My Stroke of Insight - Jill Bolte Taylor

I am quite surprised and amazed by Taylor's description of her stroke and recovery.  It sounds exactly like the psychedelic experiences I have had before, at least up to a point of bodily control - the blurring of objects, the blurring of where your physical self ends and begins, the many scattered unconnected thoughts, the inability to hold down a plan beyond a minute, the feeling of warmth and in the womb, nirvana, childlike curiosity,  wonderment at nature, etc.  Absolutely amazing.  I had no idea that a stroke can be akin to a psychedelic/spiritual experience...  It is an experience I would not subject myself to on a regular basis but in the right time, place and context and rarely.  It is spiritual healing if done correctly.  Not necessarily just the nirvana that Taylor speaks of but the ability to bring to the forefront emotions that need to be purged.

Random thoughts:
1. Who are we without memories?  Are we more connected to the universe without memories?  Is this what is meant by losing one's self?
2. Being caught between the living and the consciousness but without the ability to interact with the external world - reminds me of Joe Bonham in Johnny Got His Gun.
3. Blurring of science, well being and spirituality - the present moment,  positive emotions, brain chatter are important concepts within Chan/Zen Buddhism - also tied to yoga, states of meditation, transcendence.
4. Taking charge of one's self - control left brain chatter.  Control the internal as well as the external.
5. Enjoying the present moment.  Which then brings the question, what constitute a good and meaningful life?

To the Lighthouse - Virginia Woolf

I confess that I found the jumpy streams of consciousness a wee bit confusing but the jumpiness is indeed very human and very much like our own jumpy, paradoxical and inconsistent streams of consciousness.  This is very much the brain chatter that Jill Bolte Taylor talks about in My Stroke of Insight!  How do we reconcile the paradoxes and insecurities of our mind?  Mr. and Mrs. Ramsay seem to take opposite approaches.  The former relies on his intellect, ignoring much of his emotions and the latter seem to place most of her emphasis on her emotions rather than her intellect.  Of course, emotion and intellect are not dichotomies either, rather they are part of a whole, of a continuum.  Life is transient - how do we mitigate the impermanence of life?  I do agree with Mrs. Ramsay approach in that we should make the most out of the present moment but we can do this utilizing both our intellect and emotion.  A balance of both is not impossible to attain.  We can cultivate meaningful social relationships, as is crucial to the happiness and survival of our species while cultivating our intellectual mind at the same time.  I would not want the life of Mr. Ramsay in which he is so obsessed with his intellectual life that he in essence does not enjoy the company of his loved ones and seem to miss out on the lives of his own children and wife for the most part.

Mrs. Ramsays dies in the novel as do some other characters.  They die as a blurb in parentheses.  Death is a fact of life.  But so what?  Why would anyone want to live forever, be it literally or metaphorically?  Sure, it would be great if one is able to leave a great legacy of work to humanity but few of us can achieve the latter which seems to have tormented Mr. Ramsay unnecessarily. Should the lived moments not count the most rather than what you can leave behind long after you are dead?  Mrs. Ramsays is remembered well after her death.  Relationships and the summer house seem to decay after her death.  All this is also transient.  She may be remembered by Lily but as time passes, Lily will die and eventually Mrs. Ramsay and others will be forgotten by the living.  So what?  It's not like Mrs. Ramsays will know any better. She is dead.  Why are we, as a species so concerned which after-death?  Is it not more fruitful to pay attention to the living?  There is no one way of living that is right for all.  What is meaningful to me may not be meaningful to another.  It is our responsibility to make life meaningful for ourselves and to live in harmony with others.

The Varieties of Religious Experience - William James

I am fascinated with the mystical/psychedelic experience and all the narratives in this text.  What exactly causes these states of mind?  I agree with a few of my classmates that it doesn't matter if the mystical experience is attained through the conception of a deity or not.  I would take this further by saying that it doesn't matter if this state of consciousness is attained through meditation, yoga, religion, psychoactive plants or synthetic psychoactive drugs, as long as you are not harming or putting yourself and/or others in danger in any way.  Just for the record, I will use the terms 'mystical experience' and 'psychedelic experience' interchangeably.  As Michael G. Kenny notes, context is very important in the mystical experience.  A spiritual guide is useful in helping one through a journey of a mystical experience.  In some cultures, the ceremonial and guided use of ayahuasca is normal and shamans are revered.  If the psychedelic state of mind is attained without any prior knowledge that this experience would be forthcoming, it could be a terrifying experience.  Too bad that the mainstream West fails to see the inherent value in guided psychedelic experiences!

Dr. Gabor Mate, a DTES physician who specializes in addiction used ayahuasca to help his addicted patients as he believes in a healthy-minded (and healty-body) approach to healing mental wounds, addictions and other harmful practices.  It is unfortunately that this practice has been stiffled by the RCMP and Canadian government alike.  Western drugs (medicine) retain legal status but there is no context to the current practice of western medicine and cures may not come by conventional western medicines.  Laws surrounding psychoactive drugs are archaic, causing more harm than good.  Perhaps we are putting too much faith in science.

The fact that ingesting certain plants ranging from mushrooms, herbs, cacti, etc. brings the human-animal into mystical states of consciousness must surely have some meaning that we do not understand, that cannot be put into words.  The main goal of our lives, happiness - in the sense of an inner bliss - is essentially a way for us to mitigate the sufferings, evils (for the lack of a better term) and absurdity of our lives, no?

I wished that William James would have had a personal mystical experience himself.  How would this text change, had he had one?  I like that he acknowledges that the experience is 'truth' only to the person who experienced the state of transcendence herself.  As an atheist, I view my mystical experiences through a secular lens.  The inner bliss that I attain through these experiences change the way I view plants, animals and human-animals around me.  It helped me to shift perspectives and to see the interconnectivity of live around us.  It helped to affirm my veganism, propelled through my experiental and sensory experiences.  I felt the pain, the abuse, the torture of animals for food, clothing and beyond - in a context in which we do not need to do this for our survival in a psychedelic experience last year...

artwork by Alex Grey

The talk of unity with the divided souls and the cosmic universe - I wonder if this is in part due to the fact that we are all relational.  By this, I mean that we are made of up DNA of our ancestors.  Are we not in essence a continuation of their thoughts, knowledge and emotions?  If we look at reincarnation in a metaphorical rather than literal sense, this now makes good sense.  We are all matter of this earth, and in a sense share much of our DNA with plants, birds, etc.  Since we are made up of the same materials as other beings, would it not make good sense that our mystical experience connects us to the all of nature and more generally the whole universe?  When we die, do we really die?  Our organic body may decay but perhaps there is an essence/soul that blends into the larger universe.  Energy cannot be created or destroyed makes sense here in a cosmic spiritually.

Human, All-Too-Human - Nietzsche

To be honest, I am not sure what to write about this text.  The lecture by Jerry Zaslove was amazing and the in-person and e-mail discussions about the text crossed over with Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Flaubert, etc. were fantastic.  My partner asked me what I thought about the text - I said, I see why Nietzsche is considered one of the finest thinkers who ever lived.  He was obviously wise beyond his years and time.  I am not too sure what else to say...  I appreciate the points that Jerry brought up in readings to how to read a text and the 'secrets' encoded within it.  I was also intrigued by Jerry questioning if Nietzsche and/or Tolstoy can also be considered anarchists.  I remember anarchist-like ideas that were in Mencius from last term.  Ideas intertwine across time and cultures...  Since I am a little lost for words, I will instead comment on a few of the segments in Human, All-Too-Human instead.

2. "There are no eternal facts, as there are likewise no absolute truths." (p. 22)
This is very much in line with the self-reflexivity encouraged in my education in anthropology here at SFU.  There are multiple storytellers to an event, to a history.  Each writes from their own biases.  There is no objectivity.  We must use our own critical thinking skills to make our own judgements or conclusions to the multiple stories presented to us.

32. "We are from the beginning illogical, and therefore unjust beings, and can recognise this; it is one of the greatest and most inexplicable discords of existence." (p. 41)
- This speaks to the paradoxes and inconsistencies between philosophy and action that I feel in life.
- I used to think that activists and social justice fighters would all be kind, compassionate and nice people - that is, until I started to hang out with them...  This is not to say that they are not kind, compassionate and nice people, rather they burst my bubble of what was to me the idea of the ideal human being.  Instead, I discovered that they are as Nietzsche says, "human, all-too human."

70. Execution - Legalized murders - appalling indeed, the manner in which we ethically justify murders - in the name of the law.  Void of emotions.  Business as usual.  Is this our humanity?  Nietzsche lays blame on both the nature and nurture components, rather than the individual.  Who is the individual anyway without a memory of 'nature and nurture'?

94. "He lives and acts as a collective individual" (p. 70) This while segment shows like an anarchist idea now that the idea has been put into my heads my Jerry Zaslove.

The Present Age by Søren Kierkegaard

Søren Kierkegaard would have likely thought our time as one that is passionless.  There is much chatter and hype but little action and passion.  In our hyper media and advertised world, it is easy to chatter.  It is disheartening to see uneducated, racist, sexist, speciesist and other biased comments on websites and on social media outlets.  These comments come in often anonymously and with little consequences to the commentators but may have deeper consequences to readers and authors of the websites/social media outlets.

Social media has allowed for passionless inaction within the social justice movement in which there is much publicity and majority support for important issues like economic injustice, animal abuse, the broken food systems, racism, sexism, etc., little is actutally done.  There is just much chatter online but at the end of the day, we generally continue to accept the economic injustice, animal abuse, the broken food systems, racism and sexism of this world without actually actively doing anything about it.

I agree that passion is needed to propel one into action.  Malcolm X said, "Usually when people are sad, they don't do anything. They just cry over their condition. But when they get angry, they bring about a change."  I do think that there is deep truth in tihis statement.  It is deep passion that propelled me towards veganism and my limited involvement with social justice causes.

In a sense, we feel sympathy for a cause for a brief moment but essentially tune it out of our mind immediately afterwards causing apathy.  In the end, most of us do nothing after learning about injustices in this world.

When one reflects on the lack of passion and on the high passion in 'heros' like Malcolm X, Steve Biko and other activists and ordinary concerned citizens, the tension caused by our lack of action in turn causes endless reflection and is often, at least in my experience, reaffirmed by the public majority - "It's no use.  One person cannot change the world." - you  start to believe in this statement.  There is truth to the statement after all...  Apathy affirmed.  No action.  No passion.

I, too, have been guilty of this apathy.  But also of passion.  Such is the human condition... or is this just something I say to make myself feel better?

I agree that we need to apply our knowledge, that is to act.  I disagree with one of my classmates who said that to publish in an academic journal is to contribute back to society.  Well... let me clarify - there is value in producing and publishing in academia but the reality is that academia is a highly privileged world, available to only a small group in this world.  I am much, much more interested in learning on how to act on a daily basis and how to give back to society at large, not just producing literature for the consumption of a select privileged few, of which I am a part of.  This means figuring out an ethical path in life and in the context of the GLS program, a project that w ill be widely accessible to a greater population than just those privileged enough to be a part of higher education.

2010 Olympics protest

A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful

Just like reason and passion are never really two separate concepts, neither are beauty and sublime two opposing concepts as Burke notes - at least not to me.  While in class, we talked a lot about sublime of the natural world, of losing one's self in nature's vast expanse.  I understand and love that feeling.  It is good to lose one's self sometimes.  There are certainly therapeutic effects of the natural world and of the sublime.  "It's good for the soul." - whatever that means.  I am not sure that it can be put into words.  "Who feels it knows."

What surprised me is that in class, no one talked about the sublime of the "everyday" but rather of being in beautiful natural surrounding and we briefly touched upon sublime from the arts.  Perhaps my definition of the sublime is different from Burke's...   I am not sure but since we talked about the feeling of sublime from music and other art forms in classs, I take sublime to mean the feeling of losing one's self, of great emotion (happiness and pain/terror at the same).  I feel this feeling when I am around Kaslo, my canine companion.  She moves me to great depths of pleasure and sorrow.  I am in awe that such an amazing creature exists, of the immense emotions that stir up in me when I am with her, of the connection I feel to her and other fellow animals on this planet, of how humans are merely one of many, many creatures on earth (insignificance of the human-animal in the bigger scheme).  If this is not the feeling of the sublime, then I don't know what is. This sublime feeling that I have when I am with Kaslo moves me just as much the sublime feeling of being in the beautiful forests of Britsh Columbia.

I do think that the feeling of sublime sometimes has to be learned.  In this manner, one can argue that it is not a natural or instinctive feeling.  For example, I have listened to the song, Rivers of Babylon since I was a child but it wasn't until I was in my mid 20s that this song moved me to tears in a shinsanken ride in Japan.  It was only then that I was able to feel the sorrow inherent in the lyrics of the song.

The Awakening - Kate Chopin

The Awakening, a sensuous novel, I enjoyed it very much.  It is nice to finally read more from female authors.  As a student who has most recently been studying anthropology courses, this novel reads like a narrative on an ethnography of a married's woman's life just before the turn of the 19th century.

Edna is clearly resisting gender and societal mores and norms.  She exposes explicitly women's sexuality, a taboo subject during her time.  She reasserts herself as an individual and as a woman, as opposed to as her husband's property.   She 'breaks loose', moves out, tries to support herself - she realizes in the sad ending that to be independent is to be alone as Mademoiselle Reisz is.  Mutual love that cannot ever be realized between Edna and Robert.

Edna's children do not seem to get much attention from her as she is busy with her personal awakening but in the end, she sacrfices herself so as not to taint their reputations and future.  Is it a sacrifice of love for her children? I am not clear.  The children are talked about at some points as a burden as while she can sever her ties on her husband, she cannot do so with her children.  They weigh her down.  She ends her life to end her loneliness/misery which she knows will accompany her whole life as an independent woman.  Did she 'awaken' and remembered her children in the end?  I am not sure...

I can certainly relate to Edna's awakening.  Many of us have in our own ways, broken out of our old molds by breaking social and gender norms.  Not all women have a maternal instinct.  I have not really desired to procreate, not because I view them as a burden, on the contrary, I adore and love kids and generally feel happy around them but I am too afraid to take the risk to become a mother and I just do not see the need to create a mini-me.  I have fallen into the trap in the past that independence meant empowerful, which it is in many days, but if one is still mentally in chains, one cannot truly be free.  I was once in love and I was very independent but my mental chains were tying me to a man I was hopelessly in love with - the problem is that it was an abusive relationship, mentally and financially.  And so Edna's 'rebirth' or 'awakening' speaks dear to me as I have awakened oh so many times: (1) to recognize myself as an individual but to remember my relationship to others around me,  (2) to become more socially aware and to actually care and to get angry about issues, angry enough to want to do something, (3) to be aware of the horrific suffering of animals that was just 'food' to me in the past, to be completely moved by my willful blindess to this large scale suffering, brought out extreme guilt in me..  which I am still in the process of reconciling.  I have been seeking a Krishna last year to teach me, to tell me what to do...  I realize later rather than never that only I, hold the answers to my own internal dilemmas..  but dialogue certainly helps.  To hear different perspectives.  I try to convey this in my work, when students ask me "What should I study?", "What should I become?" and so forth.

It is sad that Edna ends her life abruptly at the end.  I have experienced depression/despair - I think we all have and can understand the pain that one feels when one is grieving or in despair.  I would certainly never advocate suicide as the solution but I can understand wanting to end the pain or to die rather than to live in chains, be it real or metaphorically speaking.

In Praise of Folly - Erasmus

A fantastic scathing critique of religious men, intellectuals and of those in power/of the upper class.  It seems timeless like it was written just yesterday!  I absolutely loooove the critiques in this book!

Sleep (as a follower of Folly) appears here as it does in Pilgrim's Progress.  What's with 'sleep'?  Maybe my classmates will be able to enlighten my slow mind...

I interpret Folly as humour in the part when she talks about wisdom withour folly would be unbearable and I think this true in many ways.  In this imperfect world of suffering, humour is an important coping mechanism.  Recently, at a friend's mother's 70th birthday celebration, her legs just gave out outside Hart House Restaurant and she fell and couldn't get up.  We later found out that she broke her hip.  The first thing that the parademic said to us was, "Okay, which one of you pushed her down?"  It made me laugh in a tense and stressful time.  There is certainly much wisdom (although incomplete wisdom) in Folly!

Then there is the darker Folly as discussed in class.  Perhaps Folly is a double-edged sword.  Love is generally known as something good.  We all desire love.  But love can bite you too as the rapper, KRS One notes in "Love's Gonna Get You".  He is talking about material love more specifically.  So although love is good, not love of everything is good.  You can transfer this philosophy to Folly as well.  Sometimes, it is wise to be foolish, to enjoy life, to take things easy and in perspective.  I didn't see Folly so much as 'two faced' as a classmate mentioned but rather that there are different degrees of Folly.

Erasmus' religion/God is one I can believe in.  Remove the dogma and ridiculous abstractions of religion and god and you are left with spirituality.  If there is one thing in common with most religion, it is that they all preach morality.  For a secular person like myself, I equate morality with humanity or humanism.  Can humanism thus be called a religion?  I think humanism is a form of spirituality - of connectivity with others and one's surroundings.

I didn't really know the background behind Erasmus and didn't realize until class that he was a bit of a fence-sitter and sought to reform the church from within.  I can understand why Steve would dislike this philosophy as my philosophy would be similar.  That said, I still enjoyed the text very much.  I prefer the darker humour in the last half of the book and not so much the lighter humour in the first half of the book.  I think the dark humour is so much funnier because it is sadly a true commentary on how things were (though exaggerated).

I am thinking back to King Lear's Fool.  When the truth is spoken truth a Fool (or satire/humour), it seems to be tolerate as Lear tolerates the wisdom of the Fool but banishes Cordelia when she speaks the truth.  Here, Erasmus is able to speak the truth about religious men and other privileged/upper class men pretty freely through a satire.

Pilgrim's Progress - Part I

In many ways, this text reminds me of Dante's Inferno.  Both are journeys towards salvation although the contexts are somewhat different.  A beautifully written tale.  I love the symbolism and themes in this text, minus the Christian message...  As with other Christian texts, I am finding it very, very difficult to plough through them.  It is extremely difficult to remove my bias about Christianity.  What irks me is the wrathful God and the "Love me or burn in hell for eternity" message.  It really is hard not to get angry at times... Ellie mentioned that this text is not taught in theology classes.  While this may be true, my partner tells me that he had to read/learn excerpts from this text in Sunday school.  Like Sarah, this makes my blood boil.  To poison children's minds, to put fear into them is plain wrong to me.  I know Ellie talks about various scholars' interpretation of this text but ultimately, this text was written with an intent that was not secular despite what modern scholars say/think/feel.  I understand that you can still interpret it in a secular way, nonetheless and make this text work for you, for your worldview.  I can appreciate the message of taking (reasonable) risks in life but none of this fear mongering stuff.  It's just absolutely appalling to me.

I think Ignorance is an unfair name for the character.  I didn't feel that he was ignorant.  He was at worse, Misguided and at best, Faithful/Obedient.  To have led a good life but to be cast to hell for eternity - wow, and you want me to love this God??  Bunyan, you're just not convincing me of your theology...

Best picture in my search of 'pilgrim's progress'

I do not believe in the Marxist interpretation that Ellie mentioned and am quite frankly baffled by this interpretation as someone who subscribes to Marxist ideology.  I see this story of salvation more in line with this line from Marx: "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."  This happy-ending cautionary fairy tale (as I see it) is a lovely story but that is all it is to me.  The story gave the working class hope that there will be something better in some other world/life.  It gives them hope in their harsh conditions in this material world.  Sometimes, we just need hope and religion can provide such hope.  I get it but do not subscribe to it.

Like Rachel, I enjoyed the 'adventure' element in the first quarter of the story but as I progress through my 'journey' of this text, I enjoyed it less and less.  As mentioned above, it is really difficult to detach from the awful theology in this text...

The pilgrim goes through trials and tribulations, makes mistakes, learns from them, suffers and then with guidance, reaches salvation - very Dante's Inferno!

One thing that struck me in this text is 'sleep'.  Sleep appears for the most bad to be something bad, something that hinders you and puts you behind in whatever journey you journey.  A strong word like 'sin' was even used!  I am not too clear what sleep connotes.  The lack of faith in God?  Or a put-down of bodily/earthly functions?

Civility, Legality and Worldly Wiseman.  Earthly laws, desires and order cannot cleanse one of sins.  Salvation cannot come through earthly or human means.

The pilgrim journeys from the City of Destruction to the Celestial City and in between encounters wilderness, Giant and other creatures.  Perhaps this ties into Genesis in which wilderness denotes that one has strayed from the right path of God.  The spiritual (rather than the earthly) City is the ultimate destination as a place of comfort.

Map of Pilgrim's Progress

Dante's Inferno

Amazing vivid imagery - kudos to Dante's overactive imagination!  I confess that this book read like a fantastic horror flick to me in many ways.  I understand that this text is about confronting the 'evils' in life.  I am struck by the horrors and lack of compassion of this God.  Like Enchiridion, the God in this text appears to be to be very, very cruel.  I never understood why anyone would want to subscribe to such a cruel god..  vengeful and hateful!  Dante the Pilgrim torturing and relishing in sinners' pain (e.g. refusing to remove ice from eyes thus breaking his promise, pulling chunks of hair out) - what kind of sick <bleep> is this?!  I have always thought this about this portrayal of Christian God.  I can understand the compassionate God and Jesus in a more mystical Christianity (find the Jesus/God in you philosophy, similar to find the Buddha within you) but not this cruel, cruel God.

I am also struck by a powerless Lucifer in this text.  Lucifer seems static, frozen, unable to do much which then means that all the eternal suffering is caused by God, a very, very cruel one.  I suppose one can read this text as a cautionary tale.  I am reminded of the violence, suffering and deaths in some children's fairy tales.  Perhaps this text is in tune with that genre, generally speaking.

On suicides - I am extremely appalled by the lack of compassion from God for those who led a miserable life and then who takes their own lives.  They will be punished eternally in hell - WTF?!  Seriously, what kind of sick God is this..  where is the mercy and compassion that Julian of Norwich talks about?

It is interesting how God/heaven/hell/ have been interpreted by various peoples...

I didn't give much thought to the difference levels of hell but as Steve points out, being a traitor is one of the worst sins one can commit and the 'sin' pertains to the maintenance of early capitalist system.  Very interesting - this had to be pointed out to me given my lack of knowledge of this time period. Interesting how capitalist propaganda has evolved over the years.

Julian of Norwich

When I first read JoN, I thought to myself, "Did Julian accidentally consume ergot via moldy bread?" but then again, I thought, it is possible to reach the mystical state that J experienced through other means such as deep meditation, fasting and even through illness (e.g. meningitis has been known to produce hallucinogenic experiences).

J's description of the alternating emotions of sorrow and bliss (14) and the rapidly changing face of Christ (aging./decaying) (15) - these descriptions are extremely similar to the psychedelic experiences I have had while on hallucinogenic drugs which is why I thought ergot/moldy bread..  On my personal experience on sorrow - everyday, my partner and I discuss some aspects of inequality/suffering/social justice issues and so these thoughts are deeply ingrained in me.  As an atheist, I attribute the feelings of deep, deep sorrow I feel to the suffering of the billions of people, animals - our collective suffering (similar to J's interpretation on page 17).  My partner would comfort me when I experience these sorrowful moments and my emotion would often change to one of bliss.  I would burst into uncontrollably laughter.  I attribute this to the beauty that there is in the world, to the hope and the goodness that exists despite the suffering.  If I was a religious person (and not understanding why I am having visions), I can see attributing these very deep emotions to God but since I am not religious, my interpretation of my personal visions is quite different.  I also experience the 'decay' of faces and human bodies.  Again, I attribute this to a secular reason - the natural of birth and death.  What is alive must die but the dead is 'reborn' via decay.  The decay of our flesh becomes sustenance for other living things.  I see it as a beautiful thing and I rejoice in laughter.

I find it interesting that a good number of my classmates expressed a desire to experience the visions of Julian and that they were drawn to the God and Christ that Julian sees.  I can understand wanting to experience such powerful visions - to me, this is psychedelic experience in its highest form in its ability to (hopefully) transform one's self for the better.  A psychedelic experience is a religious experience.   I cannot say that I am drawn to Julian's God.  She is giving too much credit to a supposedly loving God but I am not convinced by her reasoning.

Christ's sacrifice is similar to the highest form of love professed in Plato's Symposium (12, 28).  I think this concept has been misused in many ways.  I am thinking of wars in today's context.  Soldiers who die in wars are relegated to some higher level ('Our military died so we can enjoy our rights today' argument).  Civilians who are murdered by military during war are called 'collateral damage'.  Killing to bring peace and democracy just doesn't sound right to me...  The concept of sacrifice as an elevated being is problematic in many, many ways.  I recognize that this concept is much older than the concept of Christ.

As with many of the religious texts we have been reading, I see this writing as a guide to mitigate our suffering on earth.  Nothing more.

J's desire to suffer is a complete put-off as I view it through my modern lens.  It is so non-lie affirming.  I recall my trip to Sakata, Japan where I viewed mummified bodies of Buddhist monks who starved themselves to death.  It was believed that those who manage to do this and naturally mummify their bodies (by only eating one nut a day underground with little air to breathe) to reach Buddhahood.  I thought about them when reading JoN.

Love is a Stranger - Rumi

The background on Rumi and Middle Eastern culture from Shab was very, very helpful in trying to understand Rumi a little better.  I confess that I didn't really know what to write for my journal entry on Rumi (or Sappho).  The poems are lovely and evocative but can be interpreted in many ways.  I won't (and do not dare to) attempt an analysis on Rumi but will instead comment on some few concepts that were significant to me.

I do not disagree that Rumi speaks on divine love but one can interpret divine love in many ways.  Through my atheist lens, I read 'divine love' (as applied in my own life) as the unity/oneness we feel for all of humanity, all creatures, all living and non-living things on earth (and beyond).  This one sentence captures the sentiment well for me.
"I've disappeared like a drop of vinegar
in an ocean of honey" (14).

I adore The Root of the Root of Yourself (16-17)!  But I adore it in a secular way despite the mention of God.  Letting go of one's ego, setting oneself free from "things that don't exist" (17).  Very Buddhist!  A very passionate poem, speaking on the bliss that one can attain if you let go of the things that don't really matter in life.  I read the concept of God much as the "Buddha/God" within you, not some higher being that we look up to.

In The Intellectual (21), Rumi appears to put down reason and to note the importance of passion.  Rumi certainly manages to convey passion very well!  There is often sooooo much emphasis placed on reason in our modern western world and passion put down.  It is refreshing and a wonderful sign that Rumi's passion is still being read today.  I think that our ability to be passionate is an important element of our ability to reason.  It is my passion for animals that lead me to my vegan lifestyle.  My mind has been very preoccupied with the Occupy movements around the world.  I would argue that it is reason but it is also a lot of passion that fuels the 99%.  I was worked up in passion/rage during the 2010 Olympics.  I was baffled by seemingly intelligent people who did not understand why some resisted this event, not just on Coast Salish territories but all around the world.  My insightful partner said, “Intelligence does not equate awareness.  You are giving intelligence far too much credit”.  This stuck with me.  In the context of Occupy, I am seeing a lot of passion from various parties.  The movement seems fractured but I think the passion will carry the people through.

Enchiridion - St. Augustine

As Ellie mentioned, it is easy to get bogged down with this text.  I confess that this rings very true for me.  I try to keep an open mind but as a non-believer, it was really hard to stay focus on this text. My mind would wander.  Augustine argues that faith, hope and love are to be defended with reason (4) and my initial thoughts were 'say whaaaaaat?!' As I have said, I tried to keep an open mind and to stay focused but got bogged down by reasoning that really seem to have no basis in reason in my opinion (e.g. the explanation of the constitution of the Holy Trinity or when God intervenes in evil, it is because he has mercy and when he doesn't, it is because of justice (112) (whaaaat??!!)).  I will try to read the text in a non-literal sense (it is the only way I can keep reading this book...) and to pull strengths/goodness from it.


Good vs. evil
Augustine's concept of good and evil (16) reminds me of Mencius' conception of morality (human nature is originally good but morality must be cultivated).  Evil cannot exist without good but good can evil without evil (11). Rational creatures have free will to choose to do good or evil.  In the same vein as Mencius, Augustine argues that good must be cultivated and practised in action.  Abstraction alone will not suffice.  The heart/will must be in the "good" actions.  Thus, while obedience to God is necessary, it is up to the individual to do this.  The human determines her fate in afterlife by her actions on earth.  The point of doing good and avoiding evil is to bring maximum happiness in our lives (reaching nirvana?) (17-18).

Faith, hope and love
Faith, hope and love are intertwined.  Of them all, love is most important (reminds me of 'heart' in Mencius).  Love is in faith and hope.  Love is all encompassing.  If one has hope or faith without love for God, then hope/faith is moot.

Duty
Failure (or ignorance) to do our duty to God will result in harmful error/sin.  Again, similar to the domino effect in Mencius in which we are to do our duties at the family level which will then populate at the state level and so on.  Duty in Augustine's sense is duty to God, duty to self, duty to others (do onto yourself as you'd like to be treated) - a similar domino effect of goodness all around!  Not doing our duty will lead to sin (97).

The main gist of the text as with most others deal with suffering/evil (disease, death, lack of love, etc.) and how do we live in a world that is not perfect.  Like Sarah, it is difficult to detach myself from Christianity as we know it today.  Also, I was raised an atheist and remained one in adulthood and thus do not have the background knowledge of the bible, Christian history to really ground myself in Enchiridion.  I understand that Augustine wrote this piece as a guide on how to live a good life.  I understand that all (or most) religions are good in their intentions, Christianity included but the didactic nature of the text leaves me feeling no love, hope or faith for the God or religion of Augustine.  Much like Rob, I see the God in this text as a dictator.  Rule by fear.  Love God or suffer in eternal hell.  This is  wrathful God.  Getting back to Mencius, rule by admiration would seem to make more sense.  The God in this text does not persuade me to admire Him.  I do recognize that Augustine does put the cord in our hands as Teresa notes - we determine our eternal fates by living a good life (and believing in God) but it is still a religion that seems so wrathful despite its good intentions.

Bhagavad Gita

The dialogue between Arjuna and Krishna revolves around the dilemma of 'to war or not to war' against his kinship.  Krishna counsels Arjuna to perform his duties as a warrior (reflecting the importance of maintaining duties are per assigned roles within the caste system) over his duties over familial ties.

My interpretation of the Gita is that it is a story of how to cope with internal dilemmas, of managing passion and reason, of managing suffering (grief, anxiety, making difficult moral decisions, etc.).  Krishna argues that passion (in this context, Krishna's moral dilemma) is fleeting (33).  To overcome 'passion' through discipline is to achieve inner peace.

"Arjuna, you must learn to endure
fleeting things - they come and go!
When these cannot torment a man,
when suffering and joy are equal
for him and he has courage,
he is fit for immortality." (33)

Without attachment to desire or to fruits of action, one can attain inner peace/transcendence/enlightenment (immortality) (40-41) thus reducing/removing suffering (44-46).

I do not read 'immortality' literally, rather to me, it denotes inner peace.  Longing/desire/attachment causes self-inflicted suffering.  To let go of these attachments is to relieve suffering and also to understand that pain, suffering, happiness and all of life is ephemeral.

Krishna points to the illusion of self (individuality/ego) (47),  and notes the unity or connectedness of all life/nature/creatures (69).

"he sees the self in all creatures
and all creatures in the self.
[...]
I exist in all creatures,
so the disciplined man devoyed to me
grasps the oneness of life;
wherever he is, he is in me. (69)

When one lets go of the self/ego/individual, one affirms the ephemeral nature of life and gains greater respect for our surroundings and the other creatures around us.  I am not "me", rather I am also the water I drink, the air I breathe, the plants I eat, etc.  Everything is interconnected (which is how I read Krishna's statement of "I am in everything").  Krishna's teaching in this text is very Buddhist in its core.

There are various ways to achieve inner peace (e.g. meditation, yoga).

After class thoughts: I do not see reaching inner peace/nirvana so much as a desire, rather it speaks of a continuing process to attain this state of mind.  I do not think it is possible to be in nirvana 24/7.  We are human and we feel anger, pain, happiness, jealousy, etc.  To detach from the emotions that cause us psychic and in turn real physical pain (e.g. heartache), that is to attempt to reach nirvana through meditation, yoga, etc. is a coping mechanism to deal with those painful emotions.

Bhagavad Gita: Krishna's Counsel in Time of War
Translated by Barbara Stoler Miller (2004) Bantham Books.