La Vernia a simple town with simple problems

In La Vernia, I was never truly aware of suffering.  I had seen the news footage tsunami victims in Sri Lanka, was aware of starving kids in Africa and had seen the random homeless man trying to wash my car windows, but I had never actually been personally affecting by true suffering.  In La Vernia most people are well off, they have homes, clothes food.  This is not to say there aren’t people who are very poor, or that there are not other forms of suffering in La

 Vernia, but it is very easy to grow up without ever having to see it first hand. “Nobody teaches us to face suffering in this society. We never talk about it until we get hit in the face.” (Dass 52) This was the reason that my trip to China was such an eye opening experience.

One of the more mild pictures of survivors of the Sichuan earthquake-so much suffering

            I probably didn’t see the worst parts of China.  My sister in-law, who is Chinese, made sure that I ate at the best restaurants, went to the best malls where I got the best prices, rode taxis instead of public transit, when Dad came we stayed in the best hotels.  I know she just wanted us to have a great experience, but I could help but wonder if she also calculated a more than perfect trip, so we would have an idealistic positive impression of her homeland. Despite her best efforts, suffering could not be hidden.  The Sichuan earthquake had hit a few

 months earlier and thousands of people were killed or injured. As a result all along the street victims of the quake lay on the ground pleading for money.  I have never seen so much pain. Many of these people were not even recognizable as people, they were like blobs of skin and bone melting in the hot Cantonese sun.  I feel guilty, describing them with such little respect, but everything about there being oozed pain.  I felt in a way guilty, I could walk, speak, pick up food, eat, simple activities that many of these people could not do. I know it wasn’t my fault that they had suffered the quake and I hadn’t, but I still wondered why they had this horrendous misfortune, and I could like such a comfortable life.  Why is it that some suffer so much, while some suffer so little?

            This was only the beginning of my awareness of suffering.  My first semester of college, I was bombarded by more .  In OxFam I learned that the clothes and food I bought was only possible because some person had worked countless hours for pennies, in World Lit I learned how the beef I ate was beaten and abused, in my Voltaire’s Coffee I learned how the United States slaughtered innocent people for imperialistic means.  Everywhere I turned someone was in pain, someone was living in hell so I could enjoy a life of comfort.  How was this fair?

It is sobering to think that for Americans to live such a high standard of living, other must suffer.  Maybe Gandhi was right "Live Simply that other might simply live."

            I decided last semester that the only way to justify my lifestyle was to spend some chunk of my life aiding those less fortunate.  But “whom should I help anyway? Senior citizens, battered children, human-rights victims, whales? If we don’t defuse the nuclear threat, there’ll be no tomorrow. But if we don’t support education and the arts, what kind of tomorrow will it be?” (Dass 9) There is only so much of me and so many problems in the world, how can I make a difference?  What would be the best way to contribute without being burned out? “Sometimes the chance to care for another human being feels like such grace.  But later on, I’ll hear myself thinking, “hey what about me?”” (Doss 10) I thought that the best way to approach how to best help the world and how to do something that I would not be burned out on would be to better define myself.  However how does one define myself.  In American society normally our careers help provide this self identity, however as Dass points out this can be quite limiting. “Perhaps we recognize the predicament; we see the problem of always having to be “somebody.” So we decide to let it all go, become the model of humility, and aspire to the ideal of selflessness.” (Dass 28)  This is a really nice sentiment, however it doesn’t really help me plan my next steps in life.  I am all for making my existence more selfless, but how? If I said I wanted to help people through medicine I would have a clear path, I would become a doctor.  If I wanted to protect people’s rights, I could become a lawyer.  But again all these things have a clear path.  But at the end of the day “what’s left when they fall away? “Where’s the rest of me?”” (Dass 27)  But there is not clear path to becoming selfless.  So again I find myself lost.  I have no path.  I have vague goals, with no set way to achieve them, and I don’t know who I am…

Bum or Spiritually Enlightened?

            One of the great conflicts I have with eastern religions and my personal life is the renunciation of the world. When learning about asceticism, the though of leaving this crazy artificial world behind to find my inner self is so tempting.  I long to “listen to the divine voice in my heart.” (Hesse 72) I have great respect for renouncing the world.  I totally buy into the idea that greed and materialism is the root of suffering and that we should all simplify, simplify.  I can totally relate to Siddartha when he “saw mankind going through life like a child or animal that he both loved and despised at the same time.  He saw them toiling, suffering, and becoming gray-haired for the sake of things which seemed to him entirely unworthy of this price.” (Hesse 67)  But as much as I am bothered by samsara, getting trapped in the cycle, I don’t see any way out.

I feel that I am stuck on the wheel of Samsara, but how do I get out?

            The general ascetic approach to leaving the cycle is renunciation, or building up enough good karma until you can get to a life where you can renounce.  Renouncing the world means you must give up everything, that is the material world (house, car, most food, clothes, etc) but then also things like careers, friends, family (Side note I am not saying all eastern religions or people believe in renouncing these things, but that in cases like the Samanas in Siddhartha, they do).  As a westerner this concept is very difficult to jjjldfunderstand.  Much of our life is based off of not only materialism, but also family status and our careers.  “The strength of the West’s cultural spirit lies in its ability to push ahead indefinitely.  However there is no secure foundation underlying this feverish pursuit of progress.  Along with this pursuit of progress there is a feeling of discontentment and of emptiness.  In order to fill this emptiness, the individual and the nation constantly find new ways for progress and expansion.” (X 285)  I do feel that much of what defines me as a person is my skills and family connections, so while I would love to leave all of the materialistic crap, I don’t know if I could leave my family and career options.  That does seem very empty.  What would I be?  Of course there is the possibility that it is foolish of me to reduce myself to something like a career.  What does a career matter in the long run, after I am dead? If by refusing to focus on a career I could find true enlightenment wouldn’t that be more fulfilling?  Am I just thinking I am filling the void, when really I am just deluding myself?

How should I define myself?  Is a career enough, or do I need this kind of deep spirituality?

            The other problem I have with renouncing the world is the guilt I think I would have.  No matter how little it may be, I will undoubtedly consume part of the earth, so isn’t it my duty to give back, if not to my fellow man then to the world?  I find it amazing that those willing to give up the world don’t seem to struggle or worry about taking food from others and non repaying them.  Notice the following scene from Siddhartha:

            “ ‘For more than three years, I have been without possessions, and have never thought about what I should live on.’

            ‘So you’ve lived off the possessions of others’

            ‘I suppose that is so.  Even a merchant lives off what other people own.’

            “Well said.  But he wouldn’t take anything from another person for nothing; he would give his merchandise in return.’

            ‘Everyone takes, everyone gives, such if life.’

            ‘But allow me to ask: being without possessions, what would you life to give?’

             ‘I can think. I can wait.  I can fast.’” (Hesse 62)

Siddhartha goes on to explain how those traits help him, but never shows how they pay the rest of the world.  I have a friend, who since graduating high school, hasn’t really done a lot with his life.  He is really smart, but not motivated.  A couple months ago his family kicked him out of the house so he would have to get a job. My mom I being compassionate people are letting him stay in my room.  No while I don’t think he is going on a spiritual quest, he can most certainly think, wait and probably even fast, but that does not help pay for the food and energy he does inadvertently consume.  He would make a great Samana, because he has no problem depending on the generosity of others, without feeling a need to pay them back.  I don’t mean to sound stingy, but if everyone did this, nothing would get done.  Maybe we would have enlightened souls, but who would feed them?

I don't think I could ever be totally dependent on the charity of others

           I am not trying to stereotype these religions, or minimize their worth.  I really like the basic concepts, but don't know how I can effectively practice them and still hold on to certain western traditions I value. So where does this leave me?  I think perhaps I will try to start by purifying my mind using the techniques of Ahimsa presented in the readings. Trying practical methods to become less violent, but realizing that “Absolute Ahimsa is impossible…To practice that, you must avoid killing countless creatures while walking, sitting, eating, breathing, sleeping and drinking.” (X 227) I don’t think I am spiritually ready for the extreme devotional practices of eastern thought, however studying them has helped me reevaluate parts of my life I can improve upon, and who knows maybe one day I will be an ascetic. 

What is love?

What is love? I really tried to answer this question during our meditation to send love to one another.  Love is a term used frequently, perhaps even overused. In the play the Idiot by Dosteoevsky, the battle over different forms of love is constantly recurrent.  Many of the characters (Anastassya, Aglaya, and Parfyon) fall into this very personal and emotional state of love, where the character is completely devoted to a person, there sole being longs and desires for that person, they complete each other.  However all of this love conflicts with another form of love, compassionate love.  The play’s protagonist, The Prince, loves everyone, he wants nothing more than to help and care and end suffering for anyone he meets.  However this form of love does not easily coincide with devotional love.  The women, Anastassya and Aglaya, who fall in love with the Prince, can never deal with the fact that even he is married to them he does not love them anymore than any other person.

    

Here is the scene where Aglaya first falls in love with the Prince for his compassionate love.  I could only find the seen in Russian.

 In many ways I can relate myself to the Prince.  I believe I do love and feel and am compassionate for people.  However I don’t know if I have ever felt that completely devotional love for one person. All encompassing love can be a wonderful gift, one that I think Bump has been trying to culminate in this class all year, and yet as witnessed in The Idiot it can have terrible consequences.  In the play all the bonds and friendship are broken, destroyed and ruined, because the Prince is unable to commit, because he continuously tried to end suffering and yet no matter what he does suffering exists.

The Image of Buddha suffering

             Buddhism deals a lot with the truly compassionate being confronting suffering.  In Herman Hesse’s novel Siddhartha, the reader sees that Siddhartha is surrounded by the personal devotional love, and yet it was not satisfying.  Knowing that there was pain in the world, a truly compassionate soul could not be content with selfish love of two people. “He had started to feel like his father’s love, his mother’s love, and the love of his friend Govinda wouldn’t make him happy forever, wouldn’t bring him peace, satisfy him, and be sufficient for all time.” (Hesse 7)  And so Siddhartha must go on a quest to reconcile his compassionate love with the suffering of millions. On his journey Siddhartha read the great philosophies, meditated on the why’s and how’s and suffered with his fellow man and yet nothing he did gave him the truth.  Nothing explained how to reconcile true love for your fellow man with the pain you felt at his misfortune.  “Everything was a lie, everything stank, everything stank of lies, everything feigned meaning and happiness and beauty, and yet everything was decaying while nobody acknowledged the fact.  The world tasted bitter; life was agony.” (Hesse 16)  And so moves much of Buddhist philosophy, it is not easy to understand true pain for your fellow man.  So the only way to move past this pain, to achieve a peaceful state is to “become empty, to be empty of thirst, of wishing, of dreams—empty of all joy and pain…to no longer be an ‘I,’ to find peace with an empty heart.” (Hesse 16)

Perhaps suffering will never end, so what does a truly compassionate person do?

            I don’t plan on converting to Buddhism in the near future, but this whole idea of suffering and compassion has had a huge impact on my plans for the future.  I came to UT with the original idea of working for peace.  Traveling the world and trying to help people.  However my experiences, much like Buddha’s have been cushy.  I have never had to truly suffer, nor have I been surrounded by suffering.  Since I’ve entered college I have been exposed to all sorts of human suffering around the world and the great attempts to help it.  And yet despite people’s greatest efforts it still persists.  Life is always suffering.  So what is a truly compassionate person to do?  Is the lesson of love Bump is teaching, one that will only lead us to feel an overwhelming sense of futility for the pain of our fellow man? In Buddhism one must accept suffering, as a part of life.  That non-suffering during life is a delusion that one must see through and ignore.

            “I know Thee! Never shalt thou build again

                                                Thee walls of Pain,

            Nor Raise the Roof-Tree of deceits, nor lay

                                                Fresh rafters on the clay;

            Broken thy house is, and the rideg-pole split!

                                                Delusion Fashioned it!

            Safe Pass I thence—deliverance to obtain.”

                                                            (X 247)

Orientalism: A Taint of Grotesque Exageration

Asian cultures and religions fascinate me.  I have grown up dominated with Western concepts and ideas, that didn’t always makes sense to me, so Eastern philosophy has provided interesting alternatives to my previous conceptions of the world.  This semester I am taking two classes to teach me more about Asian ideas: Intro to China and Asian Religions.  In each of these classes along with my Theater History class when we were studying Japanese Noh and Sanskrit Theater, they warned us not to get in the common western trap of glorifying the East.  A common misconception among westerners is to take our frustrations with the West by developing a sentimental attachment to the East and not taking a realistic objective look at the subject.  “Oriental tender mercy has always been liable to this taint of grotesque exaggeration.” (251) I can’t help but think that this is what is happening in the Jainism and Ecology article.

It is too common that westerner glorify the east

The article uses the concept of ahimsa as a model for how modern society can deal with ecological problems.  I really agree with the idea that “Pollution, extinction of species, and destruction of forests and wild life are crimes against the earth and against humanity.  We have a moral obligation toward nonhuman creation.” (X 232)  And Gandhi’s use of the term ahimsa, “If I am a follower of ahimsa, I must love my enemy,” is what I state as the foundation for my own personal philosophy.  But from a scholarly standpoint it seems that the article misrepresents the Jains to make a point about compassion towards animals and plants.  The article states “There are thousands of pinjrapoles (animal refuges), organized and financed by Jains, in the towns and villages of Gujarat and Rajasthan, for the protection of helpless beasts and birds, whom even their owners forsake and who do not enjoy even the provision of drinking water.” (X 231)  I do not claim to be a Jain scholar, but from what I learned about Jainism in my Asian Religions class this information is misleading.  To a western audience it makes the Jains seem loving and compassionate, when in fact this isn’t entirely so.  In class we learned that Jainist’s main goal is to escape the cycle of reincarnation, and that reincarnation is caused by karma, both good and bad, so the idea of a Jain is not to create good karma, but to eliminate karma all together.  This is extremely difficult, of course, because every action creates karma, so it has created a sort of obsessive society in which every action is minimalized to reduce the amount of karma.  So while it is true that Jains don’t eat meat, try not to step on bugs or plants or anything alive and even go so far as to boil out the germs in their water so they won’t digest any of them, they do not act so out of compassion but fear that animal cruelty would give them karma.

Jainism is so devoted to eliminating Karma that some monks participate in a ritual called Sallekhana, that is no action at all (including eating) until you die 

 It is also deceiving to discuss these animal refuges that “assiduously promoted the protection of animals in the name of ahimsa,” because while they did protect the animals they did not offer any aid to the animals. “They are not hospitals in the true sense, for ailments are not treated, but simply refuges for halt, maimed, diseased, and blind creatures for whom nobody cares.” (X 250) In the video we watched in our class of a Jainist animal refuge all of the cows were in extreme pain, there legs were twisted and broken, many looked like they were starving and disease filled their eyes.  The Jainists believe that you should protect the animals, because killing them would bring bad karma, however you cannot really help the animals, because that would give you good karma which means you would remain in the cycle.  Gandhi, one of the greatest examples of non-violence got into serious trouble with the Jainist community because he shot a cow to end its suffering.  The Jains said that if the cow was suffering it was due to actions in a past life and that man should not interfere with karma.

Refuge is not a refuge from suffering

While I will probably take grief for this, I think Lockwood Kipling presents a more rational and accurate portrait of animal relationships in India.  As he notes “They are admirable points in the ritual respect for life….Village boys are not there seen stoning frogs or setting dogs at cats, nor tying kettles to dogs’ tails, and it has not been found necessary to forbid birdnesting by Act of Parliament.” (X250)  Kipling gives India a lot of credit, the West can learn a lot about respecting living things, violence should not be the first action.  However Kipling also presents them in a rational light.  There is violence in other parts of Indian culture.  Austyn criticized Kipling for misrepresenting sacrifices to the goddess Kali, but in fact Kali is a very violent goddess.  She has 8 arms, each carrying a weapon, her skirt is made from human arms and she wears a necklace made of human heads.  The point is that India is not a violent or lesser culture, but that it, like the west, like all cultures possess some good philosophies, but ones that must still be challenged and rationalized.

John Lockwood drawing of a cow in India

"Shooting a Turkey"

Have any of you been to Cabella’s?  It is one of the biggest outdoors stores in the country, and we are so fortunate to have one (thanks to Rick Perry’s tax breaks) right outside of Austin in Buda, Texas.  When reading Harriet Ritvo’s chapter “The Thrill of the Chase” from her book The Animal Estate, Cabella’s is what immediately came to mind.  Much like the British imperialists, Cabella’s displays stuffed animals from the around the globe, “rows of horns and hides, mounted heads and stuffed bodies, clearly alluded to the violent heroic underside of imperialism….The theme of conquest was implicitly expressed by the centerpiece of its natural history display: a tiger and a panther snarling at brightly colored tropical birds.  Big game trophies figured frequently in expositions celebrating commercial and industrial prowess.” (X 197)  “Each stuffed animal represented a bloody triumph in the field, an impression that might be enhanced by arrangements and backgrounds designed to suggest the animal’s native territory.” (X97)  Rednecks from all over come to look at these exotic creatures, imagining their own victory against the beast.  Undoubtedly Cabella’s uses these taxidermied treasures to rake in the cash, and every time I’ve been their it has been packed with visitors.  However the idea of Cabella’s always seemed absurd to me, not just because of the obvious exploitation of animal lives to make a profit, but because it never seemed to reflect the “outdoors” part of it’s title.  It tailored its products to hunters and outdoorsman and yet was clear capitalism, stuffed with materialism and cheesy gimmicks.  In my opinion it never really reflected the true atmosphere of natural experiences or even hunting.

So beautiful is should be shot!

The concept of hunting has been a constant battle my entire life.  I  always believe that killing was morally wrong, that men didn’t have the right kill an innocent creature for his twisted amusement. My father, however, was a devoted hunter. President of the San Antonio Chapter of the National Wild Turkey Federation, Dad was out every weekend during turkey season trying to call up the big gobbler.  I remember him dragging me to turkey banquets, where drunk hunters would bid on guided turkey hunts, turkey paintings, turkey sculptures, turkey guns, and turkey clothing, so that the organization could protect turkeys for future turkey hunters to shoot.  (If you never have been to a Turkey Banquet it is a cultural experience, imagine a ballroom, loaded with turkey merchandise, bar-b cue, guns, a turkey ice sculpture and everyone dressed in camouflage.) I couldn’t understand how my father could get so much enjoyment raising money to protect a bird, so that he could turn around and destroy it.  If he and all these other hunters loved the bird so much, why did they want to shoot it? For a long time Dad and I would argue about this, and he would always tell me “hunting was one of the closest relationships man had with nature and that the hunters were the ones who spent the time and energy to take care of mother earth.”  This was for a long time never satisfying, until I went on a hunt with my dad, brother, brother in-law and sister. 

It is hard describe what hunting is like, so the video helps, but I will do my best to paint the picture.  Imagine its 5 in the morning and the first rays of light are trickling over the horizon.  You and your pack are nestled down under an expansive oak tree, decked out in camo, invisible behind the shrubbery.  In the field expanded before you Henrietta the plastic decoy blows back in forth in the wind.  As the sun rises a little higher, your dad begins plucking the box call.  The world is silent accept for these sharp, staccato notes.  You sit there for maybe an hour, but it isn’t boring or dull, because all around you is the beauty of nature.  The grass glows from the rising sun, shapes of trees, flowers, bushes, insects and birds begin to form out of the shadow and if your lucky a fox or deer will dash across your field of vision.  It is not exciting or thrilling, you are relaxed in a meditative state, you are not a man, but part of nature and enjoying the oneness of life.  Your dad’s box call fugue rises and falls until all of a sudden a monstrous gobble thunders through the underbrush.  Then everyone snaps to attention.  The dance begins, the demure chirp of the call and the rattle of the gobble, back and forth echoing through the forest.  Finally you see him, a mighty Tom strutting through the underbrush, his tail fanned, chest puffed, iridescent feather reflecting the beauty of the morning and his bright cherry head bobbing up and down looking for his lusty lover. He sees Henrietta and puffs up, saying “Baby you lookin’ good!” Your dad whispers to aim the gun towards the turkey and get ready to fire.  You lower the gun, hand on the trigger, when all of the sudden Tom Turkey deflates, his sharp eyes have spotted movement and before you can fire he has flown off into the woods.

This is a typical hunt.  While Cabella’s and British Imperialist focus on the dead body, the hunter is more interested with the process.  The reward is experiencing the natural world, not the killing. The truth is, while we debate a good game about getting in touch with nature, it is the hunters who truly experience and do get in touch with nature. So it bothers me when Ritvo and Dana describe hunting as an example of man dominating and imperializing nature.  Hunting is the exact opposite.  It is hunting that allows many people to get more in touch with animals and nature.  In the Introduction to Reckoning with the Best, Turner admits that during the 17^th Century the British had little connection with animals, “but during the following century the social and moral status of animals began a slight but steady rise.  With the emergence of fox hunting and racing, the county gentleman’s horses and hounds became objects of pride, although they continue to receive their allowance of kicks and beatings.  The new enthusiasm for country life made people take a second look at animals, even if only as an element of the rural landscape, yearned for in the Horationa mode.” (X170C)

Notice the hunter submerged in natural architecture, while academics are pictured in man-made architecture

There are many ways that man flexes its power over the lesser being of the world.  As we have explored agriculture we have seen how raising animals is total domination of the beast for man’s desire of meat.  Exterminating pests from house is definitely a way man dominates and destroys animals.  Owning pets is man exerting his dominance over animals, as the only way for the pet to survive is benevolence of the master.  Man has put many animal pets at the mercy of people, and that is completely dominance.  And as far as imperialism of humanity go, I see no greater imperialism that the buildings we live, work and go to school in.  We are constantly using our intellect to recreate the environment for our own beneficial needs at great cost to the wild, native animals.  Hunting has none of these aspects of domination.  When you go hunting you and the animal are equal footing, who is smarter and stronger? Most of the time hunters never fall their prey, more than likely the animal is victorious.  Hunters are also putting themselves at risk for the good of the hunt, they are at the mercy of the weather, the land and other predators (like rattlesnakes), never really “dominant.”  Plus every hunter I have met has huge respect for the animal they are killing.  The goal is not to inflict pain, but to eliminate suffering, to make the death as quick and painless as possible. They do not want the animal to suffer like the elephant in George Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephants.” “He was dying, very slowly and in great agony.” (X223) A bullet to the head is perhaps one of the most painless ways a wild animal can die (certainly beats a coyote chomping on your leg or starvation from a drought.  Hunters also spend more money for natural conservation than any other group.  They have invested interest to protect the world and keep it for future generations.  Most hunters are not reckless, but educated men and women who try to make kills that keep the balance of the habitat and done in a responsible ethical way. 

So Hunting is Exploitive but Owning Pets isn't? These Dogs don't look Free and happy, although they do have those spiffy ribbons.

I still prefer to hunt with a camera instead of a gun, but I will defend the art of hunting, because I believe that relationship between predator and prey is one that will preserve respect and maintain the natural world.  When that bond dissolves, I believe that man will become more dominant over animals.  More land will consumed for infrastructure and more species will go instinct.  This bond between the consumed and the consumer is a beautiful relationship that connects us with nature and keeps us from destroying it.  As Robinson Jeffers describes in his poem The Vulture:

“But how beautiful he looked, gliding down

On those great sails; how beautiful he looked, veering

Away in the sea-light over the precipice.  I tell you solemnly

That I was sorry to have disappointed him.  To be eaten by that beak

And become part of him, share those wings and those eyes—

            What a sublime end of one’s body, what an enskyment;

                        What a life after death.” (X216)