My favourite philosopher is none of these jerks, it's Soren Kierkegaard, the Danish existentialist. Oooh he's dreamy! Do we have a picture of Kierkegaard? Yeah yeah look at that. Kierke-gorgeous!"
- Craig Ferguson
I don't always keep up with The Late Late Show on a daily basis, but will often watch parts of it later on youtube. Now, last Monday, while working on a paper for my existentialism class, I took a break and watched the monologue from the previous Friday (October 15). And, to my great surprise and delight, he talked about Nietzsche and Kierkegaard! He started talking about Nietzsche because the famous philosopher was born on that day in 1844 (and October 15 is also my girlfriend's birthday, coincidentally) and then he went on to talk about Soren Kierkegaard. Now, I found this all to be rather uncanny, because I had just written a post about Kierkegaard not long ago, and because, at that very moment, I was writing a paper on existentialism!
Anyways, here is the clip so you can enjoy it for yourself. He starts talking about Nietzsche at around 8:00.
Enjoy!!
P.S. I only just realized that I've been running this blog for over a year now! Woot! Therefore, maybe it is appropriate to announce that I am just about to start up a new blog, which will focus on faith and spirituality at UBC. I'll let you know as soon as it's up!
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Friday, October 8, 2010
Introducing my new hero: Soren Kierkegaard
"The self is a relation that relates itself to itself or is the relation's relating itself to itself in the relation; the self is not the relation but is the relation's relating itself to itself"
- Kierkegaard
uuuuummmmm......what?
Even though this post is about Kierkegaard, I am by no means an expert on philosophy, and I only have a vague understanding of what the hell he was trying to say in the sentence above. But anyways, I am taking my first ever philosophy course, and it is a course on Existentialism. I'd always been fascinated by existentialist thought and had heard of many of the philosophers associated with this movement, so I am very excited to be finally taking this class. Existentialism, broadly speaking, is a philosophy that believes that there is no inherent meaning in life, and so we must determine meaning for ourselves. It is quite hard to define, because the thinkers that are grouped as existentialists had vastly different thoughts, and, furthermore, many of them rejected the label of 'existentialism'. Even Sartre, who was first to embrace the term 'existentialist', eventually rejected it again!
Anyways, I've been quite surprised to find a lot more "God" in existentialism than I'd been expecting. For example, Soren Kierkegaard, who is regarded as one of the fathers of existentialism, believed in God. However, he was very critical of mainstream Christianity, and critiqued the church in his writings. Nevertheless, I find him fascinating because he takes a totally different approach to belief and God than you'd see in books by most Christians or theologians (ie C.S. Lewis). For my class, we read excerpts from Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling, in which he discusses the concept of faith using the figure of Abraham from the Old Testament. Kierkegaard believes faith is a passion, and advocates passionate faith.
The writing of Kierkegaard that I really enjoyed the most, however, was from a book called The Sickness Unto Death. In this book Kierkegaard explains that despair is the sickness of the spirit, and that everyone is in despair. This despair is caused by a sort of inbalance between our self and spirit, between the finite and infinite parts of us. What is interesting, especially, is that Kierkegaard says that it is through this despair that we can become conscious that we have a spirit:
" - there is so much talk about wasting a life, but only that person's life was wasted who went on living so deceived by life's joys or its sorrows that he never became decisively and eternally conscious as spirit, as self, or, what amounts to the same thing, never became aware and in the deepest sense never gained the impression that there is a God and that "he," he himself, his self, exists before this God..."
(from The Sickness Unto Death)
Ah...I don't really know why, but those words really affected me when I first read them, and still do. Maybe, despite the pessimistic talk about 'wasting life' and being 'deceived', it still carries some hope: of being able to become fully aware of oneself and one's spirit, as well as God.
It is because of these wonderful words that you, Mr. Kierkegaard, are my new hero, joining the ranks of my other heroes: Jeff Buckley, James Joyce, Craig Ferguson, Gautama Buddha, and Jesus of Nazareth.
- Kierkegaard
uuuuummmmm......what?
Even though this post is about Kierkegaard, I am by no means an expert on philosophy, and I only have a vague understanding of what the hell he was trying to say in the sentence above. But anyways, I am taking my first ever philosophy course, and it is a course on Existentialism. I'd always been fascinated by existentialist thought and had heard of many of the philosophers associated with this movement, so I am very excited to be finally taking this class. Existentialism, broadly speaking, is a philosophy that believes that there is no inherent meaning in life, and so we must determine meaning for ourselves. It is quite hard to define, because the thinkers that are grouped as existentialists had vastly different thoughts, and, furthermore, many of them rejected the label of 'existentialism'. Even Sartre, who was first to embrace the term 'existentialist', eventually rejected it again!
Anyways, I've been quite surprised to find a lot more "God" in existentialism than I'd been expecting. For example, Soren Kierkegaard, who is regarded as one of the fathers of existentialism, believed in God. However, he was very critical of mainstream Christianity, and critiqued the church in his writings. Nevertheless, I find him fascinating because he takes a totally different approach to belief and God than you'd see in books by most Christians or theologians (ie C.S. Lewis). For my class, we read excerpts from Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling, in which he discusses the concept of faith using the figure of Abraham from the Old Testament. Kierkegaard believes faith is a passion, and advocates passionate faith.
The writing of Kierkegaard that I really enjoyed the most, however, was from a book called The Sickness Unto Death. In this book Kierkegaard explains that despair is the sickness of the spirit, and that everyone is in despair. This despair is caused by a sort of inbalance between our self and spirit, between the finite and infinite parts of us. What is interesting, especially, is that Kierkegaard says that it is through this despair that we can become conscious that we have a spirit:
" - there is so much talk about wasting a life, but only that person's life was wasted who went on living so deceived by life's joys or its sorrows that he never became decisively and eternally conscious as spirit, as self, or, what amounts to the same thing, never became aware and in the deepest sense never gained the impression that there is a God and that "he," he himself, his self, exists before this God..."
(from The Sickness Unto Death)
Ah...I don't really know why, but those words really affected me when I first read them, and still do. Maybe, despite the pessimistic talk about 'wasting life' and being 'deceived', it still carries some hope: of being able to become fully aware of oneself and one's spirit, as well as God.
It is because of these wonderful words that you, Mr. Kierkegaard, are my new hero, joining the ranks of my other heroes: Jeff Buckley, James Joyce, Craig Ferguson, Gautama Buddha, and Jesus of Nazareth.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
The Blind Men and the Elephant
Hello again! I decided to take a break from blogging for most of July and August, because I was working two jobs and it was just too busy. But now I have a whole lot of free time before classes begin again in September, so I'm starting it up again.
The other day I was considering how one person's idea of what is sensical and logical may differ from another person's, yet so often we tend to think that there can only be one logical, sensical answer. This made me think back to a very old parable I'd once heard, called "The Blind Men and the Elephant". I first heard of this story, which is used to illustrate the relativity of truth, or the inexpressible nature of truth, in my World Religions class a few years ago. The story originated in India, but there are many different versions - Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, Sufi Muslim; and apparently there is even an African version. Here is one version of the parable:
One day a wise and mighty rajah was sitting at his window contemplating the vastness of his view, when his son came to him.
“Father, what is the truth of things?” the young boy asked his father.
“A wonderful question!” the rajah said with delight, for he was well pleased that his son was searching. “I will try to guide you to your answer.”
He commanded his royal elephant to be brought forth. Outside the palace the father and son mounted the elephant and proceeded to the market place.
“Bring me three blind men”, the rajah commanded. Three blind men were brought forth.
“Allow the blind men to examine the elephant”, the rajah commanded.
Now the blind men had never known of an elephant and were excited to feel one for the first time in all their poor lives. One found his way to the elephant’s tusk, another at its leg and the last at its tail.
When the three had finished the Rajah asked the blind men, “Describe the elephant to my son, that he might learn.”
“Oh noble Rajah, it is like a spear”, said the blind man who examined only the tusk.
“Oh noble Rajah, he is quite wrong, it is like a tree”, said the blind man who examined only the leg.
“Most noble Rajah, they are both wrong, the elephant is like a rope” said the blind man who only examined the tail.
At this the three blind men began to bicker amongst themselves, each telling the others why he alone was right.
“Do you see it, my son?” the rajah said holding his son, while pointing at the three blind men. “The elephant is like the truth of all things and we are like the blind men.”
Now, in all the different versions, the premise is the same - three or six blind men touch an elephant and each say that it is like something different. However, the versions differ in their conclusions. In the version from the Jain scriptures, the six blind men bicker at each other, until a wise men arrives and tells them that they are all right, for, "each one of you touched the different part of the elephant. So, actually the elephant has all those features what you all said." So, for Jainism, this story is used to illustrate that truth can be expressed in many different ways. In fact, in Jainism, it is believed that the truth can be stated in seven different ways (!). This concept is called Anekantvad, or the theory of Manifold Predictions.
In the Buddhist version, which occurs in Udana 68-69, the Buddha tells the arguing blind men that it is because of their ignorance - seeing only one side/perspective - that they are being quarrlesome.
So, as you can see, just as their are many ways for the blind men to interpret the elephant, there are many different ways to interpret this parable! It can definitely be used as a valuable example of the importance of not just sticking to one's own point of view, but considering the perspectives and opinions of others as well. However, it can also be used to describe religions in general. The blind men could symbolize all the religions of the world, and the elephant is God/the divine/ultimate reality. All religions - Hinduism, Christianity, Islam etc - can somewhat interpret what God is like, but none of them can fully grasp God/the divine in its entirity. As Ramakrishna, the 19th century Hindu mystic said, "he who has seen the Lord in a particular way limits the Lord to that alone and thinks that He is nothing else."
But, what I've also realized, is that someone could come along and say that their religion is the man who can see the elephant in its entirity, and so all the other religions are wrong (or only partly correct)! And indeed, while searching the web for different versions of this parable, I did see a number of websites that used this parable to say their belief was right. I believe that this defeats the point of the story, but anyways...
“Father, what is the truth of things?” the young boy asked his father.
“A wonderful question!” the rajah said with delight, for he was well pleased that his son was searching. “I will try to guide you to your answer.”
He commanded his royal elephant to be brought forth. Outside the palace the father and son mounted the elephant and proceeded to the market place.
“Bring me three blind men”, the rajah commanded. Three blind men were brought forth.
“Allow the blind men to examine the elephant”, the rajah commanded.
Now the blind men had never known of an elephant and were excited to feel one for the first time in all their poor lives. One found his way to the elephant’s tusk, another at its leg and the last at its tail.
When the three had finished the Rajah asked the blind men, “Describe the elephant to my son, that he might learn.”
“Oh noble Rajah, it is like a spear”, said the blind man who examined only the tusk.
“Oh noble Rajah, he is quite wrong, it is like a tree”, said the blind man who examined only the leg.
“Most noble Rajah, they are both wrong, the elephant is like a rope” said the blind man who only examined the tail.
At this the three blind men began to bicker amongst themselves, each telling the others why he alone was right.
“Do you see it, my son?” the rajah said holding his son, while pointing at the three blind men. “The elephant is like the truth of all things and we are like the blind men.”
Now, in all the different versions, the premise is the same - three or six blind men touch an elephant and each say that it is like something different. However, the versions differ in their conclusions. In the version from the Jain scriptures, the six blind men bicker at each other, until a wise men arrives and tells them that they are all right, for, "each one of you touched the different part of the elephant. So, actually the elephant has all those features what you all said." So, for Jainism, this story is used to illustrate that truth can be expressed in many different ways. In fact, in Jainism, it is believed that the truth can be stated in seven different ways (!). This concept is called Anekantvad, or the theory of Manifold Predictions.
In the Buddhist version, which occurs in Udana 68-69, the Buddha tells the arguing blind men that it is because of their ignorance - seeing only one side/perspective - that they are being quarrlesome.
So, as you can see, just as their are many ways for the blind men to interpret the elephant, there are many different ways to interpret this parable! It can definitely be used as a valuable example of the importance of not just sticking to one's own point of view, but considering the perspectives and opinions of others as well. However, it can also be used to describe religions in general. The blind men could symbolize all the religions of the world, and the elephant is God/the divine/ultimate reality. All religions - Hinduism, Christianity, Islam etc - can somewhat interpret what God is like, but none of them can fully grasp God/the divine in its entirity. As Ramakrishna, the 19th century Hindu mystic said, "he who has seen the Lord in a particular way limits the Lord to that alone and thinks that He is nothing else."
But, what I've also realized, is that someone could come along and say that their religion is the man who can see the elephant in its entirity, and so all the other religions are wrong (or only partly correct)! And indeed, while searching the web for different versions of this parable, I did see a number of websites that used this parable to say their belief was right. I believe that this defeats the point of the story, but anyways...
Nonetheless, I think this parable can be valuable in showing the importance of being sensitive to other other's perspectives, points of view, and beliefs.
Parable taken from: http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/5793531-the-story-of-the-three-blind-men-and-the-elephant
Jain version: http://www.jainworld.com/education/stories25.asp
Buddhist version: http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~rywang/berkeley/258/parable.html
Friday, July 2, 2010
My Visit to a Buddhist Temple; or "Buddhism 101"
The International Buddhist Temple in Richmond, BC.
As you can probably tell from my blog, I love learning new things about religions. Taking Religious Studies courses in university has enabled me to learn so much about religious traditions that I did not know much about before, such as Hinduism and Buddhism. However, while learning about a religion from a scholarly, 'outside-looking-in' perspective does have its advantages, it also has several limitations. It is sometimes hard to understand exactly how a particular religion is practiced by its followers on a daily basis, and what it means to those people. How can you picture priests chanting in Sanskrit and smell the thick odour of incense without actually going to a Hindu temple yourself?
So this year I've been trying to experience religions first hand by actually visiting temples and places of spiritual practice. I visited two different Hindu temples this spring, but I had also been yearning to go to a Buddhist temple. I find Buddhism to be very interesting and alluring, but also very confusing (the whole 'no-soul' doctrine just escapes my grasp...). This past semester I took a Buddhism in China course, and we were supposed to go visit the International Buddhist (or "Guan Yin") Temple in Richmond, but didn't; and so I decided to go this summer to really experience Buddhism for myself.
So, on a sunny Saturday morning in June my girlfriend and I drove out to Richmond to go to the Saturday dharma talk and meditation at the International Buddhist Temple. This temple follows the Mahayana tradition, which is prevalent today in China, Korea and Japan. The temple is pretty extensive, consisting of a classical Chinese garden, two main courtyards, and several halls. We found the meditation hall, where women sat on the right-hand side facing the middle, and men sat on the left. At the front of the hall sat the person leading the meditation, and behind him were three statues of Gautama Buddha (the historical Buddha). The man leading the meditation and talk explained that he was not an ordained Buddhist monk, but a lay follower. Nonetheless, he was still wearing the traditional clothing of a monk.
The first meditation we did was a simple breathing exercise, where we focused on mindfulness, by paying attention to our breathing and on relaxing our entire body, starting from the top of our heads and moving down. This was meant to anchor us in the present. We had to then try to empty our minds, acknowledging thoughts that might cross our minds, but not dwelling on them. I have done this type of meditation before, but since I am not a regular practitioner it is still challenging to completely block of all thinking. It was also one of the longest meditations I have ever experienced - it literally felt like an eternity before he hit the gong! The next meditation we did was a walking meditation, which involved everyone walking in a circle around the hall; slower walkers on the outside and faster walkers on the inside.
After walking around for about a quarter of an hour, we were given a booklet with some 'sutras' and chants written inside, and together we recited the Heart Sutra (an important Buddhist scripture), as well as a description of the 'Five Aggregates' (form, sensation, perception, mental formations, consciousness). Thereafter we chanted one or two pieces of Buddhist scripture. When this was done, the man leading the session gave a talk on Buddhism. I especially enjoyed this, not only because I was hearing about Buddhism from an actual Buddhist, but because all the other temples I have been to have only talked in other languages (the most I've gotten from listening to a message from a Hindu priest was one line in English: "Everything is impermanent, except for devotion to God"!). This man gave an amazing introduction to Buddhism, acutely summing up everything I've learned about Buddhism in about an hour or so! It was literally "Buddhism 101". He talked about the Four Noble Truths (life is suffering, suffering is caused by desire, if we stop desire we will stop suffering, we stop suffering by following the Eightfold Path), went over the Eightfold Path, and explained how one becomes a monk.
He also talked about Buddhist philosophy, and mentioned some things that I found were particularly insightful and beneficial. The first was about compassion: He said that being sympathetic to someone gave you power over them, or put you above them; meaning meant that you are in fact looking down on them. Being compassionate however, he explained, means bringing yourself down to their level, being equal, and understanding that you are just as capable of suffering what they are suffering. Another thing he told us was that it was silly to hate war/injustice. He said that this hate only breeds negative thoughts/attitudes in oneself, and does not affect those causing the injustice (and in many cases that hatred is actually what they really want). Instead, we should focus on loving peace, and acknowledge that we have the potential to act just as atrociously as those we despise.
Once the talk had concluded, we wandered around the temple grounds for a bit.We looked inside the Main Gracious Hall (shown above), where a traditional Buddhist ceremony/worship was taking place. In this hall were five enormous Buddha and Bodhisattva statues. According to wikipedia, the statue of the Buddha in this hall is the largest in North America! Across from this hall was a giant statue of Avalokitesvara - the deity of great compassion - with multiple arms and eyes.
So this was my surreal experience at an authentic Buddhist temple. There are still parts of Buddhism that I am unsure about, such as the whole 'no soul' doctrine, and the fact that you have to eliminate desire completely. Isn't it normal to have some desire? I agree that there are many things that we want and have in our modern society that we really don't need, but is it so wrong to want to enjoy a delicious mocha every once in a while? But, while I might not be converting to Buddhism anytime soon, I still believe there is a lot to gain from it. From my experience Buddhism has always emphasized the importance of living and being in the present moment, which has been influential on me, especially since I am prone to analyzing the past and worrying about the future. This philosophy of being in the present, as well as the meditation practices that go with it, have helped me to live more in the present. Furthermore, as I mentioned earlier, the Buddhist philosophy of compassion, and loving peace instead of hating war, are also incredibly valuable.
If you are interested in the International Buddhist Temple, check out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Buddhist_Temple
http://www.buddhisttemple.ca/index.php?lang=en
(The Dharma Talk and Meditation is every Saturday from 9am-11am).
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Happy Bloomsday!
Since my last few posts have all been about religion, I thought it was time to mix things up a bit and write about something else. And so today I am honouring Bloomsday, a holiday celebrating the Irish writer James Joyce and his infamous novel Ulysses, which takes place almost entirely on June 16th, 1904. Ulysses details the story of three characters – Stephen Dedalus, Mr. Leopold Bloom, and Molly Bloom – and their interactions and experiences in Dublin from 8am on June 16th, 1904 until 2am on June 17th, 1904. Bloomsday is commemorated in Dublin and by those who are familiar with Ulysses. Many people honour Bloomsday by walking the route that Mr. Bloom take throughout Dublin in Ulysses, visiting the various places that are mentioned in the novel, as well as with readings from the novel, entertainment, and pub crawls.
The first chapter, or ‘episode’ of the novel, is set at 8am, and begins from the point of view of Stephen Dedalus, a young man who has just returned to Dublin from Paris after having failed to carry out his artistic vision. The first three chapters (from 8am-10am) focus on Stephen, and then the time frame jumps back in episode 4 to 8am where the story begins again from Mr. Bloom’s perspective. Mr. Bloom is a pork-eating Jew, who feels tension in his marriage and becomes fond of Stephen. Their adventures around Dublin form the bulk of the novel until the final episode, where the narrative shifts to Molly Bloom’s point of view. In this episode, Molly’s internal thoughts are spewed out on paper with no periods, commas, or any other punctuation. In this episode, Molly pees, farts, has her period, contemplates the affair she just had that afternoon (even describing the man’s girth), as well as the rest of her sexual history and desires.
This was one of the most obscene books I have ever read (and not surprisingly it was banned in Britain and the United States for many years), yet it was also one of the most brilliant. Published in 1922, Ulysses is considered to be the quintessential novel of the modernist period (a period of experimentation in the arts that occurred from the late 1800s to mid 20th century), and also has a reputation of being ‘hard to start, and even harder to finish’. Part of what makes this work so challenging is that it is primarily written in a stream-of-consciousness style, meaning that the sentences are written as if they are the internal thoughts of the character written out on paper. Furthermore, the narrative also jumps from one character’s thoughts to another, and so it is confusing to pinpoint who exactly thought what – Stephen, Mr Bloom, or the narrator (who seems to become a character himself). What also makes Ulysses so hard to read is the fact that there are so many obscure references to other literary, musical and artistic sources, Celtic and Irish mythology, and political events in the early 1900s. There have been books written that are larger than the text of Ulysses itself to explain all of these vague references! Many of the episodes are written in various ‘styles’ (as if it was a newspaper, a musical, a play, a scientific work), demonstrating Joyce’s ability to manipulate language and firmly establishing him as one of the greatest writers of the English language.
This will be the first Bloomsday that I am commemorating, but unfortunately I am celebrating it by having my wisdom teeth taken out. But, considering that Ulysses focuses on the mundane physical aspects of human life and also has a very trippy episode where characters change shape and gender, maybe having my wisdom teeth cut out of my mouth and feeling loopy from painkillers is in fact the very best way to celebrate Bloomsday!
So, Happy Bloomsday everyone!
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Religious Misconceptions #2
Jihad means "Holy War"
The Qur'an also uses the term jihad specifically in the sense of "struggle/effort for the sake of Allah". Although this can mean fighting with arms, it also means resisting the evil drives and desires in one's self. And so, there are two types of jihad. The "greater jihad" is a 'spiritual' type. It means the inner struggle a believer has, to do the right thing, and resist evil. The "lesser jihad" is that of religious warfare. This "lesser jihad", or "armed jihad" is a response to armed agression, and is only temporary. The "greater jihad" is permanent, because there are always causes for it - one is always struggling against one's own weaknesses. This peaceful jihad can refer to anything instance of peaceful struggle undertaken by a Muslim against external forces, such as preaching in a hostile environment, opposing an evil act, or even donating money to the poor - because it involves struggling against one's selfish desires to keep one's money for one's own pleasures.
So, even though jihad can mean "holy war" - or rather resistance to armed agression - it is actually meant, first and foremost, to denote a believer's inner spiritual struggle.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Religious Misconceptions #1
Religion of the day: Buddhism
i. The Dalai Lama is the reincarnation of the original Buddha on earth
Answer: Not quite: The Dalai Lama is actually the reincarnation (or really the 'emanation body') of the deity Avalokitesvara, pictured below:
The 14th Dalai Lama (Tenzin Gyatso) on the left, and the deity Avalokitesvara on the right. Since Avalokitesvara is a deity of great compassion, he is often depicted as having many heads and arms to symbolize that he is able to notice and respond to the needs of many people at the same time.
To many Buddhists, Avalokitesvara is a bodhisattva. Boddhisattvas are beings which, many existences ago, achieved great merit and would have been able to pass into Nirvana, but out of compassion and pity for humanity, delayed their entrance into Nirvana to help other beings achieve enlightenment. However, for Tibetans, Avalokitesvara is not a bodhisattva but a Buddha who attained enlightenment in a previous era and vowed to appear in the future to help bring the Dharma (the teachings of the Buddha) to the people. And so, according to Tibetan Buddhist belief, Avalokitesvara first reincarnated as Gendun Druba (in 1391), and since then has reincarnated after each Dalai Lama's death. Today, Tenzin Gyatso is the fourteenth Dalai Lama.
The search for the next Dalai Lama is as follows: When the current Dalai Lama passes away, the search begins to find his reincarnation. This process can sometimes take years. In fact, it took four years to find the current Dalai Lama. When the supposed child is found, he is put through a series of tests to determine if he is in fact the correct reincarnation. In one of these tests he is shown some artifacts belonging to the previous Dalai Lama, and passes the test if he identifies them correctly. Once the reincarnation has been positively confirmed, he begins studying at a monastery, to prepare for becoming the spiritual leader of the Tibetan people.
ii. Buddhism originated in China
Answer: No. Even though Buddhism has been practiced for many centuries in China, and is the dominant religion in places like Japan and Thailand, it first formed in India. Buddhism began with the birth of the historical Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama, who was a prince born at the foothills of the Himalayas (then northern India, but today Nepal) in approximately 563 BCE. He eventually abandoned royal life to find how one can gain freedom from suffering and death. He tried philosophical meditation, bodily mortification, and other extremes, but eventually discovered the cause of suffering, and how it can be avoided, and then gained enlightenment. Thereafter he began to teach his doctrine, or Dharma, and eventually left the world and entered Nirvana.
After the Buddha left the mortal realm, Buddhism began to spread in India (gaining popularity with those who rejected Brahmanism - the ancestor of modern Hinduism), and several different schools/traditions arose. Then, in the first century CE, Buddhism began to spread into China and other parts of Asia, largely because of merchants and missionaries. While Buddhism gained popularity in the rest of Asia over the centuries, it declined in India and basically disappeared by 1200 CE. Today, only about 1% of the population of India is Buddhist.
i. The Dalai Lama is the reincarnation of the original Buddha on earth
Answer: Not quite: The Dalai Lama is actually the reincarnation (or really the 'emanation body') of the deity Avalokitesvara, pictured below:
The 14th Dalai Lama (Tenzin Gyatso) on the left, and the deity Avalokitesvara on the right. Since Avalokitesvara is a deity of great compassion, he is often depicted as having many heads and arms to symbolize that he is able to notice and respond to the needs of many people at the same time.
To many Buddhists, Avalokitesvara is a bodhisattva. Boddhisattvas are beings which, many existences ago, achieved great merit and would have been able to pass into Nirvana, but out of compassion and pity for humanity, delayed their entrance into Nirvana to help other beings achieve enlightenment. However, for Tibetans, Avalokitesvara is not a bodhisattva but a Buddha who attained enlightenment in a previous era and vowed to appear in the future to help bring the Dharma (the teachings of the Buddha) to the people. And so, according to Tibetan Buddhist belief, Avalokitesvara first reincarnated as Gendun Druba (in 1391), and since then has reincarnated after each Dalai Lama's death. Today, Tenzin Gyatso is the fourteenth Dalai Lama.
The search for the next Dalai Lama is as follows: When the current Dalai Lama passes away, the search begins to find his reincarnation. This process can sometimes take years. In fact, it took four years to find the current Dalai Lama. When the supposed child is found, he is put through a series of tests to determine if he is in fact the correct reincarnation. In one of these tests he is shown some artifacts belonging to the previous Dalai Lama, and passes the test if he identifies them correctly. Once the reincarnation has been positively confirmed, he begins studying at a monastery, to prepare for becoming the spiritual leader of the Tibetan people.
ii. Buddhism originated in China
Answer: No. Even though Buddhism has been practiced for many centuries in China, and is the dominant religion in places like Japan and Thailand, it first formed in India. Buddhism began with the birth of the historical Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama, who was a prince born at the foothills of the Himalayas (then northern India, but today Nepal) in approximately 563 BCE. He eventually abandoned royal life to find how one can gain freedom from suffering and death. He tried philosophical meditation, bodily mortification, and other extremes, but eventually discovered the cause of suffering, and how it can be avoided, and then gained enlightenment. Thereafter he began to teach his doctrine, or Dharma, and eventually left the world and entered Nirvana.
After the Buddha left the mortal realm, Buddhism began to spread in India (gaining popularity with those who rejected Brahmanism - the ancestor of modern Hinduism), and several different schools/traditions arose. Then, in the first century CE, Buddhism began to spread into China and other parts of Asia, largely because of merchants and missionaries. While Buddhism gained popularity in the rest of Asia over the centuries, it declined in India and basically disappeared by 1200 CE. Today, only about 1% of the population of India is Buddhist.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Happy Mother's Day!
"Whatever else is unsure in this stinking dunghill of a world, a mother's love is not. Your mother brings you into the world, carries you first in her body. What do we know about what she feels? But whatever she feels, it, at least, must be real. It must be"
- from A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man by James Joyce
I know this isn't a flowery or sentimental quote for Mother's Day, but I will use any excuse I can to quote my favourite writer James Joyce. But, even though this quote is quite blunt, it is a reminder of how special a mother's love is. So on this Mother's Day, let's remember and honour the love that only our mothers can give us.
- from A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man by James Joyce
I know this isn't a flowery or sentimental quote for Mother's Day, but I will use any excuse I can to quote my favourite writer James Joyce. But, even though this quote is quite blunt, it is a reminder of how special a mother's love is. So on this Mother's Day, let's remember and honour the love that only our mothers can give us.
Friday, May 7, 2010
Hinduism and the Caste System
"Men are equal. For, though they are not of the same age, same height, the same skin and the same intellect, these inequalities are temporary and superficial, the soul that is hidden beneath this earthly crust is one and the same for all men and women belonging to all climes"
- Gandhi
Okay, so it has been way too long since I've written a post on this blog. I definitely did not keep up with my New Year's resolution of blogging at least once a week. I've only written four posts this year - so about one a month. Yikes! Alright, time to resurrect this thing!
Over the months of March and April I had the opportunity of going to Hindu temples and discussing Hinduism with several different people. But first: I landed up discussing religious studies with a pastor at a church on campus one Sunday in the beginning of March. She said that she was also fascinated by other belief systems, but when I mentioned that I was particularly interested in Hinduism, she immediately criticized this religion because of its caste system. The caste system is a frequent criticism against Hinduism, and ever since this conversation I have been thinking a lot about it.
The caste system is a hierarchical division of society based on birth. It consists of four social classes (or varnas):
1) Brahmans - keepers of the Vedas (intellectuals, priests, ministers, doctors, teachers)
2) Kshatriyas - protectors of the people (kings, warriors, aristocrats)
3) Vaishyas - generate and distribute wealth (farmers, merchants, artisans)
4) Shudras - serve the rest of the hierarchy (labourers, servants).
The caste system is heavily based on purity and pollution: as one goes down the hierarchy, one naturally gains more karma due to one's occupation. The people whose occupations make them the most impure are the Candalas, or Dalits (who consist of tanners, washermen, sweepers, hunters). They are considered to be outside of the class system, and are therefore 'outcastes'. Because of their status they have been vigorously (and sometimes violently) discriminated against.
Where did this hierarchy come from? An important source that solidified the caste system within Hinduism is a text called the Manava Dharma-Shastra, or The Law Code of Manu. I read an English translation of this text in my Indian myth course last semester, and its laws regarding women, Shudras, and outcastes are definitely very harsh and unjust.
The Law Code of Manu and the Hindu caste system has been responsible for inequality towards women, violent mistreatment of Dalits, and inequality within India in general. However, does this mean we should reject Hinduism on these grounds? First, not everyone who follows Hinduism believes in the caste system. Many people who believe in reforming Hinduism reject The Law Code of Manu. Many of these reformists reject Manu on the grounds that it is a smrti (human-authored) text, and not a shruti (divine-authored) text like the Vedas or the Upanishads, which advocate the equality of humans. Gandhi, who was a Hindu reformist, rejected the Law Code of Manu and fought to improve the conditions of outcastes.
As I mentioned earlier, I've had some opportunities to discuss Hinduism and experience it first hand by going to temples. I mentioned the Law Code of Manu to my friend who is the son of a Hindu priest, and he claimed that, at first, the class system was not determined by birth. It was merely a classification of different types of people according to their abilities. He argued that this eventually turned into classification by birth, because, for example, a Brahman priests were not able to accept that their children could possibly be laborers or sweepers if they displayed these traits, and so it was devised that whatever status the father had, the child would be born into. So, the aristocracy was protecting its interests by implementing a hierarchy that was determined by one's birth.
Furthermore, I was at a bar with my roommates one night and I landed up chatting to my roommate who is from Malaysia. He follows the Hindu religion, but he told me that he doesn't believe in the caste system. He said that the idea of women and certain classes having an inferior status is crap.
Furthermore, I investigated Hinduism further by going to my roommate's temple in Burnaby with him and his friends, and also going to the Mahalakshmi temple in Vancouver, where my friend's father is the priest. On both these occasions I saw the genuine faith of my friends, and saw that this obviously means a lot to them. At both temples I was struck by the sense of community. I personally felt welcome, and was invited to join the rest of the community as they ate together after the ceremony.
The truth is, followers of all religions have done some pretty horrible things at one time or another. Just recently, the Catholic church came under fire yet again for more sexual abuse scandals. But although some members of a religion do atrocious things, this does not necessarily reflect the actions or beliefs of everyone following that religion.
So I don't think one should dismiss Hinduism - with its rich variety of scriptures, traditions and beliefs - simply because of the caste system.
- Gandhi
Okay, so it has been way too long since I've written a post on this blog. I definitely did not keep up with my New Year's resolution of blogging at least once a week. I've only written four posts this year - so about one a month. Yikes! Alright, time to resurrect this thing!
Over the months of March and April I had the opportunity of going to Hindu temples and discussing Hinduism with several different people. But first: I landed up discussing religious studies with a pastor at a church on campus one Sunday in the beginning of March. She said that she was also fascinated by other belief systems, but when I mentioned that I was particularly interested in Hinduism, she immediately criticized this religion because of its caste system. The caste system is a frequent criticism against Hinduism, and ever since this conversation I have been thinking a lot about it.
The caste system is a hierarchical division of society based on birth. It consists of four social classes (or varnas):
1) Brahmans - keepers of the Vedas (intellectuals, priests, ministers, doctors, teachers)
2) Kshatriyas - protectors of the people (kings, warriors, aristocrats)
3) Vaishyas - generate and distribute wealth (farmers, merchants, artisans)
4) Shudras - serve the rest of the hierarchy (labourers, servants).
The caste system is heavily based on purity and pollution: as one goes down the hierarchy, one naturally gains more karma due to one's occupation. The people whose occupations make them the most impure are the Candalas, or Dalits (who consist of tanners, washermen, sweepers, hunters). They are considered to be outside of the class system, and are therefore 'outcastes'. Because of their status they have been vigorously (and sometimes violently) discriminated against.
Where did this hierarchy come from? An important source that solidified the caste system within Hinduism is a text called the Manava Dharma-Shastra, or The Law Code of Manu. I read an English translation of this text in my Indian myth course last semester, and its laws regarding women, Shudras, and outcastes are definitely very harsh and unjust.
The Law Code of Manu and the Hindu caste system has been responsible for inequality towards women, violent mistreatment of Dalits, and inequality within India in general. However, does this mean we should reject Hinduism on these grounds? First, not everyone who follows Hinduism believes in the caste system. Many people who believe in reforming Hinduism reject The Law Code of Manu. Many of these reformists reject Manu on the grounds that it is a smrti (human-authored) text, and not a shruti (divine-authored) text like the Vedas or the Upanishads, which advocate the equality of humans. Gandhi, who was a Hindu reformist, rejected the Law Code of Manu and fought to improve the conditions of outcastes.
As I mentioned earlier, I've had some opportunities to discuss Hinduism and experience it first hand by going to temples. I mentioned the Law Code of Manu to my friend who is the son of a Hindu priest, and he claimed that, at first, the class system was not determined by birth. It was merely a classification of different types of people according to their abilities. He argued that this eventually turned into classification by birth, because, for example, a Brahman priests were not able to accept that their children could possibly be laborers or sweepers if they displayed these traits, and so it was devised that whatever status the father had, the child would be born into. So, the aristocracy was protecting its interests by implementing a hierarchy that was determined by one's birth.
Furthermore, I was at a bar with my roommates one night and I landed up chatting to my roommate who is from Malaysia. He follows the Hindu religion, but he told me that he doesn't believe in the caste system. He said that the idea of women and certain classes having an inferior status is crap.
Furthermore, I investigated Hinduism further by going to my roommate's temple in Burnaby with him and his friends, and also going to the Mahalakshmi temple in Vancouver, where my friend's father is the priest. On both these occasions I saw the genuine faith of my friends, and saw that this obviously means a lot to them. At both temples I was struck by the sense of community. I personally felt welcome, and was invited to join the rest of the community as they ate together after the ceremony.
The truth is, followers of all religions have done some pretty horrible things at one time or another. Just recently, the Catholic church came under fire yet again for more sexual abuse scandals. But although some members of a religion do atrocious things, this does not necessarily reflect the actions or beliefs of everyone following that religion.
So I don't think one should dismiss Hinduism - with its rich variety of scriptures, traditions and beliefs - simply because of the caste system.
Monday, March 15, 2010
HAPPY BIRTHDAY JOANNE!!
"The glory of friendship is not the outstretched hand, nor the kindly smile, nor the joy of companionship; it is the spiritual inspiration that comes to one when he discovers that someone believes in him and is willing to trust him with his friendship."
–Ralph Waldo Emerson
Ever since my friend Joanne found out about my blog at the beginning of this year, she has been bugging me about writing a post about her. I kept putting it off, telling her that she doesn't fall into the categories "Culture" or "Religion", yet she kept insisting I do it. But, to be honest, although I may have been a little hesitant about it (because I usually don't put anything too personal up here), I actually have been meaning to write about her. And seeing that today is her birthday, I can't think of a better occasion!
First off, you must know that Joanne is an amazing person, and a really genuine friend. She is always laughing, and fun to be around, but never insincere. Before I go on, let me relate the story of our friendship.
In September 2008, at the start of my third year at UBC, I began my amazing relationship with Olive, who I have now been seeing for a year and a half. Joanne, was one of Olive's roommates in Fairview, although neither of them knew each other before living together. As I was going over to her house all the time, I soon met Joanne myself. My first impression of her was that she was friendly, confident, and extroverted. She soon began to joke around with me, pretending to give me a hard time for things, but as a result of this and her outgoing personality (and because I learned she was in a sorority), I must admit that I was a little intimidated by her!
I remember one time when I was in a bad mood and had come over to Olive's place to see her. Joanne opened the door for me, and I bluntly demanded, "Where's Olive?", instead of the more polite, "Oh hi Joanne, is Olive around?" that I usually gave. I felt really bad afterwards, and apologized. Joanne however was not offended, but did enjoy making a few jokes about it! As the year went on, I got to know her a lot more, and became more comfortable around her. I remember the first time that I made a comeback to one of her witty jokes - she was so surprised, but thrilled too!
As the school year was finishing up, everyone was trying to figure out living arrangements for the following year. Olive had been considering living with a good friend of hers, but when that fell through, Joanne asked Olive if she'd like to live with her. And, of course, Olive said yes. I thought that this made a lot of sense, for over the course of both semesters they had become friends, and were used to living together. And time has shown that this was a fantastic idea, because they live and interact really well together, and have become even better friends.
But, my story is not yet over...I was glad that Olive had a good person to live with, and since I had gotten to know Joanne more, I knew I'd be comfortable spending time at their place. However, since this past September, I have really gotten to learn more about Joanne, and see what a great person she is. We've had many late-night conversations together, usually on occasions where Olive had already gone to bed, and I would be sitting in the living room reading Ulysses for class. It was during these chats that we delved into more personal subjects, and really learned a lot more about each other. For a long time, Joanne had always been "Olive's roommate", but after our first late-night conversation, I knew she was truly my friend as well.
And so Joanne, or 'Jo-Jo Bear' as Olive and I affectionately call you, I wish you a very Happy Birthday. Thank you for putting up with me, because I know I'm over at your place a lot - taking up the washroom, lying on your couch to read my 'literature' (but that couch is just so comfy for reading!), and using your milk for my cereal. But, most of all, thank you for being a great friend.
You are an amazing person, inside and out. Happy Birthday.
- Gavatron
–Ralph Waldo Emerson
Olive, Joanne and myself on Halloween 2009
Ever since my friend Joanne found out about my blog at the beginning of this year, she has been bugging me about writing a post about her. I kept putting it off, telling her that she doesn't fall into the categories "Culture" or "Religion", yet she kept insisting I do it. But, to be honest, although I may have been a little hesitant about it (because I usually don't put anything too personal up here), I actually have been meaning to write about her. And seeing that today is her birthday, I can't think of a better occasion!
First off, you must know that Joanne is an amazing person, and a really genuine friend. She is always laughing, and fun to be around, but never insincere. Before I go on, let me relate the story of our friendship.
In September 2008, at the start of my third year at UBC, I began my amazing relationship with Olive, who I have now been seeing for a year and a half. Joanne, was one of Olive's roommates in Fairview, although neither of them knew each other before living together. As I was going over to her house all the time, I soon met Joanne myself. My first impression of her was that she was friendly, confident, and extroverted. She soon began to joke around with me, pretending to give me a hard time for things, but as a result of this and her outgoing personality (and because I learned she was in a sorority), I must admit that I was a little intimidated by her!
I remember one time when I was in a bad mood and had come over to Olive's place to see her. Joanne opened the door for me, and I bluntly demanded, "Where's Olive?", instead of the more polite, "Oh hi Joanne, is Olive around?" that I usually gave. I felt really bad afterwards, and apologized. Joanne however was not offended, but did enjoy making a few jokes about it! As the year went on, I got to know her a lot more, and became more comfortable around her. I remember the first time that I made a comeback to one of her witty jokes - she was so surprised, but thrilled too!
As the school year was finishing up, everyone was trying to figure out living arrangements for the following year. Olive had been considering living with a good friend of hers, but when that fell through, Joanne asked Olive if she'd like to live with her. And, of course, Olive said yes. I thought that this made a lot of sense, for over the course of both semesters they had become friends, and were used to living together. And time has shown that this was a fantastic idea, because they live and interact really well together, and have become even better friends.
But, my story is not yet over...I was glad that Olive had a good person to live with, and since I had gotten to know Joanne more, I knew I'd be comfortable spending time at their place. However, since this past September, I have really gotten to learn more about Joanne, and see what a great person she is. We've had many late-night conversations together, usually on occasions where Olive had already gone to bed, and I would be sitting in the living room reading Ulysses for class. It was during these chats that we delved into more personal subjects, and really learned a lot more about each other. For a long time, Joanne had always been "Olive's roommate", but after our first late-night conversation, I knew she was truly my friend as well.
And so Joanne, or 'Jo-Jo Bear' as Olive and I affectionately call you, I wish you a very Happy Birthday. Thank you for putting up with me, because I know I'm over at your place a lot - taking up the washroom, lying on your couch to read my 'literature' (but that couch is just so comfy for reading!), and using your milk for my cereal. But, most of all, thank you for being a great friend.
You are an amazing person, inside and out. Happy Birthday.
- Gavatron
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Religious Parallels; and what to make of them.
Jesus and Krishna
Now that I've taken several Religious Studies classes, I'm continuing to find a number of similarities between the beliefs and scriptures of all the various religions - both those that are practiced today, and those that are ancient. I began to learn of some of these similarities in one of the first religious studies courses I took - the Myths, Legends and Scriptures of the Near East. Over the course of a year we read excerpts from Ancient Mesopotamian mythology, the Bible, and the Qur'an. What was especially interesting in this course were the parallels between the Mesopotamian myths and those of the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible. Mesopotamia (now in modern Iraq) was home to a prosperous society over 4,000 years ago, and had their own Creation and Flood stories which have some striking similarities to those in Genesis.
In this same course, I began researching religious figures of salvation for a paper, and I found a lot of similarities between Jesus Christ and the figure of Krishna in Hinduism. Krishna can be considered as both an incarnation or avatara of Vishnu - one of the principal Hindu gods - as well as Vishnu himself. I compared their birth narratives, their representations as God manifested in human form on earth, as well as their teachings of salvation (as attested by Christ in the Gospels and Krishna in the Bhagavad-Gita). Both Jesus and Krishna teach that one can attain salvation through the grace of God, and reveal a loving and personal God. Finally, both are predicted to return at a future time to defeat evil and unite humanity with God. There are, undoubtedly, many differences between Jesus and Krishna, but the features that are similar are remarkable. I've now written two papers comparing and contrasting Krishna and Christ, and I think it is safe to conclude that both figures had a influential impact on the respective faiths, transforming the religious traditions that came before them.
Anyways, I would love to elaborate more on these similarities, but what I wanted to talk about in this post was the most recent 'cross-religious' discovery I've found. I am taking a course in the religion of Ancient Egypt, and just last week my professor was talking about the various cosmogonies (theories of how the universe came into being) that the ancient Egyptians had. The ancient Egyptians had thousands of gods, so it is not surprising that they also had several different theories of how the world came into being. One of these is the Memphite Theology, named after the ancient capital city of Memphis. In this city the god Ptah was regarded as the creator god. Now what is interesting is that Ptah creates the world by 'speaking out'. We know of this cosmogony because of the hieroglyphics on the Shabaka Stone (from about 700 BCE). Here are some excerpts describing Ptah's creation of the world:
"There took shape in the heart, there took shape on the tongue the form of Atum. For the very great one is Ptah, who gave [life] to all the gods and their kas through this heart and through this tongue, in which Horus had taken shape as Ptah, in which Thoth had taken shape as Ptah"
and later:
"Sight, hearing, breathing - they report to the heart, and it makes every understanding come forth. As to the tongue, it repeats what the heart has devised. Thus all the gods were born and his Ennead was completed. For every word of the god came about through what the heart devised and the tongue commanded"
This bears similarities to the Genesis story, where God declares something and does it: "Then God said, 'Let there be light'; and there was light." (Gen 1:3). It also bears similarities to the opening of the Gospel of John, where the logos, or 'word', is described as divine, eternal, and is also identified with Jesus:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people...And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father's only son, full of grace and truth." (John 1:1-4, 14)
Both the Memphite Theology and the Bible emphasize the 'word' of (a) god becoming something more. In John, the Word/God brings all things into being, and also manifests as Jesus. In the Memphite Theology, the speech/'words' of the creator god Ptah create all the rest of the gods.
Okay, so now the big question is: What do we make of similarities such as these? Are they mere coincidences? They could be. Or, perhaps, has the one myth/story predated and influenced the other? I believe that this was most likely true in the case of the Creation and Flood stories in the Mesopotamian and Hebrew traditions. But what about Krishna and Jesus? Some might argue that Krishna's teaching of salvation in the Bhagavad-Gita may have been influenced by early Christianity, but on the other hand, I have found a book that claims, quite vehemently, that Jesus and Christianity originated from a Krishna cult! Theories like this abound (I've read a journal article that discusses whether Jesus could have been influenced by Buddhism), but, just as people travel and communicate, religious ideas and philosophies have and do continue to travel. This could also serve as an explanation for the interesting connection between 'creation by word' in ancient Egypt and Christianity.
However, I also wonder if similarities such as these - which cover huge geographical, cultural and time periods - instead point to a common, underlying psychological, 'human condition'. Ever since humans began to think, they have thought that there must be a greater power of some kind. Some may then argue that 'god' and 'religion' are a thing of the past, but if you consider that millions of people today are Muslim, Hindu, Christian, or 'spiritual', or even agnostic, then this claim cannot easily be made.
Maybe the common ground between religious beliefs (in those currently practiced and those that have disappeared) instead suggests that there is some kind of higher power, and that throughout history humankind has interpreted and experienced it in a variety of ways.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Tomorrow's Just Your Future Yesterday
"It's a great day for America!"
"Welcome back my cheeky little monkeys!"
"My frisky badgers!"
"Remind you of anyone?"
"Oprah’s announced that she’s quitting her show in 2011. Now you know why the Mayans ended their calendar in 2012. Once Oprah leaves her show, the most powerful woman on TV will be Ryan Seacrest. There was also news about Dr. Phil’s show: Unfortunately, he’s going to keep going."
- Craig Ferguson
First off, let me apologize. It has been way too long since I have posted anything here. So much for my new year's resolution...yikes. But what better way to get back at it again than with a post about one of my idols - the one and only Craig Ferguson, or as he sometimes calls himself, "the Scottish Conan guy." I love this guy so much - I find him so incredibly funny and entertaining - but I have also chosen to write about him today because I am actually going to see him do a stand-up show tomorrow evening at the River Rock casino in Richmond!
For those of you who don't know, Craig Ferguson is a Scottish-born comedian who hosts a late night talk show on CBS called The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson. Prior to this he played Drew Carey's boss, Nigel Wick, on The Drew Carey Show, and he has also written and starred in several films.
I began watching The Late Late Show a few short years ago, and stumbled across his show while watching tv late at night (his show only starts at 12:35am PT). Since then I've watched on a fairly regular basis, often watching clips that people have uploaded onto youtube the day after its aired on television. These users often post the entire show in several segments, and if you're interested, the user that I always rely on is Malinky2Stoatir.
The main reason that I love this man and his show so much is not just for his jokes about the news, celebrities, bodily functions, his own sexual preference, CBS, the lighting (or lack thereof) on his show, or his self-deprecating sense of humor in general, but the fact that he is honest and genuinely seems to be having a great time while doing the show. He is not afraid to laugh at himself, even when he does mess up a joke; and every now and again he actually has to pause for a moment because he has made himself laugh so hard.
Anyways, to give you a bit of an idea of what I mean, check out these two clips. The first is from the intro he gives at the beginning of each show (before the titles and monologue), and in this specific clip, from last Friday's show, he actually mentions that he is coming to Canada and to 'tropical' Vancouver!
This clip, also from last Friday's show, will give you an idea of what his monologues are usually like:
Anyways, I'm really excited about seeing him perform live. It will be interesting to compare his stand-up to his usual performance on The Late Late Show (which is of course on public television). I will definitely post my thoughts after I've seen the show, and hopefully I will blog on a more regular basis as well.
"Welcome back my cheeky little monkeys!"
"My frisky badgers!"
"Remind you of anyone?"
"Oprah’s announced that she’s quitting her show in 2011. Now you know why the Mayans ended their calendar in 2012. Once Oprah leaves her show, the most powerful woman on TV will be Ryan Seacrest. There was also news about Dr. Phil’s show: Unfortunately, he’s going to keep going."
- Craig Ferguson
First off, let me apologize. It has been way too long since I have posted anything here. So much for my new year's resolution...yikes. But what better way to get back at it again than with a post about one of my idols - the one and only Craig Ferguson, or as he sometimes calls himself, "the Scottish Conan guy." I love this guy so much - I find him so incredibly funny and entertaining - but I have also chosen to write about him today because I am actually going to see him do a stand-up show tomorrow evening at the River Rock casino in Richmond!
For those of you who don't know, Craig Ferguson is a Scottish-born comedian who hosts a late night talk show on CBS called The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson. Prior to this he played Drew Carey's boss, Nigel Wick, on The Drew Carey Show, and he has also written and starred in several films.
I began watching The Late Late Show a few short years ago, and stumbled across his show while watching tv late at night (his show only starts at 12:35am PT). Since then I've watched on a fairly regular basis, often watching clips that people have uploaded onto youtube the day after its aired on television. These users often post the entire show in several segments, and if you're interested, the user that I always rely on is Malinky2Stoatir.
The main reason that I love this man and his show so much is not just for his jokes about the news, celebrities, bodily functions, his own sexual preference, CBS, the lighting (or lack thereof) on his show, or his self-deprecating sense of humor in general, but the fact that he is honest and genuinely seems to be having a great time while doing the show. He is not afraid to laugh at himself, even when he does mess up a joke; and every now and again he actually has to pause for a moment because he has made himself laugh so hard.
Anyways, to give you a bit of an idea of what I mean, check out these two clips. The first is from the intro he gives at the beginning of each show (before the titles and monologue), and in this specific clip, from last Friday's show, he actually mentions that he is coming to Canada and to 'tropical' Vancouver!
This clip, also from last Friday's show, will give you an idea of what his monologues are usually like:
Anyways, I'm really excited about seeing him perform live. It will be interesting to compare his stand-up to his usual performance on The Late Late Show (which is of course on public television). I will definitely post my thoughts after I've seen the show, and hopefully I will blog on a more regular basis as well.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Happy New Year!
2010 has begun! I hope it is going well for everyone so far. The first two days of the year have been pretty fantastic: spent in the company of family and (mostly) old friends. I got the chance on New Year's Day to jam with my old band after nearly two years, which brought back many great memories. I used to spend many weekends making music with those guys; from the end of Grade 10 right up until the beginning of my second year at university. It will always remain a big part of my life.
I also just got back from a rather belated birthday celebration for another good friend, who I first met in first year. Over the years we've kept in touch - going out for dinners, or 'date nights', having lunch together on a regular basis during some semesters, potlucks etc - and it is amazing to look back on where we've begun and where we are now, doing completely different things but still being able to get together and always have a great time. After most people had left, four of us sat drinking tea and discussing the environment, society, democracy, religion, and memes (which I learned about for the first time tonight - it's mind-blowing!). What a great start to the year!
Anyways, before another busy semester starts, I just want to collect my thoughts and record some of my resolutions for this year, as well as some quotes to keep in mind. Here they are:
1. "I may be able to speak the languages of men and even of angels, but if I have no love, my speech is no more than a noisy gong or a clanging bell" (1 Corinthians 13:1)
I have to work at being better at loving the world, and everyone in it. I also need to be aware that my words and actions have consequences on other people.
2. "One who bears hate for no creature
is friendly, compassionate, unselfish,
free of individuality, patient,
the same in suffering and joy"
(Bhagavad-Gita 12:13)
Something else I need to work on is being more selfless. This ties into my first resolution, in that it means that I need to be better at accepting people for who they are.
3. "Verily, with every difficulty
There is relief"
(The Holy Qur'an 94:6).
I also need to curb my tendency to over-worry and over-analyze things. And finally,
4. "Thou shalt blog on a more frequent basis"
(The Bloggers Bible, 26:01)
Ok, I made that last one up...but I will try to blog more frequently! At least once a week.
So that's what I've got so far. We were talking about resolutions tonight at my friend's celebration, and I realize that these are all pretty intangible, and therefore may be hard to achieve, or at least hard to always follow or even measure one's success. So I need to think of more tangible, achievable goals that correspond to these ambitions.
More on that later.
I also just got back from a rather belated birthday celebration for another good friend, who I first met in first year. Over the years we've kept in touch - going out for dinners, or 'date nights', having lunch together on a regular basis during some semesters, potlucks etc - and it is amazing to look back on where we've begun and where we are now, doing completely different things but still being able to get together and always have a great time. After most people had left, four of us sat drinking tea and discussing the environment, society, democracy, religion, and memes (which I learned about for the first time tonight - it's mind-blowing!). What a great start to the year!
Anyways, before another busy semester starts, I just want to collect my thoughts and record some of my resolutions for this year, as well as some quotes to keep in mind. Here they are:
1. "I may be able to speak the languages of men and even of angels, but if I have no love, my speech is no more than a noisy gong or a clanging bell" (1 Corinthians 13:1)
I have to work at being better at loving the world, and everyone in it. I also need to be aware that my words and actions have consequences on other people.
2. "One who bears hate for no creature
is friendly, compassionate, unselfish,
free of individuality, patient,
the same in suffering and joy"
(Bhagavad-Gita 12:13)
Something else I need to work on is being more selfless. This ties into my first resolution, in that it means that I need to be better at accepting people for who they are.
3. "Verily, with every difficulty
There is relief"
(The Holy Qur'an 94:6).
I also need to curb my tendency to over-worry and over-analyze things. And finally,
4. "Thou shalt blog on a more frequent basis"
(The Bloggers Bible, 26:01)
Ok, I made that last one up...but I will try to blog more frequently! At least once a week.
So that's what I've got so far. We were talking about resolutions tonight at my friend's celebration, and I realize that these are all pretty intangible, and therefore may be hard to achieve, or at least hard to always follow or even measure one's success. So I need to think of more tangible, achievable goals that correspond to these ambitions.
More on that later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)