"Letter to a Christian Nation"

I'm currently reading this book by Sam Harris. Honestly, as great as "The End of Faith," was -this book is short, sweet and to the point. Today I found a short piece of writing by Vonnegut, in which he writes,

Your rule might be this: If a sentence, no matter how excellent, does not illuminate your subject in some new and useful way, scratch it out.

This holds true, especially for touchy, deep and complex issues; an equally complex style of writing can make the points elusive. From what I've watched of the debates between Harris and others, they only prove this point. Often times debaters will make points that were already addressed in Harris' book. At any rate, this writing style is simple and straight-forward for the most part. It contains statistics, opinions and basic reasoning for the attitudes in "The End of Faith." It's also much easier on the eyes. However, I wonder sometimes about the particular point in his thesis. I'll do my best to accurately portray it:

Religion is an enabler for human irrationality, tribalism and violence, more so than anything else. Therefore, faith, or blind faith in mythical deities is something that has been used as an excuse for hatred, bigotry and ignorance throughout history. By changing the dialogue from defending faith to questioning it's place in our society, we are moving to a better, more rational dialogue.

I sympathize with this view, except that I believe it has more to do with the human tendency to identify with particular ideologies that has created religion, and blind faith, in the first place. It is a form of security that has been built slowly over the eons. Our fear of what we think the unknown allows us to build up walls in defense, and to fight those who would dare to, or appear to, question the stability of those walls of security. Religion and faith, like any institution, is a result of human fear and psychological preservation, rather than a cause of it. It is used as an excuse, but who do we think created faith? This "it" out there must first be owned as a creation, and identified as a projection of our own desire for safety. To me, religion is a reaction, not an action in itself. 

Having said this, I do not believe that spirituality and religion are entirely separate entities. We do have spiritual experiences; they exist as a phenomenon that empirical science still grips to understand. Sam Harris seems to agree on this point, receiving much objection from his readers, one of whom believed he was, "Getting soft," on religion.

At any rate, the reading continues! 

From, "You are the World," Jiddu Krishnamurti

So when one observes oneself, one sees that one is constantly building images in relationship and therefore creating division. Hence there is actually no relationship at all. Although one may say one loves the family or the wife, it is the image, and therefore there is no actual relationship. Relationship means not only physical contact but also a state in which there is no division psychologically. Now when one understands that- not verbally but actually - the what is the relationship between the observer who says, 'I'm afraid,' and the thing called fear itself? Are they two different things? This brings us to the question as to whether fear can be wiped away through analysis. Does this all interest you?"

I read this on the train yesterday. A few nights ago while I was trying to sleep, something like that hit me right before dreaming. I just started "looking" at the way I was building images about everything, and everyone, including myself. Just looking at them. Not trying to change them or adjust them. It seems very interesting now, but when I was experiencing it there was a "light-hearted" nature to the moment. I felt less tense, more flowing. This has occurred more frequently lately. At any rate, I just found it sorta interesting that I opened up this book to something similar. Krishnamurti continues on the next page,

"Because in analysis there is always the observer and the thing observed; that is, the analyzer and the thing analyzed. And the analyzer must be extraordinarily awake, unconditioned, without bias or distortion in order to analyze; if he is at all twisted in any way, then whatever he analyzes will also be biased, twisted. So that is one problem in analysis. The other is that it will take a great deal of time, gradually and slowly, bit by bit, to remove all the causes of fear - by then one will be dead (laughter)... And, even after you have discovered the cause (or causes) of fear, will it have any value? Can fear disappear when I know what I am afraid of? Is the intellectual search for the cause able to dissipate fear? All these problems are involved in analysis because, as we admit, there is this division between the analyzer and the thing analyzed.

Therefore analysis is not the way - obviously not - because one has no time... Psychologically speaking there is no tomorrow: We have invented it. And so, when you see the falseness of analysis, when you see the truth that the observer is actually the observed, then analysis comes to an end.

You are faced with the fact that you are fear - not an observer who is afraid of fear. You are the observer and the observed; the analyzer and the thing analyzed."

Krishnamurti definitely has a way with his words. There is an authority in it, yes, but at the same time there is a clarity about it. Sometimes he can really lay down the wisdom in coherent, flowing words. Reading, I feel, can be just as effective as meditating. It's a form of meditation. Your mind links up with the words, the ideas, the "pointing out" nature of language and lets your ego unfurl its boundaries naturally, exposing your spirit to the naked kosmos. Because of this, I often find myself reading things like this than meditating. It's very natural for me. At any rate, I hope you readers enjoyed this excerpt. More to come.