can give us a new language to describe the things in the Bible in a new light which can garner deeper understanding.

Some initial points from the book:

God cannot be constrained to a concept or word.
God can only be experienced personally.

If God could be constrained withing the limits of man, we would get Jesus Christ. Jesus is an image of the Father in a way we could understand concretely. God the Father must be greater than the man Jesus, for "No servant is greater than his Master" (John 13:16) This is interesting since Jesus himself makes claims to be the Father, so what does it mean to be greater?

God is nothing, and out of Him came everything.
Perhaps to make it clear what I mean by nothing, it is that which cannot be thought about or described, but only experienced. God is Love, God is Just, God is Gracious and Merciful, God is Nothing, all things which must be experienced to truly understand their meaning. I am not saying God doesn't exist (that is his very nature, "I am" is the simplest expression of existence), rather I am examing the complex fusion of nothingness and somethingness. Like the space between the nucleus and an electron cloud, or the space between the planets. It's definitely there, it exists. This idea that "God is nothing, and out of Him came everything" can be accounted for by both the Big Bang and Genesis accounts of a sort of creation ex nihilo. In order for God to have existed pre-Big Bang, He must have been the emptiness or nothingness beforehand. If we know then that the universe is expanding into this infinite nothingness, than it gives a sort of a Panentheistic worldview. God is the nothingness which contains the universe (the non-nothingness). And perhaps then there are other universes outside ours in his infinite nothingness that we know nothing about. The New Testament makes references to kingdoms and "sheep" (John 10:16) we know nothing about, perhaps it references this. Perhaps we will never see these other kingdoms.

Also if I take into account that God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived, and how the New Testament emphasizes that greatness in the Kingdom of God means to become the least, in order for God in His kingdom to be the greatest, he must be the least. Nothing is less than nothing. Greatness would come from a lack of Self, and thus a lack of Self Awareness. God made Adam and Eve in his image, and you could argue that they had no concept of Self apart from God, that Adam and Eve knew they were the same because they came from the same source (the Rib and ultimately God). It wasn't until they ate the fruit that they became self-aware of their nakedness, and instantly felt shame. Perhaps we were not made to have concepts of our self (Identity, worth, purpose) apart from God.

For God's to be nothing, it gives Him a wild, untamed and unknown nature. He is unpredictable to us, and His ways are not understood by us and could probably look evil at times, but He is benevolent, if what we've seen Jesus to be is actually true. Jesus could not save everyone until He was free of his physical body. His death, and subsequent transition into "nothingness", gave him power to conquer death for others as well. He is now seated at the right hand of the Father, akin in nothingness and greatness. Only Jesus knew the Father, who is unknowable and cannot be thought about, because Jesus experienced the Father in Him, and Him in the Father. He needed no mental concept of God. The ultimate goal is to be close to God, and you can't get any closer than to be in Him and Him in you, to be one. It seems then, to be one with God, one must give up all concepts of the self and of God, because even they divide and separate us from God in our minds. That is sin by it's very definition, an act which separates us from God. Then through this, we all live in sin everyday by asserting our individuality. Perhaps the Buddhists have stumbled onto some truth. Humility becomes the crowning achievement. Humility achieved by seeing that there is nothing outside the self, and nothing within. We are made from the same stuff as rocks and trees, apes and insects. We all have the same Creator. Perhaps we need to take care of the things we have instad of worrying about what we don't? In order to become closer to God, we must see Him in every aspect of our lives so that he may be experienced in the fullest extent. So that He can walk with us in the Garden again. There can be no faith without practice and the experience of God.

Now, the implications of this is essentially we could all be like Jesus. Only Jesus did it perfectly, but since Jesus was human as well, it can be attained by humans. We see some of the apostles even doing some of the things Jesus did, so you don't need divine birth. Just faith, pure unabiding faith. I think that makes sense when Christianity is boiled down to where it came from, to follow in the footsteps of Christ. The first followers literally did that as Jesus set an example for them. To experience ultimate reality ourselves, we must live like Jesus. I think there is where Christianity can learn from Buddhism. Of course I hold that Buddhists can learn that Jesus is the true savior, an enlightened being like no other, but I might be biased. Buddhism centered around Jesus could be called Christianity.

Of Lions and Lambs?

This is the inaugural post of the blog, "Of Lions and Lambs". To explain the title, you may have heard in the saying "March comes in like a lion, and out like a lamb", which happens to be my birth month, and a month of great change. It is also a reference to Steinbeck's "Of Mice and Men", which took it's title from Robert Burn's poem To a Mouse, often quoted as "The best-laid plans of mice and men/often go awry." It was a book trying to make sense of human nature. Lastly, the Lion of Judah and the Lamb of God are both names for Jesus Christ, probably the most influential teacher in Western culture (whether or not you believe he was the Son of God). So in summary, this blog is about three things:

• Personal Changes
• Making sense of humanity (Psychology if you will)
• Jesus Christ