Monday, July 15, 2013

Disembodied Embodiment: Between Belief and Contemplation - A Philosophy of Complementary Spirituality

The Oracle of Delphi once said that Socrates was the wisest man alive. Socrates modestly replied that he was wise only because he knew he did not know. Positive ignorance, amamihe, is true wisdom. It is acknowledging that most of the things we claim to understand are mere probabilities. Frederick Engels, eminent scholar and writer, said that intellectual pride is imagining that your beliefs are universally cherished, when in fact many people couldn't care less what your ideas are. Take me for example: I wake up in the morning and write this blog, but I don't imagine that more than a few people are reading it, and of the few that do read it, perhaps only one or two read all of it. And of the two or so that read all of it, perhaps none believes anything I write. The maxim in communication that underscores all this is: "Some kinds of communications on some kinds of issues, brought to the attention of some kinds of audiences in some kinds of situations have some kinds of effects."
 
John Henry Newman differentiated between inference and assent. For him, inference at its best is still not assent. Real assent is that which is justifiably believed and held onto as religion. Inference on the other hand is intellectual argument, which is only highly probable at best - never believed. Granted, some objects of religion might also be explained logically, but it is not because they are explainable logically that they are believed. Jesus said to Thomas: "You believe because you can see. Happy are those that did not see and yet believe." Inference and Assent are therefore different in kind.
 
One mark of good scholarship is for a student to research widely, read many authors and report their findings, and then take their own educated stand on an issue. I think spirituality should do the same. We live in a beautiful period for religion and spirituality. Ever since the Second Vatican Council, when John XXIII "opened the windows of the Church to the world," the church has begun to see the probability of truth existing in other creeds. The late Pope John Paul II engaged in vibrant ecumenism, which facilitated the current state of religious inclusion. I applaud his efforts.
 
In this post I wish to talk about the concept of disembodied embodiment and relate it to what Newman says about the difference between inference and assent. Disembodied embodiment is taking a stand, adopting a definite creed, while appreciating the intellectual probabilities of other stands or creeds. It's like separating the activities of cogitation from those of belief. On the one hand, the intellect ratifies the logic of arguments and recognizes their probability, but on the other hand the soul believes the objects of faith which do not necessarily derive from such arguments. Disembodied embodiment, onyenachiya munachim, is believing your own truth, and simultaneously trying to understand why others believe theirs.
 
This is a recipe for peace. Take me for example: I am Catholic. I profess the Apostles' Creed; I attend Mass, and participate in the sacraments. These are objects of religion for me. They are the ways by which I define myself as a person of faith. A Hindu on the other hand may worship by visiting the temple and performing rituals that are alien to mine. If I for example were to run into a Hindu just coming from worship, I could apply the principle of disembodied embodiment in order to get along with them in affairs of spirituality. I could tell the Hindu my beliefs, whether or not I can explain them, and then allow the Hindu to explain to me theirs. I should be quick and willing to understand why they believe what they do. This works for other forms of interreligious dialog. It works other ways as well. With the logical mind, we can contemplate the products of other creeds, while still believing ours. Many Eastern Traditions have given the world teachings that need not be objects of religion for Catholics, but which do in fact stand to reason. Take the Enneagram, an Asian tradition, for example. It is a teaching that allows for the existence of nine personality types, each type to which a fraction of the universal population belongs. This tradition has been taught even in Catholic seminaries, and is a complement to mainstream personality studies.
 
Astrology also has attempted to afford personality studies based on stars. As an object of inference or probability, or disembodiment, a Catholic might study the personality types of the different stars and say for example, after reading that Libras are extroverted and people-oriented most of the time, "That sounds true; it makes logical sense. Maybe that's why I get very involved in social activities." Such a Catholic doesn't believe what the horoscope says, but only intellectually nods to its probability. When on the other hand the person begins to buy newspapers daily for the sole purpose of finding what predictions have been made concerning their life on any given day, they have gone too far. Such a person has begun to assent to a different religion other than Catholicism. They have begun to be embodied elsewhere. Take Scientology as well for example. It is a new and relatively controversial religion. It has two aspects: Dianetics, which is basically supplementary psychology, and Scientology itself, which is a religion. Dianetics gives a person tools that are very useful, such as audit counseling, physical assists with stress; modern approaches to study and learning, and so on. A Catholic in my opinion can intellectually contemplate the probabilities of these supplementary psychological tools. These tools can in fact help the individual, especially when such individuals remain disembodied from Scientology. But when the Catholic begins to attend Scientology meetings and travel around promoting its cause, paying huge amounts of money to retain a membership and so forth - such an individual has for all intents and purposes become embodied in another faith.
 
Also take African Traditional Religion, or any Ethnic Religion for example. Many of these religions teach commonsense tools that help in daily living. The Feng Shui is a classic teaching from one of the Asian Traditions. It teaches the art of home design for the optimal flow of chi, or life force. Feng Shui is of the view that if you arrange the furniture in your bedroom in such and such a fashion, you attract positive energy to yourself. This need not be true, but it is probable. I see no harm in a Catholic asking a Feng Shui expert to come and design their living room. A few other Asian commonsense traditions are: acupuncture, yoga, chakras and tai-chi. There are also a few things to learn from Red Indian Traditions. One example is contained in a story about there being two wolves in the human heart perpetually fighting each other. One is a bad wolf, which brings sadness, pain and anger. The other is a good wolf that brings wealth and joy and success. Everyone should encourage the good wolf to prevail. This of course is obvious, if one intends to be wealthy, joyful and successful.
 
These sorts of inferential teachings are very helpful and perfectly harmless. They can assist the Catholic to understand themselves, and actually make them more Catholic. I have been helped by some of these teachings myself - but one must remain disembodied to them! This is important. One should remain Catholic: go to confession; attend mass; pray the rosary, and read the bible devoutly, embodied as one is within their faith family, holding the tenets of such faith as objects of real assent, objects of religion. Then, in a disembodied fashion, continue to contemplate or intellectualize the probabilities contained in the complementary spiritualities and psychologies of other creeds. On one condition: The probable truth existing in such creeds should not contradict Catholic teaching outright. I will draw an analogy: St Thomas Aquinas in his day was very fond of Aristotle, even though Aristotle was not a Christian. I mean, Christianity hadn't even begun to exist in Aristotle's time. St Thomas found that most of the things Aristotle wrote about did not contradict Catholic teaching  - which should come as no surprise, because many creeds and traditions hold many things in common with us, such as: belief in an ultimate, indestructible, creator power; the value of fraternal charity; the supremacy of good intentions, and so on - and the few which seemed to contradict Catholic teaching, Aquinas simply amended till they fit Catholic theology. In other words, he did not throw away anything Aristotle wrote. Those that fit his embodied stand, Aquinas kept, and those that did not fit, he simply amended, till they fit.
 
Take the tradition of reincarnation for example. As a Catholic, I do not believe in reincarnation. It is not an object of real assent, not an object of religion. But I do contemplate its probability. It is an object of faith for Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism, African Traditional Religion and many other sects. I understand why they believe as they do. And for all intents and purposes, it is not contradictory to Catholic teaching per se. Still, it is not an object of religion for me. I am disembodied to it, remaining as I am embodied in Holy Mother Church. Let me explain why I say the tradition of reincarnation is not contradictory to Catholic teaching. Holy Mother Church teaches that it is appointed for a soul - in other words, an individual person - to die once, after which come the four last things: judgment, heaven, hell or purgatory. In other words, the Church believes in life after death. When a person dies, the person's life on earth is judged. If the person is good, they go to heaven. If the person is too bad for help, they go to hell. If the person is not bad enough, they go to purgatory. The yardstick for judgment is whether the person did the will of God - recall the parable of the talents. Also, the bible says that the word or spirit of God will not return to God without accomplishing the task intended for it. These tasks include charity, integrity, forgiveness, humility and so forth.
 
Reincarnation is not the coming back to life of the same individual. No religion teaches this. In other words, properly speaking, reincarnation is not of the soul, but of the spirit. If the soul is defined as the sum total of all the conscious, semi-conscious and unconscious activities of an individual from the moment of conception in the womb till the moment of complete death, in other words departure of the principle of animation, then it is obvious that the soul cannot exist apart from the concept of a body and temporal circumstances. Seen in this light, the soul must always be defined in terms of a birth mother, a birth family or circumstances; a time period, a sojourning space; physical contingencies, and so forth. These conditions cannot be replicated. Heraclitus put it beautifully when he said we do not step into the same river twice. In other words, a soul can never come back to earth once dead. It  is absurd to think otherwise - here, please don't think of Lazarus or Jesus.
 
In other words, person A, born of a certain mother, in a certain land, into certain circumstances existing in that era, into certain material situations and so forth is a one-in-an-eternity occurrence. The mother conceiving at that specific time, passing on hers and her husband's DNA; feeding the person the specific foods existent at that time; using the technologies existing at that time; the person using the specific body parts in the performance of the activities presented by the environment of that time, which changes over time and never stays the same - these realities are bound in time, and can never be replicated. This is probably why Astrology insists that the specific second of birth is important, to ascertain what exactly the stars were doing at that fixed moment. But not just time, space too - what was happening say in Bangladesh at the specific moment person B was born there? That would necessarily be different from what was happening in Houston when person C was born there at that same second - the intervening circumstances of birth for each soul are exceptionally unique and can never be replicated. So yes, it is appointed for people once to die and after that judgment. Souls never return. Ever.
 
What those that teach reincarnation believe is that the spirit, the capacities within the individual which in a lifetime may or may not be actualized, can reincarnate. So, person A had it in them to be a musician, but because of one thing or another could not; maybe such a person was born a slave and was not allowed to sing, but the individual honed the skill and waited. When person A dies, that skill is retrieved and entrusted to soul B, in addition to other capacities, and soul B is born in a different set of circumstances that probably permit that gift of music to be used. So person A - or soul A - goes and waits to observe what soul B does with their musical talent, and if and when soul B actualizes the capacity, soul A can rest in peace. Perhaps too, soul B has some other capacity that is left unfulfilled at death. This capacity is retrieved and enfleshed under more favorable circumstances. Soul C then tries to actualize the capacity, while soul B watches. If soul C does, then soul B can go and rest. And so on and so forth. In other words, one reincarnating capacity can and does enspirit several souls. By the way, I fabricated the term "enspirit." And the Spirit of God enspirits every spirit.
 
Recall the parable of the talents, contained in Matt 25: 14-30. The individual with 5 talents was given 5 more; think here of a soul that actualized most of their capacities; such a soul is judged favorably, and its capacities are amplified in a new soul. For the soul that willfully chooses not to actualize their capacities on the other hand, the capacities are retrieved and entrusted to a deserving soul. Hence the flipside of what I said in the previous paragraph obtains, in that a certain soul, A, may choose not to actualize their capacities out of malice. In such a case, they do not even want to experience the actualization of such capacities, and so even though the capacities are retrieved and entrusted to another soul, they do not get to experience the new soul's actualization of them. They are remanded in perpetual unseeing. Hell. They are doomed. Recall also that the disciples asked Jesus concerning a man born blind: "Who sinned, this man or his parents for him to have been born blind?" (John 9:2) How could the blind man have been thought capable of having sinned before he was born if the disciples, Jews that they were, did not believe that "he" pre-existed? 
 
Notice how all of the foregoing resemble the Church's teaching concerning purgatory. According to Mother Church, the souls in purgatory cannot help themselves. This is true, because they no longer participate in the world - they have no bodies - but the spiritual and corporal works of mercy that the church militant do here on earth help to release the souls from purgatory into heaven, to join the church triumphant. This is because we are all connected by one spirit, the spirit of Jesus, the eternal capacity going forth as the everlasting word from the mouth of God, which cannot return to God void without accomplishing the work intended for it. And to the extent we participate in such divine work, to the same extent do we help to free the souls in purgatory, who are connected in the same Christian spirit - Christian capacity - with us. Recall what St Paul says about all the Church's members being one spirit in Christ, in Ephesians 4 and 1 Corinthians 12.
 
And so the teaching of reincarnation does not necessarily contradict Christian tradition. But Catholics should not believe it. We Catholics should not hold it as an object of real assent, of religion. But I see no harm in contemplating its probability, especially in light of Mother Church's teaching concerning purgatory. We can be disembodied to it, hold it as an object of inference, of argumentation. I do. Just like I hold as objects of argumentation many of the psychological and self-help teachings of many creeds other than mine. These teachings help me to understand my mind, and the world around me, and affirm that there is God, and that others realize this too. Being disembodied to all these traditions, while remaining firmly embodied in mine makes me a better and more faithful Catholic, but also a more tolerant cohabitant of a world where there are many religions other than mine. I can hold peaceful argumentations with people of other creeds, listen actively to them and contemplate the probabilities they preach, with joy and understanding in my heart. I not only appreciate the inferences in what they hold as their own objects of real assent or religion, but I also appreciate why they hold them. I can as well borrow some of their assists to help enrich my own faith.
 
There are many religions in the world. Mine is Catholicism. For me as an individual soul, born into my life's circumstances and having been indoctrinated from birth in this path, Catholicism is the best and truest faith. Having intellectually studied many traditions, I find myself coming back again to Catholicism. It works for me. My own unique illative sense tells me it is right. I am embodied within it, and hold its tenets as objects of real assent or religion. But I also allow myself to go on studying other traditions, holding many of their probabilities as objects of inference, of argumentation, notably those that do not necessarily contradict Catholic teaching. Some people go as far as to say that there should be no organized religions, that everybody should be a spiritual master to themselves, because religion brings division and strife. That's like saying there should no longer be countries, but everyone should be a citizen of the world, with a world passport. Silly. All nations believe in their own unique constitution within each respective nation, yet they all maintain embassies with one another to talk, deliberate and discuss global concerns in the interest of peace.
 
Similarly, there should continue to be religions. I don't think there will come a time when everyone will be Catholic, or everyone will have only one religion. It doesn't seem to me either that there will come a time when there will be only a world, and no countries. We all need a framework from which to deal with the larger society. We need individual bodies to participate in families; we need families to participate in countries, and we need countries to participate in the world. This diversity of participatory frameworks need not cause strife or division, as long as we embrace the principle of disembodied embodiment. While remaining embodied in our unique belief framework, we can be intellectually disembodied to other frameworks, contemplating the probabilities they contain, using the tools they offer to enrich our own creeds, and understanding why the individuals that are embodied within those creeds that differ from ours are the way they are.
 

No comments:

Post a Comment