Book 2 - Intro (2 of 3) - Going Forward

GOING FORWARD (a few notes)

(1) While I have read and found life-changing inspiration in much non-Christian spiritual literature and find tremendous value in the discoveries of modern science, my personal background is the Catholic, Christian spiritual tradition. As a result I reference the Christian tradition, and to a lesser extent Buddhism, more frequently than other traditions. This is a reflection of my personal context and does not indicate a belief that the Christian or Buddhist spiritual traditions are superior to other traditions. If I had to name the superior wisdom tradition, I would say it is whichever tradition leads an individual to find contentment while challenging that person to be aware of and responsive to his or her hurting sisters and brothers. I believe most of our faith and wisdom traditions have the capacity to inspire adherents to live just and peaceful lives.

In spite of my limitations, this reflection will try to demonstrate the universal character of the call to, as described by an interreligious ethical statement titled the Charter for Compassion, “dethrone ourselves from the center of our world.” Initiated by Karen Armstrong, a British spiritual writer, the Charter testifies to the widespread agreement on ethical ideals. It affirms that “the principle of compassion lies at the heart of all religious, ethical, and spiritual traditions, calling us always to treat all others as we wish to be treated ourselves.” It further invites everyone “to restore compassion to the center of morality and religion.”

(If my limitations prevent me from demonstrating the universal quality of this vision, I hope readers from traditions with which I am not as familiar will share relevant quotes and teachings from their own tradition.)

(2) I also ask you to read this book critically. It is a part of my own ongoing journey. I spend considerable time thinking about this journey and, admittedly, some time trying to escape my thoughts. I believe these thoughts may have value to the reader. It is critical for humans to recognize that seven billion people cannot live peacefully together if all of them believe that they are the center of the universe and orient their lives primarily toward their own interests, especially considering that the apparent interests of different people are often in conflict.

I recognize that I have blind spots; therefore, I ask readers to decide whether they feel my observations are true rather than assuming that because the thoughts are in print they must all be correct. The insights of this book are the results of engaging and wrestling with the wisdom of various influential thinkers as well as the thoughts of friends, family, and students. I hope to refine these thoughts in a continued conversation with the reader.

(3) In advance I acknowledge that I frequently incorporate quotes. While I have great admiration for many of the cited thinkers, the quotes are not incorporated to invoke the thinker’s authority or “name-drop.” Though I have never met any of these people, I have vicariously experienced many of them as friends, companions, and teachers who have inspired, sup-ported, and encouraged me on my journey. Their thoughts are included to give them credit for insights they have helped me to experience. They also express important ideas more effectively than I can. The inclusion of their words is an invitation for you to engage an idea and make judgments about the value of the thinker’s observation for your journey. The exception to this point is that sometimes these quotes are incorporated to show that many of these ideas transcend religion, culture, and era. The universal nature of these insights at least encourages us to seriously consider their validity.

(4) I have chosen not to capitalize god in this reflection. I feel that everyone’s perspective of god, truth, and/or mystery is unique and limited. The story of the blind men and the elephant is a good reminder of our limited ability to convey reality. It tells of six blind men whose curiosity leads them to seek out an elephant. Each of the blind men runs into a different part of the same elephant and then defines the elephant based on his limited perspective. The one who runs into the leg assumes the elephant is a tree. The man who feels the ear believes an elephant is a fan. The men who encounter the tail, trunk, tusk, and side of the elephant, respectively, understand the elephant as a rope, snake, spear, and wall. The blind men eventually argue with one another, convinced that their limited experience represents the total reality of the elephant. The story reminds us that we see most clearly when we recognize our perspective’s limitations and encounter the world with humility, as a mystery, rather than with pride, as a reality that we define. St. Augustine encouraged humility regarding god when he suggested, “If you have understood, then it is not God.” The Jewish custom of not using a name for god recognizes that in naming we claim ownership and might lose sight of the fact that we are ultimately talking about a mystery that is beyond words.

If there is a creator god of this inconceivably vast universe, it is difficult to believe that it would care whether its name is capitalized or not. Honoring a god makes much more sense in the context of a well-lived life. If a god is the source of this universe, then all is sacred, and we ought to live with a sense of awe and wonder.

I do not believe that experiencing the universe with awe and wonder is exclusively the prerogative of the believer. Albert Einstein, who described himself as an agnostic, affirmed:

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He, to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed."

The real challenge, whether one believes in a god or not, is learning to live reverently.

I understand that monotheistic traditions often use god as a proper noun, but I want to avoid an insinuation that any one religion’s “god” is more valid than other gods. It is not the aim of this book to endorse a specific faith’s god or even the belief in god; this is a book about the suffering that results, personally and socially, from acting and thinking as though we are god.

(5) Finally, this is an idealistic reflection. Idealism does not always come easily for me, but I believe it is a more sensible choice than status quo thinking. What is popularly assumed to be practical, realistic thinking has led us into war after war. It has validated great injustices and abuses in our history. If we don’t believe that we, as a species, can do better, we doom ourselves to a continuation of violence, oppression, exploitation, and alienation. We might think that practical, realistic thinking works just fine, but this assessment is often a result of the tendency to hide the negative aspects of our society and world. While we celebrate the fact that we abolished slavery 150 years ago, our current economy is seemingly indifferent to the fact that there are more people in slavery today than during the era of legal slavery. We do not even consider whether we bare any responsibility for the slaves who harvest our seafood, sugar, cocoa, or produce. Such a consideration seemingly does not have a place in “realistic” thinking. If we wish to live in a world where life is valued, we must acknowledge the various lives that are ignored, forgotten, and hidden. Then, we must be willing to change the thinking that requires us to ignore the widespread suffering of our brothers and sisters. At the risk of being labeled an optimist or an idealist, I choose to believe that we can do a better job as individuals and societies of respecting each other, even if that requires thinking a little differently than the norm.