Help Yogi! May 19, 2009

I’ve been having a problem lately with a concept spoken of by many, but unless I fail to grasp what appears to be a simple concept, actually understood by few – Balance.

Now, the idea of “achieving balance” in life has become fashionable as of late, and as a general plan, it seems good to me. It seems to be more an “Eastern” concept than a “Western” concept; in that Buddhism discusses it, whereas Christianity, Judaism and Islam traditionally do not. Huge gaping tracts of generalism here I know, but bear with me a bit.

The Western world does not seem to embrace the idea of balance. There’s a lot of talk, but there seems to be a problem with comprehension. The generally Judeo-Christian worldview is that of the two dichotomies present, one is generally a sin; humility and pride, industry and sloth, chastity and lust, good and evil. One half of everything must be rooted out and destroyed. Islam follows this general belief pattern. Now, I personally don’t see anything wrong with a little sloth as long as it’s balanced with a little industrious work, but I’ve always been a bad Christian, sometimes I’m even proud of that.

I think this Western worldview is best expressed by using an example most people know, Star Wars. Here we have a prophecy spoken of by the Jedi stating that “One will come who will bring balance to the force”. In the movie we have the Jedi (“good”) and the Sith (“evil”); both halves are represented. My problem here is that unless I missed something, the idea of “balance” is the eradication of the Sith. We do not have representatives of “good” and “evil” sitting down for coffee discussing philosophy; we have “good” wins, “bad” guys dead.

Buddhism embraces balance more. Life on Earth is imperfect and thus divided, the dichotomies present here, but not present in God as the perfect undivided being. Some Christians are beginning to discuss this possibility in their God as well, but there’s a hitch.

We have a Universal Being who is both halves of all dichotomies, right? Male and female, satisfied and envious, light and dark, good and evil. Here’s the hitch, in Christianity God cannot be evil, Satan is evil, God is good. God and Satan could represent both halves of the dichotomy, but Church dogma and the Bible state that God will eventually win (and Satan is not a deity), so no evil, no balance. So in the search for true balance, we’re back to Buddhism.

In Buddhist theory, if I understand correctly, God transcends the dichotomies, neither “male” or “female”, “good” nor “evil”, but something beyond the concept of either. There being no dichotomies for a Universal Being.

Now, we have arrived at my problem:
• God is the perfect balance of good and evil, so much so that God transcends both concepts.

• You need to be a really good person to be in God’s presence, or go to heaven, nirvana, or however you wish to express it.

• Only really good people being in heaven or nirvana would introduce a dichotomy. How is this imbalance resolved?

Here are the options I’ve come up with:
1. God could become evil, but God cannot become evil; the imbalance between good and evil may be resolved, but the concept of the perfectly balanced transcendent being would be negated (unless God absorbed the good souls to become perfectly balanced again – a compelling but disturbing thought).

2. Could there be another set of lives after these where the really good people from our existence have coffee and discuss philosophy with really evil people from another existence? Thus once again balancing the dichotomies. (An intriguing and frankly fascinating idea.)

3. Perhaps if a person is good enough to go to heaven or nirvana they are no longer just really good people but indeed are perfect, identical to God and the question then becomes moot. (Probably the “right” answer, but I feel compelled to point out this does not solve the dichotomy.)

4. Everyone goes to heaven/nirvana regardless, also making the question moot (and a lot of other questions moot as well).

5. Or are “good” and “evil” only human constructs designed only to describe and categorize human behaviors for rewards or condemnations, and as such would have no bearing at all on the concept of deity? (Honestly, a boring thought.)

6. There is no heaven/nirvana, there is something else (making pretty much everything moot).

Any additional thoughts?

What is money, really? December 22, 2008

I’ve noticed that many people have odd ideas about what money really is.  The beauty of money is that it is whatever we say it is, and it is worth whatever we say it is worth.  Do you feel less poor yet?

Now, before the men with the white coats are called, I’ll attempt to explain what I mean here.

Take a dollar bill for instance……..what is it?  It is a piece of paper.  That’s it, nothing more.  All the bills are printed on the same paper, so what is it that makes a $1 and a $100 different?  It’s what you had to do to earn that piece of paper, and what you can do with that piece of paper that gives it it’s worth.  It is only what that piece of paper represents to you that is important, not the piece of paper.  It is the value you put on that piece of paper.

If I wrote you an IOU on a paper napkin (and you trust my word), that piece of paper now has more value to you.  It is now worth the amount of that IOU.  You will fold that piece of paper up and put it in your wallet to keep it.  That is all money is.

Is gold any different?  Silver?  Platinum?  Nope.  The only thing that money has really done is streamlined the barter system.  Instead of bartering your services or products to another for their services or products, you both just give each other pieces of paper.  Money is also easier to carry around than a flock of chickens or all of your tools.  Money is just a “middle-man” that you both agree has a certain worth, no more and no less.

Titles and Names August 11, 2008

Recent conversations at GYHD led me to thinking about how people pigeon hole themselves in order to assist others in their own pigeon holing.  In other words, many people actually sit around working out the best descriptive title for themselves, so others will have “no problem” understanding them.

The titles which have been, and could be applied to me are myriad.  In my personal life: mother, wife, daughter, sister, cousin, aunt, granddaughter, friend.   In my professional life: consultant, technician, scientist, administrator, clerk, dishwasher, waitress.  My physical appearance: blond, female, tall, near-sighted.  Other titles are: anarchist, irritant, housekeeper, dishwasher, beer drinker, napper, hammock lover, goat owner, dog owner, and on and on.

Each one of these titles will mean something different to someone else.  The labels help, but do not explain all.  Everyone has slightly different ideas of what words mean.  If I say, “I am an anarchist.” people will view this statement in many different ways, and only a few will come close to what I truly mean.  Even “I am a mother.” has different connotations to everyone depending on each person’s own personal experiences and prejudices.

Reading posts that discuss people being “left-anarchists”, or “small L libertarians”, or god forbid, someone has an entire sentence (each word carefully chosen after much thought) designed to describe their political stance or some such, are actually are rather sad for me to read.  Why do people feel the need to limit themselves with some word or group of words, especially when only they will truly appreciate the underlying meaning in those words.