Topic by Surya
This week, we had the sad news here of the demise of William Safire. We have come to a point where in general we don't hold TV or Print 'pundits' in high regard - and they appear to have become spouters of empty opinion.
William Safire was an original. He wrote an opinion column in the NY times for 20+ years and was always fresh, entertaining, learned and insightful. Plus he also wrote a column on the English language in the NY Times magazine every sunday.
In this week's Economist there is an obituary on William Safire, which I think is one of the best obituaries I have read - not just about the man, but they channeled how he would have written it. It was funny, touching and unique - just like Safire. He will be missed.
http://www.economist.com/obituary/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14539483
As my own tribute to William Safire, I thought I would indulge in word play in my entry this weekend:
On the Other Hand
----------------------
There are many dictums that we accumulate over our lives and don't necessarily follow them. But something goes wrong, we might say that to ourselves. Say for example someone wronged us - we might say 'we reap what we sow'.
But it occurs to me that there are a some that contradict each other and thus rendering us a bit helpless facing the world.
Here are some examples.
1. Ignorance is bliss - on the other hand - The unexamined life is not worth living
2. Look before you leap - on the other hand - Be spontaneous.
3. You reap what you sow - on the other hand - No pain no gain.
4. Do unto others as you have them do unto you - on the other hand - It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.
5. Absence makes the heart grow fonder - on the other hand - Familiarity breeds contempt
Well, at least the last one is not a contradiction, but rather a re-inforcement of the message.
This brings to mind the difference between law and a rationalization.
A rationalization it occurs to me is explaining after the fact. And these can accommodate contradictions.
A law can predict. Thus if we conclude that F=M*A. Then we can say what will happen. Although even this could break down out of context. Meaning for example Newtonian laws break down in quantum realms.
To keep with the theme of the recent discussion thread of Armstrong vs Dawkins, (and I should not be saying this!), but,
Is religion rationalization of the world and science explanation of the world?
Responses
Venkat
On the other hand, I might argue that they are all not that contradictory. But I skip those dictums and go to the main point. That is a great poser at the end. And I think you have the answer in your message itself (is that the idea!). For the purpose of this response, can I equate religion to spiritual attainment?
Newtonian laws does not only breakdown in quantum realms, but with the advent of Einstein’s findings, Newtonian laws needed rationalization! So a new big theory arrives, questions an old one, and then absorbs it as a limited perspective explanation. In the big spiritual finding, when we can get to one, the theory of relativity (and other big ones that followed) in itself would be a rationalization - as a subset. Just as we have not managed to comprehend Relativity fully, but its mathematical models and application have been beyond doubt, the same will be the case with any ultimate revelation. Only that ultimate law will be difficult to comprehend to anyone other than the individual who had the revelation.
So my point is, explanations holding at one plane might have to be rationalized in another plane where the dimensions expand.
In the end, I am not sure whether I have rationalized my explanation! Does not matter, in that case I just end up at the religious end rather than scientific.
Surya
You have very nicely anticipated a final turn I was hoping to making on these jugal-bandi discussions.
We had started off in September with a discussion of Science and Religion courtesy of Dawkins and Armstrong. We then moved to a interesting give and take on State/Power and Religion by talking about Henry III, Henry VIII and Mughals and South Indian Kings as well.
Another turn was Art and Religion.
We moved then on to _ _ _ and Religion (with the help of humor nonetheless). Bala also threw in Region and _ _ _. But there is a relevant point to be made around Region and Religion too.
Then you and Swarna added a very interesting turn with Time and Religion (through a puzzle).
There is a factorial combination of topics and discussions we can have with the subjects above.
But as you have finely anticipated, lets make a turn into Religion and Spirituality.
I'd like to take this topic on, through a series of statements (which perhaps lead to a conclusion).
Statement #1: Spirituality and Religion may overlap but are not the same.
It occurs to me that a commonsense notion is to consider both to be the same. Or perhaps as two concentric circles, with Spirituality in the core and religion sorrounding it. i.e to assert that Spirituality is the foundation of Religion.
Perhaps instead one could suggest that it is more a venn diagram. i.e. Spirituality is one circle. Religion is another circle and the two (happen to) overlap.
Statement #2: Other disciplines and Spirituality may overlap as well.
I could be an artist and be spiritual, and not have performed a single religious ritual.
So in other words Art and Spirituality can be a venn diagram as well.
If you read Spinoza (as Srini has indicated he has in the past through William Durant's book), the God of Spinoza is unlike the God one imagines - it is more around the topic of harmony than anything else.
Statement #3: Religion is anchored more by culture/region and human affairs than is spirituality
To manage a church or a temple involves administrative affairs (recruiting priests, training priests, disciplining priests, paying priests etc).
Spirituality appears to be free of any anchor.
One can be Jewish culturally for example, but not religious - as I speculate Einstein was. (He was more in the Spinoza school of thought).
Statement #4: While all jugal bandis can be interesting a jugal bandi that includes spirituality might be truly worthy.
Where I am going with this last statement, is that indeed our entire September set of Jugal Bandi's were Religion and another topic.
But by ending with Religion and Spirituality, we have opened the door to the notion that these are two separate schemas as it were.
And that we can indeed separate the two and pursue new jugal bandis without religion (or science!) that still pursue the central questions of life and existence.
Venkat
The last piece was a fitting finale. Even though I would have liked to respond in a detailed narration, this is what the thoughts come down to;
· That Religion and Spirituality merely happen to intersect seems a ridiculous thought at the outset, but even a brief contemplation makes one wonder why this has not been so obvious previously.
· How do we define spirituality? Could we say it is a higher experience beyond basic sensory pleasure?
· Your example of an Artist being spiritual without being religious is a perfect example I think. I am imagining a Violinist finding oneness with his rendition elevating the audience too in the process.
· Spinoza – already responded in earlier message.
· Religion is anchored more in culture than in spirituality: Agree. Society in the broadest sense. And if we are speaking religion as a practice rather than philosophy.
· May I throw open another question? What about God and Spirituality? And what about the Religion-Spirituality-God intersection/overlapping? Again, religion as a philosophy or practice would bring another dimension to this question.
· God has been central to the religion in the west. But not in India! Buddhism and Jainism for instance originally were agnostic and some others were even atheistic.
· But today’s religion (as a practice) in India has God(s) at its centre. Read God as deities in this sentence but not in the next.
· Where did I read this statement: “the purpose of religion has been to keep one away from God”.
William Safire was an original. He wrote an opinion column in the NY times for 20+ years and was always fresh, entertaining, learned and insightful. Plus he also wrote a column on the English language in the NY Times magazine every sunday.
In this week's Economist there is an obituary on William Safire, which I think is one of the best obituaries I have read - not just about the man, but they channeled how he would have written it. It was funny, touching and unique - just like Safire. He will be missed.
http://www.economist.com/obituary/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14539483
As my own tribute to William Safire, I thought I would indulge in word play in my entry this weekend:
On the Other Hand
----------------------
There are many dictums that we accumulate over our lives and don't necessarily follow them. But something goes wrong, we might say that to ourselves. Say for example someone wronged us - we might say 'we reap what we sow'.
But it occurs to me that there are a some that contradict each other and thus rendering us a bit helpless facing the world.
Here are some examples.
1. Ignorance is bliss - on the other hand - The unexamined life is not worth living
2. Look before you leap - on the other hand - Be spontaneous.
3. You reap what you sow - on the other hand - No pain no gain.
4. Do unto others as you have them do unto you - on the other hand - It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.
5. Absence makes the heart grow fonder - on the other hand - Familiarity breeds contempt
Well, at least the last one is not a contradiction, but rather a re-inforcement of the message.
This brings to mind the difference between law and a rationalization.
A rationalization it occurs to me is explaining after the fact. And these can accommodate contradictions.
A law can predict. Thus if we conclude that F=M*A. Then we can say what will happen. Although even this could break down out of context. Meaning for example Newtonian laws break down in quantum realms.
To keep with the theme of the recent discussion thread of Armstrong vs Dawkins, (and I should not be saying this!), but,
Is religion rationalization of the world and science explanation of the world?
Responses
Venkat
Newtonian laws does not only breakdown in quantum realms, but with the advent of Einstein’s findings, Newtonian laws needed rationalization! So a new big theory arrives, questions an old one, and then absorbs it as a limited perspective explanation. In the big spiritual finding, when we can get to one, the theory of relativity (and other big ones that followed) in itself would be a rationalization - as a subset. Just as we have not managed to comprehend Relativity fully, but its mathematical models and application have been beyond doubt, the same will be the case with any ultimate revelation. Only that ultimate law will be difficult to comprehend to anyone other than the individual who had the revelation.
So my point is, explanations holding at one plane might have to be rationalized in another plane where the dimensions expand.
In the end, I am not sure whether I have rationalized my explanation! Does not matter, in that case I just end up at the religious end rather than scientific.
Surya
You have very nicely anticipated a final turn I was hoping to making on these jugal-bandi discussions.
We had started off in September with a discussion of Science and Religion courtesy of Dawkins and Armstrong. We then moved to a interesting give and take on State/Power and Religion by talking about Henry III, Henry VIII and Mughals and South Indian Kings as well.
Another turn was Art and Religion.
We moved then on to _ _ _ and Religion (with the help of humor nonetheless). Bala also threw in Region and _ _ _. But there is a relevant point to be made around Region and Religion too.
Then you and Swarna added a very interesting turn with Time and Religion (through a puzzle).
There is a factorial combination of topics and discussions we can have with the subjects above.
But as you have finely anticipated, lets make a turn into Religion and Spirituality.
I'd like to take this topic on, through a series of statements (which perhaps lead to a conclusion).
Statement #1: Spirituality and Religion may overlap but are not the same.
It occurs to me that a commonsense notion is to consider both to be the same. Or perhaps as two concentric circles, with Spirituality in the core and religion sorrounding it. i.e to assert that Spirituality is the foundation of Religion.
Perhaps instead one could suggest that it is more a venn diagram. i.e. Spirituality is one circle. Religion is another circle and the two (happen to) overlap.
Statement #2: Other disciplines and Spirituality may overlap as well.
I could be an artist and be spiritual, and not have performed a single religious ritual.
So in other words Art and Spirituality can be a venn diagram as well.
If you read Spinoza (as Srini has indicated he has in the past through William Durant's book), the God of Spinoza is unlike the God one imagines - it is more around the topic of harmony than anything else.
Statement #3: Religion is anchored more by culture/region and human affairs than is spirituality
To manage a church or a temple involves administrative affairs (recruiting priests, training priests, disciplining priests, paying priests etc).
Spirituality appears to be free of any anchor.
One can be Jewish culturally for example, but not religious - as I speculate Einstein was. (He was more in the Spinoza school of thought).
Statement #4: While all jugal bandis can be interesting a jugal bandi that includes spirituality might be truly worthy.
Where I am going with this last statement, is that indeed our entire September set of Jugal Bandi's were Religion and another topic.
But by ending with Religion and Spirituality, we have opened the door to the notion that these are two separate schemas as it were.
And that we can indeed separate the two and pursue new jugal bandis without religion (or science!) that still pursue the central questions of life and existence.
Venkat
The last piece was a fitting finale. Even though I would have liked to respond in a detailed narration, this is what the thoughts come down to;
· That Religion and Spirituality merely happen to intersect seems a ridiculous thought at the outset, but even a brief contemplation makes one wonder why this has not been so obvious previously.
· How do we define spirituality? Could we say it is a higher experience beyond basic sensory pleasure?
· Your example of an Artist being spiritual without being religious is a perfect example I think. I am imagining a Violinist finding oneness with his rendition elevating the audience too in the process.
· Spinoza – already responded in earlier message.
· Religion is anchored more in culture than in spirituality: Agree. Society in the broadest sense. And if we are speaking religion as a practice rather than philosophy.
· May I throw open another question? What about God and Spirituality? And what about the Religion-Spirituality-God intersection/overlapping? Again, religion as a philosophy or practice would bring another dimension to this question.
· God has been central to the religion in the west. But not in India! Buddhism and Jainism for instance originally were agnostic and some others were even atheistic.
· But today’s religion (as a practice) in India has God(s) at its centre. Read God as deities in this sentence but not in the next.
· Where did I read this statement: “the purpose of religion has been to keep one away from God”.