connectedness of the self

Creation is the term used for the "beginning" of the world and life in it. There are many creation stories or accounts that help explain in some way why things are the way that they are and how they came to be. These accounts are for people. Creation narratives are very important b/c they signify how a person thinks or feels about the very nature of the world and those in it. For example in the creation account told by the early upinsads there is a God like figure that separates himself and makes a female. He then procreates with her. AFter she has considered the oddity that her husband is also her father she flees from him and disguises herself as a cow. The god is not fooled and transforms himself also, into a cow and procreates again. This continues until the earth is populated by all types of creatures. This account makes for a very messy creation narrative. It lacks intentional creation and purpose. It represents a type of humanity that is corrupted from the very beginning with the very birth of woman and all animals being a product of rape and incest. It is very different from the creation narrative we find in the Hebrew Bible. Genesis talks of an all powerful God that intentionally creates a human being and all of the animals and plants of the earth. This creation narrative suggests a purposeful creation and population of the world rather than an accidental. It also begins much less violently (without rape and incest). This could be conducive to a less chaotic world view. Yet, even in that thought, one must consider that he early upinsad tradition taught of the brahman and the atman, and the connectedness of the world and its creatures. By explaining that all animals and humans came from the same mother and father, it proclaims a more united creation. Alongside this unitedness comes the denial of the existance of self (atman). This is a very complicated thought that i'm not going to be able to completely explain (because I only understand it as much as my introductory course in buddhism will allow and because this blog is going to be long enough as it is). In this light, "self" is not viewed in the modern western sense. It does not refer to a person. Though it is difficult to separate the image that we see in the mirror from the idea of self, upinsad texts suggest otherwise. The self described in these texts is not an individual thing, but rather, a universal self that is in everyone. The text discusses the idea of Brahman, whoever believes that they are brahman also, like the original brahman becomes the brahman or the whole. therefore, the text is not teaching a person how to be selfless ( in a more literal sense of the word) , but rather, how to connect to the greater "self" or "whole".
Christian ideas of the self include dying to ones' self, the self eists but it is not something we are to grow or expand on necessarily. It is, in a sense, to be killed off and filled with God/ Christ. "Less of me, more of you". Buddhist ideas of self include not having a self. IT simply does not exist. There is one collective self. Americanist/ western thoughts of self include banking in on your own self. It is your most valuable tool. Be yourself. Every man for himself. Perhaps we should encourage less, the maintenance of the self and rather focus on the characteristics of Christ. IN this we are losing ourselvse and becoming part of a body, part of our Christian version of collective self. But what of individualism> What of the things God put in just us? Maybe they are unique in order to create on greater and perfect self in Christ's body, all of our attributes coming together to create one perfect self.

i'm quite cold right now

The other night at small group we went around the room and shared things that were on our heart. As I was sitting listening to the other girls, I wasn't sure what I would share, and figured it would be something surface level, nothing of significance, just something to say. I surprised myself by the emotional response I had when it was my turn to start sharing. My heart started to pound and I felt very sad. Though I wasn't planning on it I started talking about my friend.
She was always a listener, but lately ( the past year or so) she hasn't been listening. Instead, I can't seem to say anything right. I also can't seem to DO anything right, and she never just trusts that I am making good decisions for my life. I can see it in her eyes and I hear it in her questions. No matter how many times I tell her that things are good, she will never believe me. No matter how many times I struggle to explain myself, she will always make me feel like nothing I say will make her understand me. I realized when I started speaking at small group, how much her opinion of me mattered, and how little I could really do (short of changing a lot of what I believe) to make her respect me again. To her, I am a wayward child. I am lost. I need to find the light. I am misguided, misinformed, and confused.
Perhaps she is right. I may be misguided, I may be misinformed. I am certainly lost and confused on occasion with intermittent moments of clarity. Yet, I don't feel like a wayward child. I don't think that I will ever wake up and "see the light' the way that she wants me to. I ask a lot of questions, and they can't be answered the way she attempts to. Her questioning of my beliefs has made me more solid in the idea that I can not and will not willingly dwell in ignorance.

moment of clarity?

Lately I've been struggling with the purpose and place of the Bible and maybe I will continue to struggle with it but I just had a sort of aha! moment. perhaps because the bible is so complex, and is so opinionated... perhaps thats what makes it so cool and so important. Not because it was handed down from God directly, or because He told the Biblical writers the words to use, but maybe because he didn't. Maybe it can be used so wholly as a tool and as a holy piece of writing because it deals with the trials and tribulations, the questions, the problems, the exaltations, of people dealing with and learning from the same God that I worship today. Maybe when I start to realize that no one has EVER understood God, can I feel at home in this book. I just started to think that I really do love the Bible, for all that it has to offer, and all that it doesn't.

right belief, right action

The other day in my judaism class my professor mentioned that often times the idea of "right belief" is attributed to christianity while the idea of "right action" is given to Judaism. Of course, both religions value both belief and action, but the emphasis, it seems, is perceived to be different. I found this really interesting for some reason so I've been bringing it up in random conversations hoping for some sort of commentary that will make me understand why or have more of a reason as to what about this statement strikes me so. Mostly though, I only got the response of.. hmm interesting.
My question is this-- Why do we put so much emphasis on what to believe in rather than recognizing what we do. Indeed faith IN Christ is important but its believed by some that the actual translation should be faith OF Christ. So, through faith LIKE Christ, we are saved. What would that mean for us, as Christians, to believe that we are saved by our faith in God? I think that when we say faith IN Christ, too often we begin to believe that all it takes to be "saved" is to believe in Christianity. That is to say, that Christ died on the cross to forgive us of our sins and so on. If we instead strive to have a faith LIKE Christ, we are forced to have faith in God. Its important to differentiate between having faith in God and simply believing in his existence. To have faith in someone or something means to trust it, to follow it where it may lead you. Why can't we follow God and trust him and still question the historical accuracy of the Bible? Why can't we wonder what the writers' personal agenda's were, why can't we have different ideas about what something means without claiming that the other person is a heretic? Why do we assume that in order to have faith in God, we have to believe the same things that have traditionally been believed? In Rabbinic Judaism, the rabbi's believed that the TaNaKh (Hebrew Bible/OT) was an "eternal book". This meant that new things could be revealed to them through it at any time. It could be applicable to all generations because it could mean different things at different times. Again, the emphasis was on how you acted, how you followed the law, not necessarily what you believed about the rest. Of course, I don't follow Jewish law, but as a Christian I believe that LOVE is the law, therefore I strive to make love a part of everything I do. I attempt (and often fail miserably) to have faith and love like Christ, so does it matter that I might not believe all of the things you think are "right"?