Where I see God

I've never been a very religous person. In high school I briefly flirted with the idea of joining a church. However, as I mulled the descision I could not supress my misgivings at the fact that these organizations were responsible for centuries of war and persecution, for rationalizations of slavery and sexism, and for repressing such dangerous notions as the belief that the world was round. I found myself disgusted that an organization that was founded on a visionary man's novel idea that maybe we should all try being nice to eachother for a change could pervert his message to that extent. These misgivings, combined with a skepticism that makes it hard to trust the literalism of words written millenia ago, effectively turned me off from organized religion.

Despite this cynicism, I cannot deny the phenomenon of spirituality. I believe that there are two sources of spirituality: first, a humbling recognition of the magnitude and capacity of the universe, and second, the awe inspired by the serene example of another person. The first source of spirituality is the reason that religion was initially created: to explain the wonders of the natural world. The second source is the one which I would like to talk about: the inspiration one derives from the sublime action of another. I think of this type as a social spirituality, derived from our ability to empathize. It is responsible for the foundation of most monotheistic religions--while the other sort of spirituality brought about the polytheistic, nature-worshipping religions, this sort of spirituality breeds the worship of certain special persons. While several people have been a source of this sort of spirituality to me, the most profound by far is His Holiness the Dalai Lama.

My admiration for the Dalai Lama is best summed up by this anecdote:
When asked how he would respond if science were to prove some facet of Buddhism impossible, the Dalai Lama responded: "If science were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims."
This man is the leader of church that has been around for thousands of years, and is based a set of beliefs that he has dedicated his life to protecting from repression. Despite this, he has the serenity to change his convictions if it is determined that science does not support them (Aside: for an idea of how another major religion might react to such a challenge, check out the reaction to James Cameron's recent excavation of a tomb that may contain Jesus' family).

Bear in mind that this open-mindedness belongs to a man who was born the fifth of nine children to a family of rural Tibetan farmers, who was named the head of a major religion within a year after saying his first word, who was 23 when his country was invaded and its inhabitants brutally repressed by China, who has spent the rest of his life in exile from the land that his countrymen had made their home for millenia and is considered to be the sacred ground of his religion. By all rights, he should be surly and world-weary, not gentle and wise. What's even more amazing to me is that he became the Dalai Lama by correctly picking the previous Dalai Lama's cane and glasses from an assortment of other items when he was two years old.

As you might guess, I'm not the sort of person to believe in superstitions, but the fact remains that a seemingly random process picked perhaps the one man in a million that could emerge through such turmoil and remain the beacon of wisdom that he is. This is a phenomenon that I cannot explain. This sublime coincidence inspires the the first type of spirituality, but that's not what gets me the most about the Dalai Lama. I am awed by the second type of spirituality, by the ability of this man to remain so righteous, so magnanimous even after a lifetime of persecution and hardship. If I were to point to someplace that I see God in the world, this is it.

I believe that religion is the pursuit of this sort of spirituality. People wish to find a way to connect with that feeling, and create a system of rituals that is designed to help them to access it. I am not trying to disparage religion, just to define it. If it is a ritual that allows you to achieve spirituality--believing that you are consuming your deity's blood and body, or prostrating yourself towards an important city, or covering your head to show humility--then more power to you. Where I get lost, and I think that this describes many other people as well, is when the ritual itself supercedes the spirituality it is meant to access. I think that this is a common misinterpretation, prioritizing the form over the function. It seems to be present in all religions, and results in people attempting to force the way that they find spirituality on others. I believe that it is the misunderstanding that it is the spirituality that is the important part, not the vehicle, that leads to the bastardizations of religions that instigate war or justify tyranny.


Update:
I've decided that the best definition for the quality that inspires spirituality in me is a resistance to situational ethics, or people whose ideals remain uncompromised by adversity.