a touchy subject

[winterbadger]

I know that several of my friends dislike Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy, or at least some of Pullman's philosophy as described there.

I found this article in Wikipedia interesting, as I was not aware that Pullman was referencing, in referring to the Republic of Heaven, a 17th century thinker (I remember reading about the Diggers when I was studying the religious settlement in Stuart England).

I have a great deal of sympathy with this passage, quoted there, from Pullman. It exhibits an attitude much similar to my own.

The kingdom of heaven promised us certain things: it promised us happiness and a sense of purpose and a sense of having a place in the universe, of having a role and a destiny that were noble and splendid; and so we were connected to things. We were not alienated. But now that, for me anyway, the King is dead, I find that I still need these things that heaven promised, and I’m not willing to live without them. I don’t think I will continue to live after I’m dead, so if I am to achieve these things I must try to bring them about – and encourage other people to bring them about – on earth, in a republic in which we are all free and equal – and responsible – citizens.

I find myself less and less willing to believe in the sort of God conceived of and preached by most religions--a powerful, wise God who sees into our hearts and rewards good and punished evil. That is so clearly *not* present in the world we see that I cannot accept or give credence to a faith that proclaims such a deity and bases its teachings on him. But, like Pullman, I do still believe that humans need (and for the most part deserve) happiness, a sense of connection, a basis for society and shared goals and visions. So I think I am inclined to endorse his conception of a Republic of Heaven, where we all labour to create happiness and those things that are necessary for it.

Maybe I should go hang out with the UUS after all...

Comments

[justjayj.livejournal.com]

I know that several of my friends dislike Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy, or at least some of Pullman's philosophy as described there.

I just couldn't stand all the Freud.

The knife breaks when he tries to use it while thinking about his mother. *eyeroll*

Oh, and the Lyra/Emotion/Feminine--Will/Reason/Masculine symbolism ticked me off as well, especially how badly Lyra--previously so WILLful, got sidelined and became a follower in books 2 and 3.

Religion? It was about religion? ;)

[magaidhbhan.livejournal.com]

I'm with you.

I loved book 1, can't remember anything about book 2, and actively disliked book 3. It's possible that I read them too late - I think I disliked book 3 in the same way I disliked The Chronicles of Narnia on reading them as an adult (though I adored them as a child). I guess what I don't like is fantasty bashing me (hard) over the head with theology.

But that's a very nice quote.

[sun-in-splendor.livejournal.com]

"Maybe I should go hang out with the UUS after all..."

We'd love to have you. Bring cookies. ;-)

[tacnukesoul.livejournal.com]

"We are the Bor...uh...Unitarian Universalists.

We will add your own mythological and theological distintiveness to our own.

Your spirituality will be assimilated to service us.

Resistance is futile"

Seriously, any creed that gets too down into the weeds can be hard to swallow.

The idea that it all started because we ate the forbidden fruit (that gave us the ability to realize that eating the fruit was wrong) seems to make it all a rigged game.

[winterbadger]

Oooh! An unknown commentor! *rummages* Interesting! *adds*

[winterbadger]

:-) I'll bring some of Neta's squash muffins--even better.

On hearing a good many years ago of my conversion to Judaism from my mother, my godfather (a retired Episcopal clergyman) apparently said, "I can imagine the appeal the synagogue had for him. It doesn't surprise me; in another time, he might have gone to the Unitarians, but after they became overrun with pagans, who can take them seriously?" As you can imagine, he didn't know me very well, or he wouldn't have said that; I rather like pagans, at least most of the ones I've met. I think he just fancied himself as Sir John Gielgud in Chariots of Fire: "There goes your Semite, Hugh--A different god, a different mountain-top."

Lets found our own religion

[john-arundel.livejournal.com]

I'm pretty much with you on your major points deity-wise. I do think that some religions are nigh onto miracles in themselves - but they so seldom survive the death of their creator in a form thier creator would recognize

At this point in my life - agnostic Buddhism seems to be the most intelligent choice for me.

Re: Just thought of somthing else...

[john-arundel.livejournal.com]

There might be humor involved - as in Depeche Modes' blasphemous rumors. Hadnt thought about that.

(>>>I think that God's got a sick sense of humor and when I die I expect to find him laughing...)

Re: Lets found our own religion

[winterbadger]

I would be with you on the Buddhism thing (in fact, I've been tempted to drop by the temple down the street from us) except for the whole "the material world is rubbish and unreal" part. But they do generally seem like nice, calm people...

Re: Lets found our own religion

[schizokitty.livejournal.com]

First of all, I have to say that I agree with you about God. It is so obvious that s/he doesn't exist in the generally-accepted sense that it seems almost absurd to me sometimes that people still do.

except for the whole "the material world is rubbish and unreal" part.

Well...um...no.

This is a common misconception. It may be true in some versions of Buddhism, because I can hardly say I've studied them all, but isn't true in the brand of Mahayana I've studied. It's not that the material world is unreal, it's that our opinions about it are. Human beings are incredibly resistant to change. We label something and that's that. And then we're unhappy when our ideas about a thing turn out to be different from the reality or when that thing naturally undergoes a change (a friend becomes indifferent, a lover leaves us, etc.) that we don't want.

It's also that the material world -- well, actually, everything -- is impermanent. Eventually, the earth will be swallowed by the sun as it expands into its Red Giant phase. Loved ones will die. People we don't like will be elected to office. The ozone will be depleted. Our own "souls" are not the same thing from one day to another, not even from one moment to another -- our opinions change, our likes and dislikes change, sometimes even our entire personality.

Another way in which our view of the world is an "illusion" is that it is difficult for most of us to so see that a thing is NOT a thing in and of itself. A chair cannot be only a chair, no matter what Plato said. A chair is wood or plastic or leather. A person cut that wood and shaped it, made money, fed her family, and her son becomes a surgeon. The wood came from a tree in a forest. Insects and animals died when the tree was felled. Perhaps the watershed was compromised, or perhaps the tree was an invasive species, and its removal allowed the native trees to become re-established. Oh, yes, if pressed, most people will admit that "everything's interconnected," but it's hard to actually believe sometimes, especially when recognising the fact interferes with our own comfort or happiness. Think cars and global warming. Etc.

What pisses me off about Buddhism right now, and I think it's probably just my own unwillingness to step outside my comfort zone, is the idea of "original face" or "original mind," the idea that we are naturally enlightened -- we just don't know it. I think that is bunkus. I don't believe it's impossible to become enlightened, but I sure as hell don't think it was anybody's original state and that all we have to do is "remember" (though, to be fair, they never said this "just remembering" would be easy). Right now, I feel as though enlightenment is actually an unnatural, though not an unworthy, goal for human beings.

Oh, and don't get me started on "suffering is caused by clinging" and that one can end suffering simply by accepting everything for what it is (not approving, necessarily, but accepting). I can believe that about stuff like me "suffering" because an accident prevents me from doing something I wanted or because someone deliberately tried to hurt my feelings, but I can't wrap my head around this applying to genocide or children being raped or people being tortured or whatever.

Sigh. Oh, well. End of lecture. ^_^

Re: Lets found our own religion

[winterbadger]

THANK you for that "lecture". I'm going to mark this as a memorable entry, so I can find it easily and reread it from time to time.

That interpretation of Buddhism is MUCH more something that makes sense to me than the "straight" version that I thought I had learned. But when I read texts like the Basic Buddhism Guide on buddha.net or the articles on Wikipedia, they sound much more like what you're saying that what I've read elsewhere. Maybe I've just been looking at the wrong sources for instruction, or misinterpreting what I was reading.