Applicable(?) Aphorisms #37

"The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens." (Baháʼí Faith, Gleanings CXVII)

True, false, good, bad, useful, not so useful, etc.? Discuss.

My thoughts:

Those familiar with my positions on borders and immigration might expect me to wholeheartedly embrace this one. I don't.

While the word "citizen" originally just meant "city-dweller," it has evolved over time to imply that a citizen is someone who -- due to accident of birth in most cases -- owes allegiance to, and has obligations to, a monopoly Westphalian Model nation-state.

A citizen, in other words, is livestock. Most conceptions of "citizenship" pretend that the state has a reciprocal duty to treat its cattle well in some respects, but ultimately a "citizen" exists to be milked, sheared, and slaughtered at will by its owners.

Some might argue that I'm reading too much into that single word for an otherwise inoffensive aphorism, but the origin of the aphorism matters: The Bahá’í faith explicitly and in detail supports a "world government" -- what Shoghi Effendi explicitly defined as "the world's future super-state." 

My political position is not that all people should be brought under the rule of one state; it is that no person should be kept under the rule of any state. So I have to reject this aphorism, even if, in partial agreement with other Bahá’í teachings, I'd like to buy the world a Coke, teach it to sing in perfect harmony, etc.

Applicable(?) Aphorisms #36

"Do not dwell in the past, do not dream of the future, concentrate the mind on the present." (Buddhism, Majjhima Nikaya 131)

True, false, good, bad, useful, not so useful, etc.? Discuss.

My thoughts:

Focus on the present seems to be the most common thread in Buddhist practice, because the end of Buddhism is liberation from suffering and its means is achieving nirvāṇa -- a state without desire or sense of self. There's no room in that state for either regret or ambition, so the meditation, etc. used to reach toward the state emphasizes "mindfulness" of nothing but the present.

It's not limited to Buddhism, of course. David Hume (among others) held that we can only know the past and future through inference and that our reality actually consists entirely of the present, because it's our only directly perceivable environment (my first really powerful philosophical influence, Ayn Rand, spent a good deal of time attacking that notion, which happens to have been the subject of my first college philosophy paper).

It seems pretty obvious to me that the idea doesn't lend itself to getting much done in a practical sense, achieving new things, advancing the human condition in areas other than "enlightenment" itself. How would one incorporate feedback from past failures into plans for future successes? Anecdotally, it seems to me that Buddhists who are well-known for anything other than being Buddhists either don't commit to that, or commit to it after they've already made their mark on the world.

Not that I have anything against focusing on the present. That can be very useful when distractions impede movement into one's desired future. But to me it seems like a failure to engage with reality when adopted as a general commitment.

Applicable(?) Aphorisms #35

"The guest is God." (Hinduism, Taittiriya Upanishad 1.11)

True, false, good, bad, useful, not so useful, etc.? Discuss.

My thoughts:

The four words by themselves don't convey the longer passage's point, IMO. That passage also includes one's parents and teachers as "gods" in the dharmic sense that one has duties toward them (in the case of the guest, the duty being hospitality) and that fulfilling those duties has karmic effects.

Of course, I threw in the dharmic/karmic thing to emphasize the Asian flavor of the specific aphorism. The general idea isn't specific to Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. For example:

"The stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself." -- Leviticus 19:33

"Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares." -- Hebrews 13:2

"Whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day, let him honor his guest with his due reward." -- attributed to Muhammad in hadith (Sahih al‑Bukhari).

In most of the ancient scriptural sources, "guest" is not necessarily the same thing as "invited guest." Religions are full of admonitions to treat strangers well.

Even absent the link to the divine, it seems like good practical advice, at least within limits. Perhaps the stranger you treat well instead of badly today, or someone he commends you to, will be the person who treats you well instead of badly later.

Applicable(?) Aphorisms #34

"It is not your duty to finish the work, but neither are you free to neglect it." (Judaism, Pirkei Avot 2:21)

True, false, good, bad, useful, not so useful, etc.? Discuss.

My thoughts:

I had to do a little reading up on this, not being familiar with the Mishna -- I didn't know whether "the work" referred to something specific, or whether it was a general admonition.

The basic interpretation I came up with, keeping in mind that the Pirkei Avot is a tractate that focuses on general ethics, not on some obscure specific "work" required as part of specific religious obligation, is this:

If something is right or important such that ethics bind you to attend to it, your duty is to work on it diligently rather than let it slide, even if it's something you doubt you can finish or fully accomplish.

So, for example, if I see a child drowning and if I have an obligation to try to rescue the kid (whether I do is a different question), I should actually try to do that rather than knock off and have a cold one while watching sportsball. Maybe I can't swim, maybe I won't be able to reach the kid, but I should make the effort instead of not making it. It's the difference between actingly blamelessly on one hand, or being part of the problem on the other.

Which seems fair.

Applicable(?) Aphorisms #33

"Freedom is found in the choiceless awareness of daily life." (Jainism, Tattvartha Sutra 1.2)

True, false, good, bad, useful, not so useful, etc.? Discuss.

My thoughts:

According to a Google AI overview, the above aphorism does not come from the Tattvartha Sutra, buut rather from the modern writings of J. Krishnamurti. So there's that.

I've not read any significant amount of Krishnamurti's teachings, but on a quick gloss he seems to have largely defined "freedom" in terms of personal psychology -- you become "free" by examining your own fears and prejudices, and the conditioning that creates them, without trying to change them ("choiceless awareness").

I consider that whole line of thinking absurd, I understand the conditioning that led me to that position (it came from Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden, Harry Browne, et al.), and I'm not going to try to change it ... so I guess I'm Krishnamurti-ish in that way, anyway ;-)

Applicable(?) Aphorisms #32

"Let all things be exactly as they are." (Shinto, Kojiki Tradition)

True, false, good, bad, useful, not so useful, etc.? Discuss.

My thoughts:

It's difficult to separate Shinto per se from its early 20th century use by the early 20th century Japanese empire to produce a highly regimented population and unquestioning obedience to its regime. And, like some other religions, it seems very well-suited to that purpose.

So, while it's easy to come up with a "live in harmony with nature, don't sweat the things you can't change," etc. use of the saying, I tend to couple it with a "do as you're told, no need to overthink it" vibe.

I also find it contrary to human nature. People create. People innovate. People build. And in doing so, we change how things are. So I'm more partial to Winnifred Wygal's early version of the "Serenity Prayer":

Oh, God, give us courage to change what must be altered, serenity to accept what can not be helped, and insight to know the one from the other.

Applicable(?) Aphorisms #31

"When the student is ready, the teacher will appear." (Zen Buddhism, Proverb)

True, false, good, bad, useful, not so useful, etc.? Discuss.

My thoughts:

Feels a little predestinationish, doesn't it?

But Buddhism in general, and Zen even more so, is kind of tricky when it comes to the usual distinguishing feature of a religion, theism, and the saying might just as easily be treated as epistemological rather than metaphysical.

At the individual level, even pre-Internet, it's always seemed to me that if I became interested in something, it was easy to find people who were also interested in that thing, knew more about it than me, and were happy to share what they knew. And that has included interest in particular schools of religion, philosophy, etc.

So perhaps the Zen proverb is metaphysical and is pointing out an observable, if not particularly explicable, feature of reality.

Applicable(?) Aphorisms #30

"God is the light of the heavens and the earth." (Islam, Quran 24:35)

True, false, good, bad, useful, not so useful, etc.? Discuss.

My thoughts:

The thing about God (or gods) is that we can only hypothesize as to their existence and nature. Not theorize -- a theory has to be testable and falsifiable -- just hypothesize.

Or, rather I can only hypothesize. Perhaps there really are prophets and so forth who have firsthand interactions rising to the level of justified certainty ... but I'm not in a position to truly test their claims, either.

Do I have ideas on the matter? Sure. But those ideas are more about saying "if such entities exist, then here's what I think I can plausibly infer from the characteristics of the reality they've created."

And such inferences necessarily suffer from assumptions such as, say, the assumption that an all-powerful being would not be so perverse as to demand that its creations rebel against the rules implied by the created reality on pain of e.g. eternal punishment in an afterlife.

Based on the history of religious claims, I don't think the above assumption is necessarily a safe one. Consider, for example, the arbitrary and capricious members of the ancient Greek pantheon.

I have no interest in attempting to dissuade believers on any particular claim on the existence or nature of deity, and find many such claims interesting for various reasons, and I don't begrudge a Muslim's acceptance of this week's aphorism. But when it comes to actionable material, the claims don't really mean much to me.

Applicable(?) Aphorisms #29

"He who has never learned to obey cannot command." (Stoicism, Seneca, On Mercy)

True, false, good, bad, useful, not so useful, etc.? Discuss.

My thoughts:

I suspect this one has been misunderstood and misused a lot since Seneca wrote it to Nero. As a young worker, you may have heard it from a boss who wanted his or her instructions obeyed, not questioned.

Seneca, however, wasn't talking about obedience to a person, he was talking about obedience to a principle -- logos, aka reason/logic as the distinguishing factor separating a "good" ruler from a tyrant.

Seneca long preceded and contradicted Machiavelli as a political advisor, treating mercy to opponents as the approach most likely to keep an emperor in the good graces of the public and preserve the perceived legitimacy of the ruler. In contrast, Machiavelli recommended a velvet glove / iron fist approach (bread/circuses, but paired with swift and severe punishment for dissent/opposition).

As someone concerned with dispelling, rather than preserving, the perceived legitimacy of the state, I prefer rulers who let their freak flags fly so that they're more easily seen as the sociopaths they are. Edict backed by the threat of force can never accord for very long with logos -- the second the results diverge from the ruler's desires, force takes the wheel.

But in a third sense beyond the political and bad-managerial, the aphorism has value. Applying logic and reason rather than mere whim gets better results. We didn't learn to fly by ignoring or defying gravity, we learned to fly by gaining some understanding of gravity and other constraints and obeying them.

Applicable(?) Aphorisms #28

"The Creator dwells among the lowly." (Sikhism, Guru Granth Sahib 10)

True, false, good, bad, useful, not so useful, etc.? Discuss.

My thoughts:

This particular bromide seems common to most religions.

The most frequent interpretation of it is of the "don't think badly of the poor, they're people just like the rich" variety, which seems reasonable in any religion that, for example, holds humankind as created in God's image and therefore of inherent dignity and value.

And, to be fair, Sikhism originated in opposition to the "caste" system that prevailed in Hinduism (that system as it developed "on the ground" is not obviously implied by the Rigveda's division of Purusha's body parts into varnas, by the way), so the sentiment might well be genuine.

That said, it's easy to see how the idea can be abused by institutional religion. It serves the dual purposes of telling the "lowly" to just be content with their lot in life and just accept whatever social system their religious figures decree, and those better off to hand over their wealth to those same religious figures (an interesting variant is the Christian "prosperity gospel" movement of recent decades, which encourages the "lowly" to hand over their money in hope of gaining God's favor and getting more money back in the bargain).

I prefer that more frequent interpretation. 

Applicable(?) Aphorisms #27

"Do not look down on any teaching." (Buddhism, Dhammapada 4:6)

True, false, good, bad, useful, not so useful, etc.? Discuss.

My thoughts:

I disagree completely. If a teaching is demonstrably false or valueless, it should be looked down on.

Of course, in the realm of religion, it's hard to get to "demonstrably false" because claims as to the existence of a deity or deities are intrinsically faith-based. They can't be proven or disproven.

In areas such as ethics or economics, teachings can be compared to desired outcomes and observed reality.

For example, the labor theory of value isn't just demonstrably bullshit, it's the kind of bullshit that anyone who has two neurons to rub together and try to light up a synapse with should be embarrassed to advocate for. I look down on it because it's unworthy of respect.

Applicable(?) Aphorisms #26

"Water benefits all things without contention." (Taoism, Tao Te Ching 8)

True, false, good, bad, useful, not so useful, etc.? Discuss.

My thoughts:

Most of the aphorisms on this list kind of explain themselves, but I'll admit I had to read up on this one a little.

The three qualities of water Lao Tzu emphasized were:

1. That it doesn't care whether it's consumed by bamboo, a cat, or a human. It "just works" for whatever needs it;
2. It doesn't seek status -- in fact, it naturally flows to the lowest place it can find; and
3. Although it is  powerful -- it can penetrate and split rock -- it's also soft and easily shaped.

His point being that we should be like that.

It's been so long since I last read Tao Te Ching in its entirety that I don't recall whether he looked at it from the other side. Water is neither always beneficial nor always non-contentious, as anyone who's ever nearly drowned, had a home destroyed by storm/flood, etc., or even just had to treat or drain a gas tank because water got in the fuel can attest.

So I'd say that water is a lot more like humans actually are than like this aphorism implies humans should be. It doesn't just simulate human kindness or a supposedly ideal human placidity, it also simulates human will to power, human recklessness, etc.

Applicable(?) Aphorisms #25

"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence is not an act, but a habit." (Aristotelian Philosophy, Nicomachean Ethics II.4)

True, false, good, bad, useful, not so useful, etc.? Discuss.

My thoughts:

I'm aware of many quibbles with this idea, ranging from religious beliefs in predestination to non-religious beliefs on genetic or environmental affects on character, but it rings true to me.

Ethics, as such, seems to me to presuppose both free will and an effect of "becoming" over time based on how we exercise that will. A "person" who can't become a "better person" isn't a "person," it's a "robot."

From a non-religious perspective, the reward for "excellence as a habit" is no more, and no less, than just living a good life, and that seems a like sufficient incentive in and of itself.

On the religious side, some sects, especially in the far east, encode that idea across more than one life -- actions in this life affect the circumstances/environment of rebirth into a next life, generally as part of some kind of ascent up the ladder of enlightenment.

Applicable(?) Aphorisms #24

 "The wound of a friend is better than the kiss of an enemy." (Sikhism, Guru Granth Sahib 600)

True, false, good, bad, useful, not so useful, etc.? Discuss.

My thoughts:

I guess it depends on whether the friend in question is really a friend, or just someone posing as a friend.

A real friend may sometimes wound you by telling you truths or offering observations that you find hurtful, but when a real friend does so it's for the purpose of trying to help you fix a problem or correct a flaw.

A fake friend may wound you in the guise of trying to help you, but only for purposes of plausible deniability, when he or she does not in fact have your best interests at heart. That "friend" may actually be an enemy, or just a manipulative type incapable of true friendship.

The aphorism presupposes an honesty/clarity regarding who's a friend and who's not, when such honesty/clarity isn't always the case.

Applicable(?) Aphorisms #23

 "Let no one be called happy before his death." (Greek Philosophy, Herodotus, Histories 1.32)

True, false, good, bad, useful, not so useful, etc.? Discuss.

My thoughts:

Two things worth noting, to start:

1. Herodotus (an historian) wasn't saying this in the first person. He attributed it to Solon, the "father of Greek democracy."
2. It's not the whole aphorism. There's a second sentence: "Till then, he is not happy, only lucky."

Solon took a ... long view ... of life. Happiness, as an external observation from others, he believed shouldn't be thought of as a judgment of a moment, but as a description of a whole life.

The person who seems happy at noon may have received word that a loved one died, or that his bank account was emptied by thieves, by 1 pm. So while he might appear happy at noon, he was actually just in a moment of good fortune before his luck changed.

I don't personally see much utility in this aphorism. Unless I know others' futures, I'd rather just accept their apparent happiness while it's there, and be happy with and for them. I do find a lot of utility in long-term thinking, but not in this specific case.

Applicable(?) Aphorisms #22

"Die before you die." (Sufism, Hadith Qudsi)

True, false, good, bad, useful, not so useful, etc.? Discuss.

My thoughts:

Ascribing the aphorism specifically to Sufism rather than to Islam generally seems erroneous to me, but I can see why it's more associated with Sufism than with other Islamic schools.

Why it's somewhat erroneous: The Hadith Qudsi are a separate category of Hadith. Briefly:

• The Quran is considered by Muslims to be a direct revelation from God, delivered via Muhammad.
• The Hadith, generally, are a collection of sayings attributed to Muhammad or to his inner circle (the "companions").
• The Hadith Qudsi are in between. They're sayings that purport to be, like the Quran, attributable directly to God, albeit via Muhammad. So they're more like the Quran than the other Hadith.

Why it's more associated with Sufism specifically:

Its implications associate easily with eastern religious teachings (Buddhism and Hinduism), and Sufism is highly informed by those eastern teachings, which tend toward killing the ego ("the false self") and replacing it with something "higher."

There is, in fact, a Christian analog: Baptism. Not the post-Paul "sprinkling" stuff, the dunking like John the Baptist gave Jesus. That's described as a second birth of sorts ... when you go under the water, your old self dies, and when you come back up it's a new self joined to the deity.

I've always found the whole idea embodied here interesting, but I'm not sure I buy into it very well. I'm at least somewhat skeptical that there is or can be anything else than the ego to "self." But I can't say for sure whether that's a matter of good reasoning skills on my part, or just a matter of my disinclination to let go of said self.

Applicable(?) Aphorisms #21

"Speak only that which is true, pleasant, and beneficial." (Hinduism, Mahabharata 5:167)

True, false, good, bad, useful, not so useful, etc.? Discuss.

My thoughts:

Hard disagree.

The "true" and "beneficial" elements are redundant -- you're always better off saying, and knowing, the truth.

But that's not always pleasant, and sometimes the truth is more important than making yourself, or others, feel good.

Applicable(?) Aphorisms #20

"The world is a mirror; see yourself in all beings." (Hinduism, Shvetashvatara Upanishad 6:11)

True, false, good, bad, useful, not so useful, etc.? Discuss.

My thoughts:

Probably good advice.

Are humans unique among species? Yes, in particular ways.

There are even reasonably strong arguments for uniquely human-based sets of ethics (e.g. a moral distinction between, say, humans and cattle as to which one it's OK for humans to eat).

On the other hand, all life is constructed from the same building blocks and its various forms are more similar to each other than they are to non-life.

And within some unspecified range, humans are very similar to other animals in many ways, as anyone who's ever watched animals at play likely intuits. There are probably lessons to learn in both the similarities and the differences. Which brings me to one of my favorite bits from Douglas Adams's The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:

[O]n the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much -- the wheel, New York, wars and so on -- whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man -- for precisely the same reasons.

Applicable(?) Aphorisms #19

"The best revenge is not to be like your enemy." (Stoicism, Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 6:6)

True, false, good, bad, useful, not so useful, etc.? Discuss.

My thoughts:

Good advice, and also in a way yet another rephrasing of the golden rule: If you object to Characteristic X of your enemy's behavior, then Characteristic X is no more moral when you display it than when he or she displays it. It's not a good feeling to find yourself in the situation described by Pogo ("we have met the enemy and he is us").

Applicable(?) Aphorisms #18

"Wherever you go, go with all your heart." (Confucianism, Analects 19:6)

True, false, good, bad, useful, not so useful, etc.? Discuss.

My thoughts:

I'm probably as prone as anyone to forget this recommendation  -- which, in different formulations, seems fairly ubiquitous across human populations (my favorite variation is probably "anything worth doing is worth overdoing").

It seems sound to me. The ultimate human scarcity factor is time. Why waste that resource on stuff that's you only consider important enough to you to do half-heartedly?