- More Writing Assignments ...

- what follows is an assignment handed in, Wednesday; 10/14/09

both posts, from yesterday (10/13/09), and today are expamples

of the work I've been doing for school, not meant to be fun reading

by any stretch of the imagination, hope it's at least, "me' ...

Polytheistic vs. Monotheistic

An Opinion of the Hindu Religious Tradition

Is Hinduism polytheistic or monotheistic? I don’t know that that there is a short answer to this question. While it is certainly true that I have a great deal to learn about the Hindu tradition, the few short chapters we have studied thus far lead me to believe that this Religious Tradition, and it’s rituals are as vast as those people that practice it. Something that jumps out at me is the idea of one person as the representative of an entire faith, dictating theology, and making finite decisions that govern practice & worship tradition. In my opinion, this is the very point that makes the Hindu Tradition as rich and varied as it has become. The tradition has survived with no one individual, wholly in governance over it. As various, and sundry are the needs of its people, so have become the distinctives that define it as a Religion.

In The Rig Veda we’ve met Agni, Indra, Soma, Vishnu, and Rudra, just to name a few. These are Gods of fire and sacrifice, The King of the Gods, Gods of asceticism and minor Gods who at the very least, are relatives at best! When trying to answer the question, one might be tempted to look to this part of Hinduism’s history and refer to the Gods of the Rig Veda, as the end all, be all answer. I think this would amount to selling this vast tradition short. From the Upanishads we learn of the law of Karma, Reincarnation, and that the cycle of birth, death and re-birth is to be regarded as some sort of tortuous existence. The Laws of Manu give us a path to follow, that eventually lead to a oneness with Brahman, or the Truth. In the Epics we see the Gods coming to the rescue of earth bound creatures, saving us from ourselves, and our fallen humanity. Through the Puranic texts, the Gods Visnu, Shiva and Brahma take on a hierarchy, and whether you follow Shiva or Visnu, by this time one of them is in charge of it all.

My own experience leads me to compare this tradition with the one that I know best, Christianity. In my forty years, I’ve had some very difficult dealings with organized Religious Tradition, and have come to regard much of it as corrupt in every way. To see something as free to interpretation, as The Hindu Tradition seems to be, is refreshing to say the least. In The Christian Tradition we have a monotheistic faith that recognizes God in three forms, “The Holy Trinity”. Yet one could argue that the Catholic Christians’ have raised Christ’s mother Mary to the level of deity, or that the “Saints”, as appointed by the Vatican, are raised to the level of deity. Good grief, I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention those childhood memories where I witnessed members of my parish praying at the feet of a statue of Joseph, so much for no Idol worship!

In any light, if the Christian Tradition is monotheistic, by definition, then how can I, as a lifelong practitioner of this faith, in one form or the other, recognize the Hindu Tradition as anything less? Conversely, having witnessed the practices of those Christians I’ve seen, over forty years, how do I define one tradition as polytheistic and not the other? Hopefully I’ve not led you too far off course, and by this point you can see my dilemma. To answer the question I would have to refer back to my original point, that being the people who practice Hinduism as a tradition. Thus the question is posed, is Hinduism polytheistic or monotheistic? Through its history, it seems that there has always been one truth. Be it Indra, the King of the Gods, defeating Vrtra and freeing the waters, or the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent Brahman. This one truth stays consistent throughout.

In this same way, it seems that each individual journey is one that leads to this same, cosmic, individual truth; therefore I would have to surmise that, while the number and history of the God’s in Hinduism would suggest a polytheistic tradition, it seems more likely that a monotheistic journey in faith is likely here. I arrive at this conclusion simply by recognizing that no one experience seems to be taken lightly. As was pointed out in lecture; there was no one person correcting the version of any given idea, or interpretation. Each new addition to the experience was accepted and eventually added to the tapestry. As problems arose, solutions were offered and accepted, as valuable. Whether you worship, Visnu, Shiva, Brahma, or a combination of the three, it seems like Brahman is the destination. I feel that if we’re looking for an answer to a monotheistic or polytheistic question, we need look no further than the Abrahamic Faiths of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. If a commonality links these three, than certainly, there is a commonality in the vast root system of the Hindu Tradition.

- if you made it this far, Thanks !!!

- Love, S.

- Informal Writing Assignment / Philosophy, Sept. '09 ...

- what follows is an assignment handed in on Friday, 10/09/09 ...

just so you can see where my efforts have been,

Nature vs. Nature
A comparison of Stoic and Epicurean Attitudes toward Nature

When one considers the Stoic view of nature one might encounter a blique, static view of the world and what it must be like to exist in it. “Nothing is of value except an attitude adapted to the natural organization of the cosmos”. (White, 1983) Conversely, the Epicurean idea seems upbeat, and positive especially when reading Epicurus own writings; “I recommend constant activity in the study of nature; and with this sort of activity more than any other I bring calm to my life”. (Epicurus, 1994) If we pause to understand that these individuals were not so much engaged in study, as they were expected to espouse these teachings as a way of living out their lives, we can now see how dreary the Stoic Philosophy was, by comparison.

Whereas one could see the Stoics view of nature as rigid and something to be accepted without condition, one might see the Epicurean view of nature as something attainable. The Epicureans would see the “swerve”, as a means to affect change in one’s life; nature’s opportunity to “spin the wheel”, while we would make the best of whatever spot it landed on. It almost seems that the Stoics were content to accept their station, while the Epicureans were willing to seize opportunities for improvement.

I would surmise that both the Stoics and the Epicureans saw Nature as Divine; that living according to Nature was as much as endeavoring to exist in harmony with one’s circumstances. To live outside of nature, in my estimation, would be all of those things that amount to agonizing over one’s station. The complaints we hear about finances, the complaints about people, and the constant dreariness over sickness & disease. The “woe is me”, that accompanies those who can find no positive thing about which to think or feel.

While I don’t feel this is the only instance for living outside of Nature, I thought it the most descriptive, and maybe the most familiar. From here we can draw comparisons, to many other instances. We can then plainly see the many instances for living according to nature, and see how in doing so, we’re not given to begrudging “The Gods”, and those things divine; for our circumstances. By grieving our station, and reeling against the cosmos, we find ourselves crest fallen, and bitter; whereas choosing to live according to Nature, we endeavor to accept, and embrace our lives, we find ourselves, neither high nor low, and quite harmonious with the world, if not the cosmos, therefore in harmony with the divine.

I would certainly be willing to accept the Stoic view of blind acceptance. Here we train ourselves to stare blankly at a fallen world, tolerant and patient, perpetually compliant, yet never really seizing upon any opportunity, and thus never risking failure. Acceptance doesn’t suggest I agree though. It’s certainly a valuable trait, but on its own suggests one miserable existence. “An uneducated person accuses others when he is doing badly; a partly educated person accuses himself, an educated person accuses neither someone else nor himself”. (Epictetus, 1983) For the purpose of this argument, I would have to lean toward the Epicurean view. At the very least, here there is the opportunity for change, and a strong sense of divine intervention. While they would undoubtedly look toward a plausible, “scientific” explanation for events happening around them, there was a divine sense about nature and those happenings. We were part of something bigger than us all.

In my experience, it is a far better thing to accept the things of “nature” happening around us. Raging, and reeling against the world around us is most assuredly an exercise in futility. At the same time not being able to adjust to change, can prove just as frustrating. Our world is a fast paced, ever changing, heartless, and cruel place. It has mercy for no one, failure to accept this, and prepare for change is a recipe for heartbreak. I’ve seen the truth in beauty in our world, sharing in the birth of my children; or sitting at the Table Rock Restaurant in Niagara Falls, Ontario. In both of these instances I was allowed to witness such strength, beauty, and the fragile nature of the cosmos, I found myself humbled to be sure.

On January 15’Th, 1997 I made the personal decision to refrain from drinking alcohol. I moved to St. Thomas in September of 1998, here I took up an employment opportunity with a heavy duty truck builder. During our tenure with the parent company, Freightliner, my colleagues & I built the Sterling Model truck. We were encouraged, and many of us successful, in our pursuits to learn as many aspects of the process as possible. I found myself as a painter, a welder, in assembly, and toward the end, in a Team Leader capacity. In each area, one could expect to meet innumerable people and as many personalities. As one might expect, each of these had different opinions. Too many to mention, are the times my wife and I were invited out for social occasions where drink flowed freely, far too many are the opinions I encountered, that told me drinking was perfectly safe, that I should just relax, and trust myself. Certainly, I agree that this practice is both healthy, and safe when done in moderation, and with the correct intentions, my wife has enjoyed many a cocktail, with little or no effect on her person. For me, the effects are very different. Experience counts for much!

I rely on experience in most things, at this point in my personal life; I find nothing else to be as reliable. As a forty year old, husband and father of four, I can attest to the fact that a stove requires time to cool before we approach it with a wash rag, experience counts for much! I’ve attended many a wedding, many a funeral, any number of birthday’s and family celebrations. One event stands out; that is a dear family friend whose parents celebrated a twenty-fifth anniversary. It was certainly a splendid affair, where food and drink flowed freely. As nature would have it, a number imbibed, some far too much. As has been my practice, for some thirteen years now, I chose to remain abstemious. There, in that very moment, I draw upon experience to seize the opportunities for change, to exist better in the world around me, and to better benefit those persons who’ve come to count on me, as husband, father, & friend. “Of the things which wisdom provides for the blessedness of one’s whole life, by far the greatest is the possession of friendship”. (Epicurus, 1994)

- get that into ya, eh !?

- Love, S.