Clay Hearts and Porcelain Words

28 05 2009

I thought I’d add some variety by writing some poetry. Enjoy.

There is a wandering homonculi
A man made of dust and clay
His eyes burn red as he searches
For a woman with a fire inside

She is a chimera
A lady dressed in another’s clothes
With a serpent gaze and a feline grace
Who wears the mask of someone from before

Her doll eyes look down and to the left
As she shyly lies hidden in a field of grass
They glitter behind her painted face
Burning like cinders into the soul of the observed

Guided by starlight and flickering lamps
He watches where he steps
As he listens for a whisper from her lips
That calls “Come home to me”

Without so much as a breath
His breast lies still as death
His vacuum of a chest reverberates
With the echoes of each step

His feet march to the cadence
Of her beating heart
Pulsing with a sanguine aether
Beneath her porcelain frame

Fragments of a broken rib
Grind in his side
So he cakes it with mud
And trudges onward

Amidst a blanket of gold
He finds her glistening
With the sweat of a thousand dew drops
And he lies with her in a bed of daffodils

An ancient name and a word of love
Expose themselves to a sky of fireflies
And her milk white fingers
Leave chalk lines across his back

With heartfelt adulation
The daughter of Echidna
Whispers loving lies into the ears
Of the son of Ouroboros

Enfolded in his arms, she says goodbye
Crocodile tears fall from her glass eyes
Her strawberry lips char his raw umber cheeks
And he crumbles back to dust

As he floats on the breeze to a dark forest
At the foot of a cold mountain
She goes back to sleep
Crying out to another earthen lover





The God Box

9 05 2009

A question I usually confront myself with when assessing my religious views is, “What is my God box?” What is a God box? A God box is an individual’s current image of God and everything that God is.  For instance, a simple example would be a God in a toga, who looks like Zeus and lounges on top of a cloud throwing lightning bolts. This God answers your prayers and controls every facet of the universe. Many of us have shared this God box before.  Another God box would be “God is Love”.  In this image, God is more than just a concrete being. He transcends reality and becomes a concept as well. Depending on how you say “God is Love”, this could be seen as a more mature God box. These two examples are what I meant by  ”God box”.

My God box is constantly under evaluation, constantly evolving. Currently I see God as many things: He is the omnipotent father of all things, He is the historical/spiritual Jesus, and It is a spiritual entity that is nebulous in nature and can only be described by what It is not. This could be referred to as the Trinity. My God box is meshed with the concepts and realities of Allah and Buddha, not because I extract what I like from each religion to make my own “cafeteria-style” religion, but because I see how they are the same.  I say He is Love, but I don’t say it like others usually do. My image of God is One who does not do what you ask of Him. He helps you, but not in the way you often want. His will is beyond our will, implemented on behalf of not only our own sakes but everything else’s.

The best way to describe it is the will of a doctor and the will of a patient. We ask the doctor to cure us of our ailments. He cuts us up, he tears things out, he gives us pills. We go through all this invasive treatment with promise of feeling better… and at the end of the day we still feel nauseous and dizzy. Our sutures burn with pain, our insides are roiling inside of us, and the adverse effects of the medication makes us feel even worse. “How does this make me feel better?” the patient asks. The patient and the doctor shared the same goal in curing an ailment, but there was a difference in wills. The patient’s will was to be comfortable. To FEEL better. The doctor’s was to actually fix the problem. The patient was looking for instant gratification while the doctor was addressing the immediate medical priority AND the long term health of the patient. The doctor’s will may not be immediately inherent, but when you stand back and look at what all is going on and also realize that he is not just diagnosing you but hundreds of others don’t you think that what the doctor provided the patient was ultimately more beneficial than what was asked for? Trying to keep myself from writing a novel of a blog, this is the best I can describe what I see God as right now. There’s so much more to God than what I can describe at any point in time.

That’s what determines the scope of my God box: my ability to intuit God. My God box only exists to break God into digestible, bite-size pieces. It’s like a television, which is only capable of showing you what is able to fit onto film. What you see on the screen implies so much more, but you are not able to experience it in its entirety. As time passes, my God box seems to grow bigger and bigger to accomodate for my rapidly expanding image of God, and with each passing evaluation He becomes harder to contain into a box. My God box becomes more strained as I stretch it out. So what is going to happen when it reaches it’s limit? Is it going to halt in it’s tracks? Or is it going to split at the seams and bottom out? Is it going to be too much for me and I’ll just give up on it all? The problem becomes more than just being able to find out what God is. It also becomes an issue of preparing myself to experience more of what He is. It becomes an issue of my integrity as a vessel for God.

And after all that is said and done, after we have established a God box…what does it matter? What was it’s purpose? All we did was construct an image of Him, we never found Him. Wasn’t the God box constructed to help us see God in His entirety? How does it do that by cutting it into pieces? How does it help us see the big picture when all it is capable of doing is showing us a small window into what God is? How can we know who God is by making up our own idea of Him? One thing we must be aware of when constructing this God box is that what we see in it IS NOT GOD. It is our projections that we place onto what we believe God is. What we see in the God box we are more than willing to name God Himself. As DeMello said in Awareness, “people fall into idolatry because they think that where God is concerned, the word is the thing.” We construct a description of who we think God is then we fall into the rut of worshipping that, forgetting that it was only a guess at who He is. DeMello wrote about how he was confronted by a world-renowned scripture scholar. “It never struck me that I had been an idol worshipper all my life! My idol was not made of wood or metal; it was a mental idol.” DeMello reminded his readers that those that had constructed their own mental idol were the more dangerous idol worshippers because “they used a very subtle substance, the mind to produce their God.”

Maybe I was never meant to contain God in a box. Maybe I wasn’t meant to contain Him within me, this body serving as a Temple. How could all of what God is be within me? Maybe I’ve been using the wrong word this whole time. I’m not a vessel, I’m a conduit. I am a channel through which He flows through. Right now, the God box seems irrelevant. My experience and my ideas of God right now have surpassed any words that I am capable of expressing right now.  Right now it doesn’t feel like I could fit what I’m feeling inside a box and I’m all the better for it.





Manhood Survey

20 04 2009

So I finally read The Oracle, the university newspaper at TTU. The editorial editor wrote an article on manhood. I saw nothing that had to do with manhood, just a lot of blaming man for the horrible world we live in, making good vs. evil a black and white issue, and discriminating against homossexuals. Regardless, I think you guys should read it. I’ve provided a link here: The World Sucks, It Is Someone’s Fault.

What does “manhood” look like? What does it mean to be a “real” man? What does it mean to be a manly man or a man’s man?

Manhood looks different with each person, specific to each man, because it’s more about what he does and less about what he looks like to others. For this reason, I don’t like the terms “manly man” or “man’s man”. Those type of men are trying to find affirmation based upon the regards of other men. I think it’s mindless. A real man isn’t defined by how he interacts with others; he defines himself.

What are some of the key attributes or characteristics of a “real” man?
A real man should always be searching, always looking for ways to better himself. He shouldn’t be afraid of being wrong, and should recognize when he is. Women are not beneath him, nor are they above him. He should not objectify women, either. Most importantly, a man should have his own values and be his own person. Sir Richard Francis
Burton put it perfectly: “Do what thy manhood bids thee do,/ From none but self expect applause;/ He noblest lives and noblest dies /Who makes and keeps his self-made laws.”

What does true manhood look like in the home and at work? What is the proper role of a man in the home, at work, and in the community?
I think a man should never make expectations of others that he wouldn’t fulfill himself. He should help out his own family and, while holding his family to a high standard, he should hold himself to a higher standard. That being said, housework isn’t something to be delegated to wives only. HELP HER OUT A LITTLE!  If he’s letting society determine what is right for him to do or not do, then he’s not thinking for himself. Work is not life, it’s just an aspect of it. It shouldn’t keep a man from spending time with his family or work on his own goals. However, work shouldn’t be seen as a vehicle for making money. He should apply himself to his work. Same with the community: he should apply himself for the benefit of others, not himself. The key here is balancing all these aspects of life.
When does a boy crossover and become a man? Is there a particular age or set of events that mark him as a man?
Manhood is relative to each individual, I’d say, so there is no specific age range or set of events that mark him as a man. Nor do I think it’s a singular event where one minute you’re a boy then BAM you’re a man. It’s a progression that lasts until a man dies. I do think, however, there is a landmark along the way from which it’s almost impossible to regress from. It’s seen as a series of intuitive leaps and personal experiences. He finds something he’s passionate about and he acts upon it. His vocabulary increases dramatically, he suddenly finds the right words to describe precisely how he feels, and he becomes more in touch with himself, distinguishing his neuroses from his true thoughts. He becomes a man because he becomes himself, finally knowing who that person is for the first time.
What events and/or people have shaped your thinking on this subject? If there is a particular person or two that have shaped your thinking, what was it about them that left an impression on you?
A close friend of mine from home, Bethany Herron, asked me one night what church I went to. I didn’t go to one at that time. I considered myself a Christian, but along with not going to church I didn’t do anything else with my Christianity. I was stagnant, content with where I was, content with saying I believed in Him and leaving it at that. That called me to get up and do something about it. It also made me look at other aspects of my life where I was content. Was I stagnant in other parts of my life? If I considered myself to be a man, what was I doing to establish and improve myself as a man?
I’m not saying Christianity is what makes someone a man.I’m not even saying religion makes someone a man. I’m saying Christianity is what helped make ME a man. Allah, Buddha, or lack thereof are just as capable at doing this. Ultimately, the man is responsible for making himself a man.
Are there any essays, books or other literature you’ve read that give you insight or clarity?
Currently reading Awareness by Anthony DeMello, which helps you observe yourself and how you look at others
Emerson’s The American Scholar. The thinking man vs. Man Thinking is something I believe every man should be aware of.
Beyond that, it’s what you’re most passionate about that determines what literature can serve as a gateway to insight. Mine was The Four Loves by C.S. Lewis.




Anger Vs. Drama

8 03 2009

My philosophy group was having a discussion over How to Be An Adult by David Richo, PhD. I have yet to read this book, and I’m not in a big hurry to read it any time soon, but the topic of anger and how it differs from drama surfaced. What is this difference?

From what I understand, drama is linked to past experiences. For instance, a man might be sensitive to the word “whipped” or “tool”. If he is associated with either of those words, he may blow up because of his severe aversity to those words. This may  be due to a previous relationship or experience where he felt like he was being used. He may have been in a relationship where his opinion was void and his partner made all the decisions, and any similar situation may remind him of that negative relationship. Thus, his expressed anger would be a reaction to that past experience, not a present situation.

When a person feels offended or slighted due to a perceived similarity to this past experience, they manifest aggressive or passive aggressive behaviors. Aggressive anger is where you are considering your own feelings but are inconsiderate of others’ feelings when expressing your own. Passive aggressive is slightly different from aggressive in the fact that the passive aggressor is too afraid to address the other person for fear of a confrontation.

Drama is an exaggerated and inappropriate reaction towards a percieved offense, often fueled by an underlying fear that can be tied to a past experience. Once this reaction is expressed there is still a negative residue left behind, otherwise known as a grudge. The dramatic person chooses to hold on to the past experience because he or she feels that there is a payoff for holding on to it. Example: I could choose to hold onto my middle school years, a time when I was constantly bullied, because I believe that by holding onto it others would feel guilty for me and show me pity. I would be considering pity as a surrogate for love. My payoff would be that pity/love.

If I had dropped that drama, if I stopped referring to my middle school years, what cause would I have to be angry? Holding onto my middle school experiences produces unnecessary anger. That is what I understand drama to be.

Anger, on the other hand, I believe to be severely misunderstood or at least in need of redefining. I believe anger is anchored more in the present than drama. Anger, to me, is a feeling that expressed assertively. That means, the person who feels offended expresses his anger appropriate to the action that offended him. In expressing his anger, he is considering himself but considers the feelings of others while expressing his own. I believe expressing anger is necessary because each person has the right to consider his own needs and wants. A person is not wrong for asserting their own rights.

Once the anger is expressed, it dissipates for good. There isn’t any ill will to hold on to. It’s in the past, and is no longer applicable to present situations. Isn’t that a beautiful thought: living in the present? Living in the past or dwelling on the future only brings up drama and anxiety. Do you need either of those to improve your quality of life? What benefits are there to dropping these frivolities?





On Nonduality

2 03 2009

I was rereading Being Peace by Thich Nhat Hahn with my philosophy group when a friend of mine posted to our email listserv about her confusion over the concept of self-compassion in nonduality in response to Hahn’s quote, “If you cannot be compassionate to yourself, you will not be able to be compassionate to others.”  Here was what she had to say:

To me, compassion requires a separate entity that acts as the object receiving the compassion.  I looked up the definition, and compassion is ’sympathetic consciousness of others’ distress together with a desire to alleviate it.’    Compassion comes from compati, meaning ‘to suffer with.’  But if there are not two, there can be no ‘with,’ there is only one ‘nondual’ thing, and that is everything; therefore compassion and sympathy are impossible.

And here was my response:

I think you saw compassion as distancing because the definition used the word “sympathy” as opposed to “empathy”. Whereas empathy is where you feel what the other person is feeling, investing themselves in you, sympathy implies at least some degree of objectiveness or disinterestedness. It is my impression that the accuracy of words is something that is important to you right now. I.e. there is a difference between the words “beautiful” and ”pretty”. If my supposition is true, then that could be a big factor as to why you can’t fully make the concept of nonduality your own. Here we have a concept called nonduality claiming that we only perceive that there are dichotomies, and we are working on dichotomizing the building blocks of communication: words.

Even though I don’t fully grok nonduality, myself, I’ll try to explain what I can understand about it. I think what the concept of nonduality is trying to say is that we are not different from each other, we are not separate. However, we do not exist as one being. We are all connected. We are part of a cycle. Each individual is not separate; he is part of something bigger. He is part of a circuit that could not exist without him. He can not exist as his own separate entity, because if the circuit cannot exist without him, likewise he cannot exist without the circuit. So we do not exactly exist as one; we exist in relation to each other and all compose a sum greater than its parts.

In terms of an analogy, a picture I get of the compassion/nonduality complex is like the body. The heart pumps oxygenated blood to the extremities of the body. From the cor of the body to the fingertips and toes. Like compassion, the heart is affecting something beyond itself. It is supplying oxygen rich blood to the limbs. However, it must also supply oxygen to itself (coronary arteries). If it cannot supply oxygen to itself, how can it supply oxygen to something distal to itself? You must start at the center before you can radiate out. This applies to both the heart and compassion. Furthermore, on the theme of “oneness”, the heart and limb vascularity are both apart of the same system, connected in a continuous loop….I’m not too happy with my own analogy but I think it does its job well enough.

On another, complementary level the dichotomy of self/nonself does not exist in the concept of nonduality. Having said that, reevaluate what TNH said: “”If you cannot be compassionate to yourself, you will not be able to be compassionate to others.” Also, with the concept of nonduality, does the dichotomy of duality/nonduality exist?

Personally, I just can’t make this concept mine at this time, and I’m fine with that. I think I resent the concept for reasons I’d have to sit down and think about, and I’m not about to make something I resent a fundament of my life. I’m not going to try to make it mine because Thich Nhat Hahn said I should. I might never make it mine, but if I do one day, I will make it mine because I chose to, not because a monk, regardless of his wisdom, told me to do so.





Taking a Hypocrite’s Advice

24 02 2009

I had another one of those mental dialogues with myself, this time where I am giving advice to somebody. Generally, one of my biggest problems is that I give advice in the first place. I shouldn’t really be doing that, because I feel that right now I feel the motives for my giving advice is to diagnose and correct rather than share a theory and guide. Anywho, what happens in the situation that I give advice on something like….time management? Let’s say that I’m constantly overdue on homework, I get late fees on bills all the time, and I don’t set aside enough time to study for tests. Is my advice still valid?

Well where does the problem lie? Does it lie in the diagnosis and planning of time management, or in my personal implementation of it? I could give very sound advice that, if followed, would be very helpful. Just because I don’t follow it myself doesn’t mean that it’s not good advice. I think that is a reasonable conclusion, and some of you may agree with me. To apply it to something that most of us are more familiar with, the Church setting helps a lot. One word a lot of us associate with Christians, in a cynical view, is hypocrisy. They lecture and judge others, but often don’t meet their own standards.(This is just a crude generalization) But that doesn’t mean that what Christians lecture us about isn’t valid.

A person is not the same thing as what he says. They may correlate with each other, but they are not the same entity. That means the words may have a constructive context although the person may have a destructive context. Do you understand what I am saying?

Just a thought…..(BTW, would anybody like to share their personal definition for hypocrisy? A person’s definition says a lot about not only the word, but the person who defines it.)





Using His Name in Vain

1 02 2009

Most people are aware of the second or third commandment (depending on which translation you use): “You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.” It makes sense, right? Don’t say “OH MY GOD” or “God damn”. You are making a pointless or insincere oath. He wants you to put meaning into His name whenever you say it. Don’t use it so flippantly. At least that’s my take.

However, the word “vain” means more than just useless and ineffectual. Merriam-Webster’s fourth definition of “vain” is: 

4: having or showing undue or excessive pride in one’s appearance or achievements : conceited

That’s the definition I’m going to refer to today. One thing that bothers me is when I hear somebody make a reference to God every other sentence. To hear somebody attribute anything and everything that happens to them as either the work of God or the work of the Devil. To put in the token “First of all, I’d just like to thank Jesus Christ our Savior and God the Father,” in every acceptance speech I hear. I just feel like that’s the person saying “Look at me, guys. I’m a Christian. See how good of a Christian I am? I’ve made a reference to Him three times already in this conversation alone.” I just get the notion that when somebody does that, they are putting up a mask because they want to be seen as virtuous. They throw out all these context clues to imply that they are strong Christians. To me, that just turns His name into a buzz word. That’s the last thing I’d want to do.

Please don’t misunderstand me. I’m not saying that it’s not “cool” to be public with your faith. In fact, I want to promote that. I’m very open with my faith, and I would like others to feel as free as I am in sharing theirs. I just want people to stop and think before they say His name again. I don’t want it to become used so frequently that it becomes part of the background noise.

Think in terms of saying His name like you would say “I love you”. If I were to say “I love you” to my lover several times every time I met her, it would get old. There is almost no chance that I could possibly mean it with all my heart every time I said it if it was used so frequently. It would become more like a ritual to me, and the meaning would become diluted to the ears of my lover. It would be something she’d expect. She wouldn’t notice anymore if I had said it, but she would notice if I HADN’T said it. It would have become part of my identity to say “I love you”.  I don’t want the term “I love you” to be a part of who I am. I want it to be it’s own voice spoken through me. I want it to have a life of its own. I want her to notice every time I say “I love you”. 

That’s how I want God’s name to be used. It want it to be a treasure to say. I want it to resonate in the minds of others when I say it. I want His name to be an entity of its own, spoken through me. Don’t try to hide your faith, but don’t dilute it, either.