ON THE GROCERYSTORE PARKING LOT

            A woman walked by wearing a sweatshirt that read “PRAY, PRAY, PRAY”. It seems there is something wrong here theologically. Do we have to beg God to do the right thing? Do we have to call three times to get God’s attention? Will God be impressed by our persistence? Either God is in complete control and whatever happens will happen anyway, or God is not in complete control and perhaps pleading will help enable the good thing to happen.

            On the other hand, perhaps God needs our participation in current events in order to get the right things done and is waiting for us to express our ready commitment. Then, it would seem, what is needed is not persistent prayer but actual work on our behalf in co-operation with God in order for good to triumph. Thus, what is needed is not repetitive prayer but diligent co-operative hard work. Sweatshirts bearing mottos appropriate to solid effort would be more useful.

            Prayer as a way to get God to do what we think is right and good seems wrong theologically. Yet to just sit bye waiting to see what transpires and call it “God’s will” would be irresponsible. I think it is both sensible and responsible for us to view what happens as a result of a combination of what we think and work for as right and what God will and can do given the mitigating circumstances and actions of un-cooperative people. Prayer and work go together hand-in-hand.

        On yet another day, on that same parking lot, I saw the former House Representative Gabby Giffords, wife of Senator Mark Kelley. You may recall she was shot in the head several years back in still another parking lot at a political rally. She continues to work, along with her husband, for peace and justice in America. Mari and I have seen her there in the parking lot several times in recent years. She is always very pleasant and friendly as she makes her way along the sidewalk ever so carefully because she is still rather crippled.

            Once Mari said to her “Hello Ms. Gabby”. She smiled broadly and replied, in her high-pitched voice: “Hello. How are you?” She is always accompanied by another young woman who carries the groceries and drives the car. She is such an inspiration as she continues to work, not just pray repeatedly, for peace and justice in America. It is such a joy and inspiration to see her in the parking lot.              

TWO ANCIENT ORIENTAL PHILOSOPHERS

While preparing for one of my Zoom classes I was struck by the contrast between the philosophies of the Buddha “The Enlightened One” (or “the One who Woke Up”) and Confucius (“Kung Fu-tzu”) two of the greatest thinkers of ancient world. Putting it bluntly, Buddha was a solitary figure who refused to give up looking for the principles of the true way of life until he was “enlightened”, while Confucius was a scholarly fellow who sought to think every idea about life through to its logical solution. The two great thinkers came to quite different conclusions.

As the story goes, Siddhartha Gautama (b. 563 BCE) was the son of Noble feudal Lord and thus grew up with all the advantages and expectations therewith pertaining. His father even commanded that he never be allowed to witness any form of suffering or poverty during his early years. When he discerned the futility of the life of luxury and riches Gautama turned his back on his royal role and determined to seek the true way of happiness and truth. He sought thus way in the traditional wisdoms of his culture and in the way of the aesthete, but to no avail. He finally sat himself down under a Bo tree and vowed not to go on until he had discerned the true meaning of life.

This “meaning”, this “way” of life of an “Enlightened One”, came to him as one that refused to accept someone else’s teaching as authoritative until he himself had tested it. He was searching for a “pragmatic” philosophy of life. In this search he came up with what are called “The Four Noble Truths” of Buddhism:

1. All of life involves suffering,
2. Suffering is caused by ignorant selfish desires
3. Suffering can be alleviated by “letting go” of all selfish desires
4. Letting go of desires is accomplished by following the “Eightfold Path” of 1. right views, 2. right motives, 3. right speech, 4. right conduct, 5. right livelihood, 6. right effort, 7. right mindfulness and 8. right focus.   

Following this pattern of life will lead one to Nirvana (Pure Being) and finally to Reincarnation as a result of accumulating proper Karma.

Now, what interest me in this context is Buddha’s demonstration of what some have called “inner direction.” That is to say, his approach was one involving the setting aside of the traditions and teachings of other persons and focusing on his own ideas. He did, in fact, become something of a rank “individualist” in order to find his own “true” path to wisdom and “happiness.”

In contrast to this approach of the Buddha in seeking enlightenment and wisdom, we have Confucius, who lived about the same time as Buddha, but in an entirely different part of the world. He was a scholar and sought in the writings of previous sages to find the proper and happiest way of life. Confucius saw the crucial problem of his time not to be that of individual happiness and wisdom, but that of social and political confusion, leading ultimately to complete disintegration.

For Confucius, in other words, the chief problem facing the Chinese people was not one of individual confusion and unhappiness, but rather it was one of the ignorance and/or avoidance of the long-established social traditions of their cultural heritage. Thus, in his teachings Confucius focused on re-establishing the proven traditions and mores of the great Chinese cultures of the past. Confucius thought that his culture was falling apart because people were neglecting the ideas and practices out of which the Great Chinese civilization had been built. 

Thus he stressed the practice of human-heartedness, traditions, hospitality, propriety, and stability, not as religious values, but rather as ethical values. In short, he might say they we need to be more other directed and less self-directed or individualist in our approach to our life together.                     

I find it interesting and instructive to compare and contrast these two ancient  thinkers and their proposed ways of life, both individually and collectively. The issues we face today, especially in America, strike me as similar to those faced by them. Some would criticize America today as far too individualistic in its cultural and political values, thus the social fabric has become torn and in danger of disintegration. Thus we need stronger commitment to the spirit of the Constitution and individual values and freedom.

Others would say what we need are stronger governmental guidelines and individual leadership as we used to have in the days of the Founding Fathers or during World War Two. In the past, great cultures, such as the Greeks and Romans have fallen because of the lack of continued adherence to the common values that served to give them birth. In our short history here in America it is perhaps too early to calculate what our next steps should be. I do tend, at times at least, to think that we may have made too much of our individual rights and values. At the same time, it seems inappropriate to try to seek social values by fiat or by commanding them. One cannot just command attitudes and moral value as if one is speaking to small children. Social values must arise out of a common set of commitments and experience. We’ll see!