Wait. What? Service is a duty that we as human beings, social creatures,
are supposed to perform? Get out of here! I want my Facebook! I worked hard in
this capitalistic society. I ain’t giving nothing away to nobody that ain’t
earned it. I don’t care if it’s my time, my prayers, or money. I sure as hell
ain’t giving freebies away.
-
Immanuel Kant
strings his metaphysics through Christianity’s New Testament teachings. “This
virtue is greater when the benefactor’s means are limited and he is strong
enough quietly to take on himself the hardship he spares the other; then he is
really to be considered morally rich.”[1] This
clearly originates from Mark’s Gospel of the widow’s offering.[2] From
this mixture of metaphysics and theology, Western society is heavily predisposed
towards a distanced relationship with others. Nevertheless, whether it is
through daily interactions, service, or familial relationships. We have duties.
To others.
Today. We have
Jesus as God on earth doing the impossible; loving one another as I have loved
you, turning the other cheek. Saints are those individuals that aim for that
inverted, unworldly perfection.
Language is a powerful, manipulative
tool in both the philosophical and theological arenas.[3] Language
has created this everlasting Schism over good works as means for salvation,
which is to suggest the profundity of the Saints is dulled. Still, somewhere
along the way, we become caught up that we all can’t be Saints. Similarly, works
as the pinnacle aspect to our very being, our purpose or goal in life, is
somehow bogged down by this Schism. What we get today is some watered-down version
of what coincidentally happens to be the Corporal Works of Mercy; done out of
the sake of our…for our…
Our what? Our Christian-human nature? No.
Christians cannot even agree on whether the implicit biblical language that stresses
our human nature is to serve others through works or to be some sort of result
from that very nature.
But wait. Oh,
there happens to be this other half of the world called the East. And what is
that one Jewel of three called in Buddhism? Dharma is it? Transliterated as
duty? And there happens to be six qualities of it too! The first being: Svakkhato. “The Dharma
is not a speculative philosophy, but is the Universal Law found through
enlightenment and is preached precisely.” (Thanks Wikipedia!) Is this to say
there is no gray area in what’s to be done in the Buddhist tradition?[4] There’s no
astonishment in duty being part of our nature when it’s esteemed as the
Universal Law.
Yet, I could sit here and draw
parallels between Buddhism’s interpretation of dharma as well as Hinduism’s; the Tao Te Ching, Christianity’s Beatitudes-all
of which are interchangeable for what is to be seen as life’s duty (or a guide
for it.) It’s no mere coincidence that world religions share similarities on
the emphasis of duty. What’s irksome, though, is philosophy’s-particularly
Western philosophy as seen through Kant’s metaphysics-assertion to rationalize
our duty when all along it’s within the very essence of our being. Not to take
philosophy out of its historical context, as it seems to be so often in order
to continue being dubbed meritorious in modern times, but the emotional
relationship that the religions listed above (and others) foster existed long
before metaphysics enabled the world to empirically understand human nature.
I don’t know why it is incredibly
difficult for humans to grasp that our essence implies “relationship” as our
distinguishing feature. (Distinguishing us from animals with that rationale we
possess and so many philosophers like to draw out as profound.) Where does one
human come from? The sexual relationship of two
other human beings. And while hermits intentionally deny themselves to
partake in that inherent, rudimentary distinguishing feature-that is to say the
relationship-mass society lives
either in harmony, disharmony, or an amalgamation of both. I heard that
morality is the balance of the relationships shared in a community. Morals are
the pillars that uphold society. This is to say morals are a measurement of the
gravity of relationships (e.g., a stronger communal support for morals implies
a more united community.) From our relationships derive our world; we either
choose to establish and nurture our relationships or to cripple and damage
them.
Therefore, morality, the same found within world religions,
implicates we have a duty to others. We can call this service, we can call it
love. Language of today suggests that what we now deem as charity, this
mindless, almost worthless giving of financial aid, is of lesser value.[5] (Lesser when
compared to social justice enacted through service.) Language of yesterday
suggests that charity comes from the Latin word caritas, and as any Christian might get giddy over, caritas derives from Greek’s agape. What we know about agape in the Christian sense is that it’s
defined as love of fellow man.[6]
Social justice. We can similarly use language to trace
justice to iustus, which we can break
down to ius, meaning law. What I
really like about this etymology-dictionary site I am using as a point of reference
is that it takes ius a step further
to ious. “‘Sacred formula’…that
originated in the religious cults.”[7] Here we are
presented with several points I would like to emphasize. Some circles,
particularly theocracies, enact certain morals as laws. Second, this etymology
emphasizes the bridged gap between human nature and morality with religion. It
is no mere coincidence that Kant intertwined beneficence with the widow and the
coin.
Nonetheless, the misinterpretation of charity of today (I
mentioned above,) is incorrectly separated from social justice. The
misinterpretation itself is enough grounds to suggest that the truer sense of charity
alone holds more value than the misconception of this sort of aimless giving.
But the fact that social justice has roots in this concept of sanctity can be
further driven by charity’s truer meaning of love of fellow man. Social justice
is charity. Charity is social justice. Because human nature, emphasized by
morals, is to foster a relationship with others, both charity and social
justice combined are to be seen as an intrinsic duty.
LIKE the Kleshas and Tanhas Facebook page!
[2] 41 Jesus
sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd
putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large
amounts. 42
But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a fraction of a penny.43 Calling his disciples to him,
Jesus said, “I
tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the
others. 44 They all gave out of their
wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to
live on.” (Mark 12:41-44.)
[3] If I might add, I personally find
theological language more focalized and straightforward than philosophical
jargon. Here’s why. Theology aims to explain nature in a way for believers to
understand and follow. Philosophy is a constant dialogue that is questioning
nature’s qualities. Both, however, evolve from inner circles of either faith or
reason that propel their explanations forward. Theology’s objectivity differs
from philosophy’s in that faith enables for a more accepting reception of
evolution because it happens more rarely. Philosophy cannot be pinpointed by
its believers and subscribers because it is often subject to change.
[4] Yet, there still are divisions in Buddhism.
[5] My classmates made this distinction when the words
CHARITY and JUSTICE were written on the whiteboard. Charity became this
seasonal tithing during the holiday season; lowered to a sense of tangible giving.
Justice was therefore elevated to the only giving (of time) of value.
