The Idyllicist

Studying wisdom of the past to build a better future

  • Wives, Do Not Submit to Your Husbands

    By

    “Both partners must be fully equal, for neither should absorb the other, but both should unite as a couple.” – Lethe 15:11

    My wife and I had the privilege of attending a wedding this past weekend, and I was pleasantly struck by both the genuineness and the egalitarianism of the ceremony. 

    Traditional weddings often include a call to the bride to submit to her husband and his will, and this has never sat right with me. To each their own, I suppose, but the idea of one partner subsuming the other seems antithetical to love. 

    Now, I do not want to make the assumption that all those who have ceremonies including this line, sourced from the Epistle to the Ephesians, subscribe to this idea. Indeed many of that faith read the line in reference to a sort of mutual respect, but it is clear that this line and others like it have been used to justify inequality in what should be the most equal partnership of all. 

    That said, when a sacred partnership such as this is overtaken by jealousy, paranoia, and inequality, it is a sad sight indeed for all involved. Some marriages are not meant to last, but an ideal marriage sees both partners give equally, sacrifice only when necessary, and generally enjoy each other simply for who they are. 

    The second a hierarchy is introduced, these goals become much more difficult to achieve. 

    In preparation for my own wedding ceremony, I wrote the verses to be recited and asked my wife – then fiancée – to approve them before sending them to our officiant. In these verses, I made it clear that those who seek to enter into marriage with each other must be equal with each other, regardless of gender or sex. The verse at the top of this piece was one of those recited during our ceremony a couple months ago, from “The Song of Wedlock” that is included in the Fithwrit. 

    The wedding this weekend was also a wholesome one, with the officiant telling the story of the couple’s journey together and the bride and groom both crediting each other for helping them through their most difficult and vulnerable of moments. I had never formally met the groom, but hearing his vows, I knew he loved his bride as much as she loved him, and that this would be a joyful marriage. 

    In my own marriage, I also did not invoke a higher power. Similarly to my views on morality, I do not believe an external being is necessary to hold together a marriage. If anything, such focus on an external being may obscure those who are actually married. Again, to each their own – this is simply my thinking on the subject and what my wife and I agreed upon quite readily. 

    Regardless of what is or is not read in a ceremony, one partner making the call over the other is unhealthy. The “tradwife” movement of late is especially unnerving. Similarly to my views on individuality and spirituality, to give oneself up so fully to another’s whim is to forsake one’s humanity and agency. 

    Marriage truly is a wonderful thing, and something I do believe to be sacred. My daughters, should I have any in the future who choose to marry, will certainly know their worth as people in their own right, and not simply as another person’s wife. 

    Wives, do not submit to your husbands.

  • The Mark of a Hypocrite

    By

    “It is not speech which we should want to know: we should know the speaker.” – Kaushitaki Upanishad

    I once was told, “Do not judge a religion by its worst, but only by its best.” While I understand this sentiment, I cannot say I fully agree with it. 

    With any widespread religion, there will inevitably be those who twist it to serve their own selfish purposes. No religion is immune to this. But, I would argue, some religions are more susceptible to it than others. 

    And a lot of this comes down to a religion’s scriptures. 

    Take Islam for example. There are plenty of verses in the Qur’an that not only encourage but command violence against those of other religions. Some of these verses do get taken out of context, and some are intended for self-defense, but it is not hard to use the Word of God to justify heinous acts. 

    Christianity has a similar problem. Yes, Jesus spoke of radical love and called his followers to serve others. My disagreements with Christian cosmology and theology aside, this is objectively a wonderful thing to base any system of belief around. 

    But the same text calls queer love unnatural. The same text orders wives to “submit” to their husbands’ every demand. Even Jesus called a Gentile woman a “dog” and told her he was only here to save the Jewish people. 

    And that’s just from the New Testament. Over the last two thousand years, the Bible has been invoked to justify some truly heinous things. Entire sects of Christianity were either forcibly converted or massacred. Women were accused of witchcraft and burned at the stake. Slavedrivers used scripture to justify the ownership of other human beings – and reading parts of Leviticus, this was less of a stretch than one might think. 

    And today, the same scripture is invoked in Christian nationalist circles, alongside a revised version of history claiming that this country is and has always been a Christian one. 

    Again, no religion is immune to this, but some are more susceptible than others. There are not many Buddhist radicals or Sikh fundamentalists. There are many, many of these in the world’s two most dominant religions, however. That alone should be cause for reflection. 

    Religion must either adapt or move out of the way. It is not that religions are incapable of adapting – Christianity today is far, far different than the early church. One may even call it unrecognizable. It is a matter of whether the religion itself embraces positive change. 

    Many churches have, and I commend those congregations with all my heart. Those that are welcoming, inclusive, and use their religion not to subjugate others but to serve them, those people deserve all the best and will truly be rewarded in the afterlife. 

    But the reality is that there are also many churches that discourage change and act to root out authenticity. And while it is easy to combat these ideologies with their own scripture, it is even easier to justify such anti-human sentiment with the same scripture. I could wait no longer for Christianity to adapt, so I struck out on my own. 

    The heralding of any writing by human hand as divine instruction is dangerous – especially writing that diminishes the human spirit in favor of submission and control. 

  • Wrong from Right

    By

    “Then the Lord God said, ‘Look, the human beings have become like us, knowing both good and evil. What if they reach out, take fruit from the tree of life, and eat it? Then they will live forever!’” – Genesis 3:22

    The foundational story of the Bible – and therefore all of the Abrahamic religions – fell apart for me once I asked one question: “Why?”

    Now I understand that this story is in no way based in reality, but because many do treat it as literal history and some very central doctrines derive from it, I will treat it as literal history for the purposes of this post. 

    Many years ago, my answer would have been simple and the same regardless of perspective. Why create the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in the first place? Why punish humanity for something they quite literally could not understand was wrong? Why create any of this with explicit foreknowledge of its failure? The answer was always the same: that God was testing humanity’s faith. 

    That answer was satisfying when I was satisfied in thinking no further about it. But the question remained of why God, in his supposedly infinite knowledge, would need to test humanity’s faith in the first place. Eventually, I could no longer ignore that question. 

    The story very quickly falls apart at the seams. If God was not omniscient, then perhaps he could be justified in testing humanity’s faith. But he is all-knowing, meaning he knew that humanity would fail at the first hurdle. 

    When this is pointed out, blame is typically shifted onto humanity. They were tempted, and they gave in to their temptations. They disobeyed God, so they deserved punishment. They knew it was wrong because God told them it was wrong. 

    These answers presuppose a few things – that humanity did not know evil but could comprehend what “wrong” was, and that any disobedience of God is automatically evil. 

    I remember learning in a sermon that Adam and Eve were effectively babies before the Fall. They did not know good from evil or right from wrong. They were fully innocent beings. Only after the Fall were they able to comprehend right and wrong. 

    So imagine that you, as a parent, set up a play area for your newborn child. You give him all the toys he wants, but you place one of them in the middle and tell him he is not allowed to touch it. 

    What happens then?

    Obviously, the baby will touch the toy. He does not know right from wrong or good from evil. Those words make no sense to him whatsoever. He simply assumes that you are a safe person and, since you are watching him play, that he might stop you if you are about to do something dangerous. Even that second point is generous. 

    Any reasonable parent would ask why you would give a baby access to something they should have no access to in the first place. They would also ask why this one particular toy is off-limits. And if your response to these reasonable parents’ questions was, “I told him not to,” you would be hated for very good reason. 

    And if your response to this “transgression” was even a fraction of God’s response to humanity’s Fall, any reasonable parent would report you to the Department of Children and Family Services. 

    Excepting the clear moral contradictions of this story, it still assumes that an action is evil solely because God said it was. Laws are not always moral – there is nothing immoral about driving ten miles per hour over the speed limit. While laws like this may have utility, there is still no utility to be found in God’s arbitrary forbidding of one tree. 

    On the flipside, laws of morality should arise from our humanity, not because of an external force’s command. Imagine asking an atheist and a Christian why murder is immoral. The atheist might say that murder is immoral because it robs one of their precious life and ability to experience it, it imparts undue hardship onto anyone the victim may know and love, and there is even an economic factor if one could be so cynical. Besides, the atheist would rather not be murdered, so it stands to reason that they would refrain from it as well, nothing else withstanding. 

    If the Christian is asked the same question and answers that murder is immoral because God says it is, I know I would feel much safer with the atheist. 

    The only way in which evil can be correlated one-to-one with God’s command is if God was unequivocally and unarguably moral. And there are plenty of stories in the Bible that show that this is very much not the case. 

    To take this point even further, God actually gives a reason for forbidding humanity’s access to the Tree of Life after they become knowledgeable of the difference between good and evil. Humanity has “become like” God, and if they eat from the other tree, they will “live forever.” 

    In this view, humanity is not punished strictly for disobeying God, but for the mere possibility of rivalling him in power. And not just power, but knowledge. The reason conservatives fear an educated populace is because more education generally means more questioning and critical thinking, which makes it that much more difficult to maintain control. 

    And even if all of the above can be disregarded, there is still the issue of God’s omniscience. No matter his motivations, no matter the definition of evil, no matter his reckless actions, the fact remains that he created all of this and allowed it to happen with the express knowledge that it would fail. 

    God set humanity up for failure, for suffering, and for death, no matter how you slice it. Evil did not enter the world – God created evil and let it take root. 

    Now the argument of free will comes into play. Free will is defined as one’s capacity to make choices unconstrained by external forces. In the Bible, God is said to offer free will to choose between right and wrong – with the caveat that if you choose not to obey his commands, he will throw you into Hell forever. 

    And what of Heaven? If Heaven is meant to be a sinless place, but sinlessness can only exist when humanity has not exercised its free will, do humans have free will in Heaven? Any of them could Fall at any point if so. 

    Freedom to obey does not make sense, and the threat of eternal torture for making use of free will seems unjust. Additionally, nominally having free will but being unable to exercise it is the functional equivalent of not having free will. 

    Of course, this is merely a story written by some religiously-inclined people of a vastly different culture and time period. I would not spill so much ink on this subject if it had no real-world application. 

    Because this is not just a story. This is a foundational piece of literature for billions of people. The very idea of sin is born with this story. Humanity is flawed, yes, but to define sin as a refusal to engage in a rotten deal with an insecure yet powerful man is nothing less than tyranny. To brand it as love and mercy is laughable. 

    The doctrine of original sin arises from this story as well. Every single person is cursed with pain, suffering, and death from before birth for someone else’s actions. If the Bible is God’s everlasting word, even God himself seems iffy on this idea. In the Book of Exodus, God announces his intent to punish “to the third and fourth generation,” but in the Book of Ezekiel, “the son will not share the guilt of the father.”

    Regardless, the message here is that every human is flawed and irredeemable without divine mercy because of someone else’s actions, not their own. Again, humanity is certainly flawed, but these flaws – just like our morality – arise from within us, not because an external force says so. 

    And that is an awful way to live one’s life – a way that no truly loving God would impose upon his creations. 

    For thousands of years, this story has been interpreted, justified, and re-interpreted by countless members of our species. There is nothing wrong with a detailed exegesis – that is what religion should be, ideally – but if one must dig so far through the exegetical crust that they hit the mantle, a re-examination is in order. 

  • The God Within You

    By

    “These bodies come to an end, but that vast embodied Self is ageless, fathomless, eternal.” – Bhagavad Gita 2.18a

    Recently, I have been doing some study into the theology of Baruch Spinoza, and I am shocked that I had not come across his work before. While we disagree on the exact nature of reality, we are fully in agreement that not only is God one with the natural world, but within us rather than some external force. 

    Growing up in the church, I was taught that God, and truly the “divine” as a whole, was something separate from humanity and nature. God was outside and above all, not within and an intricate part of all. And, of course, the very basis of the Christian faith is that humanity separated itself from the divine. Nowadays, human exceptionalists have attempted to separate humanity from nature as well. 

    As if humanity could rid itself of what makes it human. 

    The divine, the natural, and the human are all projections of one underlying reality – that is, reality. This is what Spinoza meant when he said, “God or nature.” What seems like a choice at first is, in actuality, a challenge. 

    Spinoza saw a universe governed wholly by natural laws, and that those natural laws and their effects were a source of awe and wonder. Miracles are absent in his worldview, and can he be blamed?

    The one miracle of existence that remains more or less untouched by science is consciousness. I am of the opinion that, no matter how advanced humanity becomes, science will never fully explain consciousness. The brain is perhaps the most densely complex concept in the universe. Though there are fascinating theories of consciousness arising from quantum fluctuations – and this indeed may be the ultimate cause of consciousness and subjective experience – consciousness remains, by definition, a miraculous event. 

    Now, Spinoza’s God possessed no sense of morality or agency. This is where he and I differ. His universe was a monistic one, where “evil” was fundamentally the same as “good” in origin. I do not subscribe to this idea – one may call me a dualist – but it is easy to see his rationale. 

    Ultimately, Spinoza’s vision of God is an entirely natural one. And, to a point, I agree. I do believe in the spiritual and the mystical, but I understand that these are based, at the moment, purely on subjective experience. 

    But think of all the wonder of creation, everything from the bacteria within you to the largest quasars so many billions of light-years away. All of that exists in three-dimensional space, but the closest ideas we have to a theory of everything posit eleven different spatial dimensions. This is something we can only imagine via analogy, as our minds simply are not built to comprehend something so foreign to our experience. In this way, perhaps like a shadow of our bodies, a ghost is simply a shadow of the soul freed from its physical bounds. 

    If all we know is just a small sliver of what there is – and what we do know is already so overwhelming as to be divine – just imagine what all there is that we do not know. 

    Perhaps these spiritual and mystical beings and concepts do exist in a reality just as physical as our own, yet more or less inaccessible because we simply cannot move around in a reality like that. If ghosts are said to be able to pass through our physical barriers with no issue, perhaps there is some truth to the idea that death allows the spirit to experience reality in its true and glorious fullness. 

    There really are no words to describe just how expansive and all-encompassing reality is, how truly awe-inspiring existence is. And how lucky are we that we get to experience even the small sliver we do? 

    And if each of us is a manifestation of that awesome reality, that all-encompassing Mind, that arrangement of quantum fluctuations, or all of the above, how lucky are we that we fundamentally cannot be separate from that without ceasing to exist outright? I once wrote that we are “the eyes and ears of the universe,” and that statement may be the truest words I have ever penned. 

    God is not an overlord or a tyrant looking down on a pathetic humanity. God is not all-powerful or all-knowing either. Rather, God is within us all, and all of us within him.

  • A Means to an End

    By

    “The wicked conceive evil; they are pregnant with trouble and give birth to lies.” – Psalm 7:14

    While I generally subscribe to the utilitarian maxim of “the greatest good for the greatest number,” I find myself at odds with the idea that the morality of any action can be determined solely by its results. Intent is crucial in determining the morality of an action, for even objectively good results are immorally attained if carried out with evil in mind. 

    Intent, to me, is entirely separate from results. I would even go so far as to say that results on their own cannot be moral or immoral – they may be positive, negative, or neutral, but they are simply devoid of any measure of morality. Results are simply results, the effect from a cause. 

    Intent, on the other hand, gives life to the cause. Intent is a conscious choice, and thus morality can be ascribed to it. However separated results are from morality, however, does not separate an effect from its cause. 

    This debate may be summed up in one question: Do the ends justify the means? In my opinion, they often do not. This is admittedly a blanket answer, and I acknowledge that there are countless exceptions, but by and large one must attain results in an ethical and moral manner in order to call that action wholly “good.”

    In the world of journalism, there exists a written code of ethics that every newsroom should have posted within it. Ours certainly does. No story is worth trampling over another person’s rights. An ethical journalist cannot steal documents in order to publish a story. Even if that story uncovers untold corruption, it will forever be an ill-gotten gain if the method in which the story came to be was unethical. 

    One could consider the miscreant journalist here to have had good intent, but their actions were still immoral and unethical. Let us return to what I wrote earlier, that intent gives life to a cause. This is true, for intent is not the entirety of a cause. A cause consists also of action, and an action can still be immoral while fueled by good intent. 

    Similarly, an action with evil intent that inadvertently produces a positive outcome cannot be considered moral. No matter the outcome, the intent behind the action was immoral, and had the results been what were intended, they would have been negative. 

    One example from my own life would be those who ran me out of the church. That was done with evil intent, and it left me isolated for quite some time. But I eventually left the church and was able to reform myself by analyzing my own worldview. The ultimately good result does not retroactively make their actions justified. 

    If anything, that idea may even be insulting to those who do ultimately benefit from inadvertently positive results. There are millions of people who have been dealt a bad hand, but through determination and perseverance have forged a path forward. At no point do their choices cancel out their trauma. 

    There may also be an argument for the true immorality of an action taken in retribution for a truly evil act. I hesitate to make any solid statement on this, but a child who lies to their abusive parent is certainly blameless. Such an action is self-defensive in the face of undue abuse. However, this idea must be handled with the utmost care, for it can quickly be twisted into justifying the most heinous of acts, even in the face of truly cruel injustice. 

    These are almost never easy conversations or decisions. Morality can be vague like that. But the simple rule of “One’s will ends where another’s will begins” is a solid foundation. 

  • Perfection: The Enemy of ‘Good Enough’

    By

    “In scrubbing and cleansing your profound mirror, are you able to rid it of all imperfections?” – Daodejing 10

    For much of my life, I was obsessed with absolute perfection. Then my father imparted a piece of advice onto me that I have never forgotten: “Perfection is the enemy of ‘good enough.’”

    I would still call myself a perfectionist today, but the lengths to which I will go in order to make something perfect are much less than they once were. 

    This is not to say that nothing deserves the attention a perfectionist would give. In my role as editor-in-chief of a newspaper, it is absolutely necessary for me to maintain as perfect a record of accuracy as possible. Mistakes still happen, but a thorough eye makes them scarce – this is why any good newspaper runs all stories through multiple pairs of eyes before publication. 

    In my role as a pharmacy intern at a hospital, it is absolutely necessary for me to always select the right medication, pull up the right dose, and deliver to the right place. Mistakes still happen, but this is why we have pharmacists who check and double-check each order so mistakes do not make it through to the patient. 

    The above examples are scenarios where perfection is non-negotiable, but is perfection always so non-negotiable? The perfect vacation, the perfect date, the perfect performance – all are nearly impossible. 

    An eye for nothing but perfection takes a toll over time. The world you wish to see never materializes, and with the exception of a few scenarios entirely under one’s total control, every situation fails to meet expectations. 

    And after enough time, you become one of those expectations. 

    The more ingrained into one’s worldview this need is, the more it begins to adhere to one’s own identity as a measure of worth. I have played the piano since I was five years old and performed many times in my life. One wrong note would often ruin a performance for me – in my own eyes. My parents, of course, thought differently, and they encouraged me to afford myself the accolades a still-great performance deserved. 

    This is a perennial struggle of mine, and it likely will be for the rest of my life. That said, I have been able to improve on this with much effort. It is uncomfortable at times, but often the best remedy for these sorts of problems is to break your own rules. In this case, make things perfectly imperfect. 

    Again, this strategy does not lend well to situations of life and death. But for making memories and generally conducting yourself in the world, it may do wonders for one’s peace of mind and sense of self-worth. 

    Forcing yourself to make things perfectly imperfect will reveal the beauty of the perfectly imperfect. It takes time and repetition – sometimes a lot of it – but it is possible. Allow me to share a few examples from my own life. 

    For my entire life, I have had a spot on one of my front teeth much whiter than the rest of my teeth. This discoloration is very obvious and can be seen in any picture in which I am smiling. For a while, as a teenager, I tried whitening strips to make it less obvious, and my girlfriend at the time constantly called attention to it and made her opinion on it known. It was a source of shame. 

    But as I grew older, it turned from a source of shame into a source of pride. After I became my own person again, I began to see this discoloration as something unique, something identifiable as “me.” When my wife and I had our engagement pictures taken, I asked our photographer not to edit that spot out, which my wife was very happy with. 

    Besides, what an odd thing to be ashamed of. In a world so obsessed with superficiality, it would be so easy to critique any feature that is not “flawless” – whatever that means – but none of it matters in the end. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. 

    Last September, my brother, my wife, and I went to a concert we had been looking forward to for a long time. The opener, who was not advertised as a part of the concert, was very difficult to listen to. On one hand, I could have stewed in frustration waiting for it to be over, or I could have thought of how funny the memory of that night would be in the future. 

    I chose the latter, and I was happy throughout the opening act. 

    On the day of my wedding last month, my wife and I wanted to quite literally tie the knot during the ceremony. We had a special blue-and-white rope we had bought for the occasion, and we practiced tying it in the rehearsal. When the ceremony itself came, we realized – up on the stage and in front of all hundred or so guests – that we had forgotten the rope in the building. We could have interrupted the ceremony to retrieve it, which would have been awkward, or we could have simply moved on. I whispered to the officiant to skip the rope portion of the ceremony, and we carried on like normal. 

    While it was somewhat disappointing that we did not get to do that, it was not a big deal in the grand scheme of things. The rest of the day was near perfect and will forever be one of my happiest memories. 

    In these situations, what are the consequences of imperfection? An odd-looking tooth, an hour of less-than-pleasant music, a quick moment of panic in a day you have been planning for a year, and then what? The consequences of most imperfections are irrelevant or transient – or both, drifting away into the past to never be seen again. 

    And if you make the most of these imperfections, they may even become sources of joy. 

    There are many times in which being a perfectionist is warranted – and even helpful – but the perfectionist must be vigilant in keeping themselves separate from their work. 

    If you do struggle with something like this, know that there is hope. I stand testament to how deeply a worldview like this can become ingrained in one’s identity, but I also stand testament to the ability to break free from that grip.

  • The Right to Be

    By

    “Even the wise man acts in accordance with his inner nature. All beings follow their nature. What good can repression do?” – Bhagavad Gita 3.33

    It saddens me deeply how so much of my generation is adopting the hateful beliefs of their parents and grandparents. It may be difficult to maintain hope, but hope persists so long as those who respect the right to be continue in joyousness and fervor. 

    The right to be is the foundation of the Moral Law and central to my system of beliefs. I have summed it up in this way as well: “One’s will ends where another’s will begins.” No one has the authority to dictate who someone else should be or who they should love. 

    From outside the cultic nature of my former religion, this maxim seems like common sense – and, really, it is. But within that closed-off space, conformity is crucial. Repression is a tool for control, and this is truly the death of the human being. Some religions call inner nature “sin,” but this is a lie – a lie that has altered millions of lives throughout history in a way that is not conducive to the growth of our species, both as a collective and as individuals. 

    I know what it is like to be the person who assumes he knows what is best for others. I know what it is like to be hateful and hell-bent on policing others’ very existence. 

    You very likely do not know your neighbor’s story as well as you think you do. And because of this, there are millions of children who are growing up in fear, because as soon as someone realizes who they are, their world will come crumbling down. 

    And for what? The happiness and joy that comes from a relationship should be celebrated regardless of who is in the relationship, who they love, and who they identify as. 

    The right to be is fundamental to our humanity and our existence. To deny anyone their identity is to deny their humanity, and this is the rawest form of hatred and selfishness. 

    Leaving this narrow-mindedness can be exceedingly difficult. I would know. But it is possible, and it begins with a single question. 

    “Why?”

    Why care what makes others happy? Why belittle others for what makes them happy at nobody’s expense? Why do you believe others living their lives to the fullest has any negative effect on you?

    None of this does. There is only one effect that another person living their life to the fullest should have, and that is joy. That is happiness that another is happy because they are able to live their life to the fullest – and on their terms. 

    But hateful remarks do have an effect on others – more than you know. As such, kindness also has an effect on others. It costs nothing to be kind and affirming, and it means much to those who need it most. 

    The human experience is a beautiful thing, and all are part of the diverse tapestry that is humanity. Diversity is not to be tolerated – it is to be celebrated. 

    So let us celebrate. 

  • In Memoriam

    By

    “Then, when our dying bodies have been transformed into bodies that will never die, this Scripture will be fulfilled: ‘Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?’” – 1 Corinthians 15:54-55

    It was eight years ago last Thursday that my closest friend, Adam, died unexpectedly. He was fourteen years old. I thought it fitting to write this post based on a verse he wrote a Bible study around – a study on death, just one month before his passing. 

    This time of year is a very reflective one for me. The hole that death leaves is one that never fills back up. But for those who do believe in an afterlife, it can feel quite silly after enough thought. After all, if you know you will see someone again, why miss them more than you would if they were just on an extended vacation?

    There is something so seemingly final about death. And this is not to understate death – there is a finality to it that is very real. Even for those who do believe in an afterlife, even though the soul remains intact, there is something about this world that clings to the physical. 

    Entire religions and systems of thought have been predicated on rejecting the physical. Even some early Christians did this. But wholesale rejecting the physical is, in my opinion, a disservice to the gift that is life. While I do believe life is everlasting, the life we live in these tangible bodies is very much finite – and, in the grand scheme of things, infinitely short. 

    I did not gain a full appreciation for this life until two things occurred. The first was Adam’s death, which caused me to think incessantly of my own mortality. The second was leaving the church. 

    The church places much emphasis on restraining one’s experience and exploration of the physical in the name of “purity.” Sex is a good example of this. While there is such thing as too much, a belief system that restrains its believers for no other reason than the “glory of God” is denying them their literally once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to experience this life as it ought to be experienced. 

    My point is that this life is all we know of for certain. While I am certain my soul will persist after my death, I cannot know until I experience it myself. There is that Great Veil that, with very little exception, cannot be parted or peered through in any objective manner. And that uncertainty alone is exceedingly difficult to come to terms with. 

    It is this uncertainty and finality that, in my opinion, lends that sting to death that would be inhuman not to feel. There is a real, tangible loss in this plane when someone passes on, even if they continue to exist elsewhere. 

    For that reason, I, personally, would prefer a proper funeral over a celebration of life when my time comes. Surely there is much to celebrate about life, but there is plenty of time to celebrate life. Death typically happens only once. To each their own, of course, but there is an undeniable solemnity surrounding death and funerary rites to which I aim to afford due respect. 

    One must imagine that the senses are amplified in the afterlife, and that the eternal existence that awaits is one our physical bodies cannot presently fathom. Perhaps, then, the time just after death is disorienting at best. Perhaps the recently-deceased soul is like a newborn being pulled from the womb. 

    What follows, then, is that the experience of life in the afterlife is orders of magnitude more vibrant and intimate than this one, and that is something to look forward to. But until then, this life is what we have, so it is of the utmost importance both to take care of what we have and to enjoy it. 

  • Choose Your Afterlife

    By

    “Never was there a time when I did not exist, or you, or these kings; nor will there come a time when we cease to be.” – Bhagavad Gita 2.12

    Nearly every religion has some concept of the soul, and the dominant religions of this day put forth that the soul does not cease to exist after it is born. I believe this as well – for the most part. 

    There are a handful of tenets I hold that have come to define my spirituality, and one of those I have called everfith, the belief in the everlasting nature of the soul. 

    I do think every soul, whether human or otherwise, has the potential and inclination to persist in eternity. And I believe that those who do good with their lives, or at the very least do no harm, do walk this path. 

    But sin, however one defines that word, is an all-consuming disease of the soul. To me, sin manifests as “treason to the soul,” a disregard of the rights of others. The symptoms of this disease are greed and selfishness, hatred and extreme, incurable envy. And the longer one lets these symptoms fester, the more they succumb to the disease. 

    Especially in this day and age, I want to emphasize that aspects of personal identity – sexuality and gender identity among them – are not only a beautiful part of every soul, but something to be celebrated. Any movement that demonizes this threatens its own humanity. 

    It is my belief that the arc of Time does bend toward morality, even if slowly, and that that necessitates the eventual end of sin. As I have written before, I do not believe sin is something arbitrary imposed by a higher power, but a choice that an individual makes. This choice is simple: look outward, or look inward. 

    And it is my belief that this is the choice that determines one’s eternity – not allegiance to a certain deity, not the correct ritual or theology, but an acknowledgement and active celebration of our common humanity and our place in this universe. Those who act morally and lead upright lives have eternity to spend in bliss, but those who put down others for their own gain become so consumed by their own greed and selfishness that it devours their soul. 

    I also do not think of death as the last chance to make this decision. Any moral existence, in my opinion, must present each soul a second chance and an opportunity to improve. Thus it is my belief that there are millions out there, if not even billions, who have not yet sealed their fates even centuries after their passing.  Perhaps they lived in opposition to good during their time in this life, but are making a genuine and concerted attempt at improving themselves in the next life. I think that is something to be celebrated. 

    If souls have no end, what of their beginnings? I do not subscribe to the idea that souls have no beginning – if anything, the birth of a soul is somewhat fuzzy. I also do not believe in reincarnation, for the most part, but it is reasonable to think of the passing on of genetic code as a partial reincarnation. In this way, every soul has a foundation upon which to build before they enter this world, but they do not properly experience life until they are brought about. 

    When one thinks of this, the idea that the beginnings of each and every one of our souls were milling about in an impossibly intertwined manner, is it not easy to begin to view your fellow humans as the family they are? 

    I recognize that ideas like these are unfalsifiable and entirely subjective. All of religion is. What I believe validates subscribing to unfalsifiable ideas is their result in the real world. Perhaps the soul is truly a projection of chemical reactions, and perhaps there is no such thing as the divine. But if belief in such things moves humanity along the arrow of progress, so long as an acknowledgement of the differences between faith and science exists, then it is an ultimate benefit to humanity. 

    That said, I do believe in souls and their everlasting nature. Even between wildly different subjective experiences across thousands of different cultures and billions of individuals, there must be some truth to the idea. What is written previously is my best approximation of the nature of this world we cannot readily interact with.

  • Those in the Ground

    By

    “Because the Earth, as all men know, is not just the All-Mother, but the common graveyard too.” – The Nature of Things 5.257-258

    I have been conducting research on my own family history for the last thirteen years, and it always amazes me the endless amount of knowledge to be gained. What is often easy to forget, however, is that each name on a gravestone, each line in a parish record, and each name in a census are individuals who lived entire lives ahead of ours, complete with their own friends, family, and loved ones. 

    This most recent round of research resulted in my being able to push back my patrilineal line – that of the Hembrough family – to my tenth-great-grandfather. The single earliest record I have found for this particular line was written more than four hundred years ago, recording the 1621 baptism of Margaret Hembrough, the daughter of Thomas. Her brother Thomas, my ninth-great-grandfather, was born the following year. 

    These records come from parish records kept at Selby Abbey in Yorkshire, England. I understand it was one of the more notable religious institutions in the area at the time. Most parish records are divided into christenings, marriages, and burials, and these are invaluable resources for anyone looking to learn about who they came from. 

    It is these burials that strike me. Of course, death is part of life, so perhaps it is ridiculous to be so struck by these records, but each line represents the end of an entire life unknowable to us but for anything that happened to be written down. 

    Affording the humanity that each ancestor deserves can be difficult when so little remains, but some meditation on one’s own family history can bring this into clearer focus. 

    My sixth-great-grandfather, Richard Hembrough, may be the oldest subject of my research that gave me significant pause. He and his wife, Mary, were the parents of twelve children. As was unfortunately quite normal in those days, not all of them survived. 

    Richard and Mary were married in 1773. In fact, I have in my possession a copy of their marriage license, complete with both of their signatures, indicating they both were literate. They had their first daughter, Elizabeth, later that year. Their son Richard was born in 1774, but died just three months later. Around this time, recordkeepers began writing down more information – including cause of death. 

    Their daughter Jane lived only two months before dying of “looseness” in 1780, and their son Matthew died the next year after just one month of life to “diarrhea.” The next daughter, Sarah, was just seven months old when she succumbed to smallpox. 

    Sarah’s death was the one that made me pause. Most of us likely have family that died of smallpox, a horrifically disfiguring disease that killed one of every three people it infected. Thanks entirely to the science of vaccines, none of Earth’s eight billion people need worry about smallpox. But for our ancestors, it was a constant looming specter. 

    Smallpox was also highly contagious and spread easily between people. Some unlucky families were mostly or entirely wiped out by it in a relatively short period of time. 

    By 1783, the family of Richard and Mary Hembrough consisted of five living children. Four had already died. The oldest living child was just seven years old when her baby sister developed smallpox – old enough to at least partially comprehend the gravity of a situation like that. Smallpox was not subtle, either, and it often left its surviving victims with scars all over the body. 

    Sarah was the only one of the family who died to this outbreak, but it is extremely likely that others in the family also developed this disease at the same time. Those who were spared were forced to watch their loved ones suffer through a horrible sickness, not knowing if they would live to see another day. 

    There were two more deaths in the years after Sarah’s: Mary, the third child, made it to the age of eighteen before dying of “cholic,” and Mary, the wife and mother, died in 1809 of consumption, another relatively common yet devastating disease. Today, it is known as tuberculosis. 

    Obviously, Richard Hembrough did have some children make it to adulthood. I would not be here otherwise. But it is important to remember that these people were just as real as we who are still alive are. They had loves and fears, friends and enemies, and wins and losses. It boggles the mind to think of just how precisely history had to line up to produce any one of us. And yet, here we are. 

    The preciousness of life cannot be understated. As we share the Earth with those alive today, we all will eventually share the Earth with those who have already passed on. I do believe in an afterlife, and perhaps I will write on that soon, but no expected reward or punishment in the next life should discount the worth of this life. It is, in my opinion, one of the highest acts of veneration to live one’s life to the fullest – and to help and encourage others to do the same.