The Upanishads, Ramana Maharshi, & Shankara

I'm going to start with Ramana Maharshi because that reading was the only one that resonated with me. I impressed with the simplicity and truth of the essay, as well as its lack of pithy clichés. I found the sentence “All religions have come into existence because people want something elaborate and attractive and puzzling” to be particular valid. His assertion that “only mature minds can grasp the simple truth in all its nakedness” goes right to the heart of the problem with varying religious doctrine. Humans seem to require that their belief system contains a complex set of rules, a convoluted and far-fetched tale and a charismatic leader. Ramana Maharshi simply states that “Nobody doubts that he exists, though he may doubt the existence of God. If he finds out the truth about himself and discovers his own source, this is all that is required.” Beautiful.

Shankara is similar in its position that a simple approach to self-enlightenment is all that is required for “bliss”. However, too many of the proclamations of this essay seem like an over-simplification of the world and the nature of humans. “A child plays with his toys, forgetting even hunger and physical pain.” Hmm. No child of mine ever did that. The knower of Brahman also “gets his food easily by begging alms…”, evidently unbothered by the fact that someone has to actually earn alms so as to have them to give to him. It’s a naive, rather myopic position to take that by eschewing all material things we can achieve perfection and as such, in my opinion, provides little in the way of true insight and enlightenment.

Finally, I will comment on the Upanishads. Or more accurately, I will start by commenting on Mitchell’s introduction to this reading regarding the first four lines (That is perfect…). The statement that this piece of work is the “epitome of all spiritual teaching, a sword to cut through the Gordian knot of theodicy” is such an over-statement that it is hard to know where to begin. I suppose it can be taken as an example of the teleological argument for the existence of god. That argument is one that can rather easily be refuted, however. I guess as a saying for a fortune cookie or a nice wall plaque it works, but as a serious theological explanation it fails, in my opinion, to offer anything in the way of insightful and clarifying edification.

Response to SA-GO-YE-WAT-HA essay:

While I admire the well-worded, gentle response the chief gave to the small-minded, unpleasant carrier of "god's message", it really is just another example of one "team" defending their deity against another. Neither has any evidence to back up their claims, neither is willing to give up their beliefs and join the other "team", but given the opportunity each will make the effort to present their case for why they've got the correct "map to heaven". Even though Sa-Go-Ye-Wat-Ha states that "We don't want to destroy your religion or to take it from you. We only want to enjoy our own." There follows a thinly veiled criticism of the white man's religion. Once again, an example of why religion is and always has been the single most devisive invention of humankind.

Response to Chief Seattle reading

At the beginning of this reading Stephen Mitchell asked the question, "Can any decent white American read this speech without great shame?" My answer is, of course I can.

My maternal ancestors were driven from the Ukraine in the early 1900's, many of my paternal ancestors were starved to death during the potato famine in Ireland that was orchestrated and perpetuated by the British. In short, there is no lack of examples of human cruelty, no particular culture that has escaped being persecuted or has in turn done the deed themselves. As a species we have a rich history of preying on the weaker cultures around us and seizing their assets when the opportunity presents itself. Is this an admirable trait? Of course not, but to attempt to illicit feelings of "shame" for the actions of a group of settlers whose existence over two hundred years ago bears little or no resemblance to modern readers is spurious.

There are plenty of current situations around the globe where people are being treated abominably and yet we are not asked to feel shame, in fact most people often simply read the headlines (if they even bother to read a newspaper at all) and then go about their day. Last week five women were buried alive in Pakistan in a so-called "honor killing". This practice was actually defended by a member of the Pakistani parliament as part of the religion and culture of the people, and therefore should be considered acceptable. Literally thousands of women die horrible deaths every year because of these ancient and reprehensible practices. Where are the calls of shame for them?

My point is this: humans are opportunistic and cruel. Furthermore, they often hide behind the guise of religion to sanctify their actions. It is a time-honored trait of our species. There was no more, or no less shame in the actions of the settlers of the United States than there are in the multitudes of crimes we perpetrate against one another today.