This is a lamentation for the betrayal of two religious imperatives for which religion is known i.e.

., when words are often evaporated into spirit, rather than incarnated into flesh.
============================================================

A Sad Tale of Two Imperatives

An excerpt from Soul, God and Morality Author Peter M.K. Chan
All rights reserved
============================================================

In the views of many, the real contribution to civilization that religion has made is its advice as to how humans are supposed to live. What happened was basically this. When the idea that Mother Nature or Her Boss is retributive was coupled with the idea that what push people into suffering are the desires of their bodies, two very demanding imperatives were brought to the fore. Renounce your carnal desires (as distinguished from the barest of needs) by forsaking the material world. Call this the imperative of renunciation. Treat your fellow-beings, those who are poor and in need in particular, as kindly as you would treat yourself. Call this the imperative of altruistic love. That these are very hard bargains indeed needs no red flag. Suffice to say that for seekers of immortality in particular, no opportunity cost should be deemed too great or unreasonable. If there were going to be lasting handsome rewards and the worst of possible punishments in the hereafter, it should be appreciated that these two imperatives are not really too harsh to be entertained. Put another way, had it not been assumed that Mother Nature or any of Her decreeing Bosses are retributive, and that

catering to ones carnal desires would put personal salvation at risk, these two ethical prescriptions would not have to be seen as having to follow. At least, I believe that this is how these two imperatives have come to be religiously read and understood. Unfortunately, if I may say so, despite the fact that some did try to reign in their carnal desires if not also devote themselves tirelessly to the mission of altruistic love, it was not blind to all that it is actually very difficult, if not altogether impossible, to live up to these two imperatives at the same time. To care for the poor and the needy for instance, one must have something to give away. For this to be possible, it is necessary to do two things. In addition to curbing ones own material requirements, one must also try to generate some material surplus. It goes without saying that seeking merely to breakeven against ones own needs in renunciation camp (a temple or monastery) is not going to be sufficient to sustain any meaningful game of love. On the other hand, having to realize a material surplus will necessarily run the risk of having to take on an acquisitive mentalitywhich is often the accomplice to egotism and greed not exactly in tune with altruistic love. As readers can see therefore, to understand the import of the two imperatives is one thing, to really put both of them into practice without getting ones mind and hands dirty is quite another. It was for this realization, I believe, that there has always been differentiation between professional and lay in most religions. In practical terms, professionals are to rely on surpluses as provided by their lays (stipulated at an unenforceable rate of ten percent of personal income

in some religion) so as to dedicate themselves to the task of carnal renunciation as well as altruistic love on the lays behalf. The underlying strategy seems to be this. If it is not possible to win as separate individuals, why not organize to win as a team. However, it should be observed that such a division of labor is in fact not in consonant with what was originally intended. As reward and punishment in the hereafter is presumably an individual affair, it is by no means clear that to try and carry the imperatives out on a corporate basis would have the intended effect for all participants concerned. But given the hardness of economic facts already alluded, it is also understandable that such a change of tune had to be called. Thus, what eventually ensued, if I may say so, has been a lot of smooth talking. Religious folks are implicitly made to understand that all things considered, it is sufficient to carry the two imperatives in their hearts, and that their indirect participation by way of contributions should already be able to make the grade. The trouble is that in the course of time, it is not so much the poor and the needy that get the benefits, but the clergy and those commissioned to erect physical monuments and clubhouses (temples and churches) for their faith. What is even more unfortunate is that it has also come to be accepted that to pray for the unfortunate is all that is required. Praying for someone, as we all know, is to call the attention of God and deities to the plight of another in the hope that they would intervene from the Beyond (as if these divines were not already in the know). But as we also know, what this has in fact encouraged in

the lay is the lazy habit of presuming that it is the objects of their faith that are supposed to handle all these philanthropic choresas well as to cater to their own personal wishes. It is in this way, if I may further point out, that the original import of the two imperatives has come to be distorted beyond recognition. The irony of it all is that it is not unknown to religious folks that when their religious founders were here, they were prepared to give themselves and all in the interest of their fellow beings. Of Buddha (i.e., Shakyamuni ) or one of his incarnations anyway, the story is still being told that he even went so far as to feed hungry birds with his own flesh, and vow to persist in the bitter sea of life until everyone else is safe on the other shore. For the Christians, on the other hand, the explicit demand of Jesus that one should be prepared to forsake family and personal properties for the sake of the poor is still loud and clear to the ears of many. It should thus be seen that as far as Buddha and Jesus were concerned, the two imperatives are supposed to be exemplified in the flesh, not just in ones mind or merely on ones lips. Kind intention and comforting words are nice but not sufficient, much less the mere saying of a few passionless prayers and the burning a few cheap candles and incense sticks. What has just been touched upon, if you do not mind my saying so, is a kind of betrayal from within religion itself. The selfless and altruistic requirement to reign in carnal desires (not to say anything about disposing of private properties) for purpose of caring for those in need has since become mere episodes to be played out in the mind. Word, in other words, has

evaporated into spirit rather than incarnated into fleshas our religion founders had once lived to demonstrate. This is how these two ethical imperatives have come to be degraded as well as openly compromised. Let me also say that that was long before their metaphysical supports (belief in the spiritual hereafter and the supernatural postulate) have gone into crisis. In this connection, one crucial question we must now attend to is therefore this. Is there still a place for these two imperatives in what is fast becoming an agnostic (with respect to the supernatural) and neuroscientific (or soul-less) world? I believe there is. Part of the reason, it seems to me, is that Mother Earth may not be able to satisfy so many vampires of wants for too long. But I shall leave this theme for someone greener than me to do the talking. All I want to say is that if purity of heart (as Jesus called) is what one seeks, it is advisable to keep ones rampant carnal desires (as distinguished from ones basic biological needs) in check. As many who have paid their dues already come to realize, wanting to have more and more on a perpetual basis could only invite unnecessary troubles -- psychological if not also financial. Contentment or lack of unnecessary wants, as sayings go (in the Chinese language anyway), is the root of happiness. This, I believe, is what the imperative of renunciation is also trying to say. But why should one abstain for the welfare of another with no prospects of any reward or incentive whatsoever? For those who are asking, let me state something in the obvious. Only the morally immature would think that short of some return on investment,

there is no call whatsoever to be concerned about the plight of another. Another thing that is obvious is that any child who is kind to his weaker sibling merely for the purpose of securing parental favor is not really moral, but cunningly tactical. In short, it should be observed that genuine morality is not prudential in character. It has nothing to do with whether or not there will or will not be some future reward (or punishment) either here or in the presumed personal hereafter. Yet, it is not to say that to keep ones desires in check so as to give away selflessly is at all easy. It may not be difficult to dish out what is casually affordable. But to empty ones pocket for the sake of another with no prospect of repayment (not to say return on investment) is practically a mission impossible. Saying this however is not to deny the fact that there could have been such completely selfless and caring individuals in this world. For all I know, there are some (of both religious and non-religious orientations) who have come rather close during certain periods of their lives. Another thing that should also be noted is that despite our feebleness or inability to answer such sacrificial calls, many of us would still wish from time to time that we could. It is quite natural for us to become sympathetic toward the plight of our fellow beings. It is not too late, I suppose, to remind everyone that human nature is not really as ill equipped as Christianity has taught. A Buddhist view of the human kind is perhaps more in line with the facts. With respect to this kinder perspective, Mencius (371-289 B.C.), the second patriarchs of Confucianism, had also come to a similar point of view. It is spontaneous and natural for

anyone, he said, to reach out for a child that is about to fall into a well. In my view, this is not just his way of saying that everyone is capable of feeling sympathetic toward the plight of ones fellow beings. It is also his way of showing that human nature is such that everyone is actually capable of taking the interest of another selflessly into account. Of course, it is not to say that to act without ulterior motive is always effortlessly easy. It is to say that anyone who is empathetic toward the misfortunes and suffering of another is already predisposed toward some selfless deeds. Even though such altruistic impulses may not always result in action, the fact remains that wanting to do something about the plight of another must already betray the fact that wanting to do so is not really alien to ones nature. It is here, if I may also point out, that the empirical (or objective) basis of morality and moral responsibility is to be found. What this means is that the ground of morality is actually to be located within human nature itself. Indeed, this salient point has also come through clear and loud in modern western moral philosophy. It is that ought presupposes can. It would make no sense to tell someone that he ought to do what is really beyond his capacity. As to why it is meaningful to renounce for the sake of another therefore, the answer is that it is just a natural part of what it is to be completely human. As it is natural for everyone to look after himself, there is also no excuse for not trying to be altruistic. Under this light, it is sad to say that the imperative of altruistic love has by and large been

shunned by the human kind. What stands in the way, I believe, should now also be made clear. You see, for the maintenance of a civil society, not doing to others what one is not prepared to do to oneself, or not to do anything that one does not wish everyone to do, is already quite sufficient for the objective in question. This is the first stumbling block. The second is that human nature is also such that even if one were to amass what look like a surplus, it would still be extremely difficult to just give it selflessly away. This is usually the case because everyone knows that there is also a future to contend with. In other words, if one were to know that one were to die tomorrow, it might become less difficult to consider the need of another as important as ones own, thus making it easier to really love another as much as oneself. The trouble is that not many of us are of the opinion that life is going to be this short. Besides, there are dependents and descendents to care for. To disperse ones surplus blindly in the interest of altruistic love is therefore not really feasible for most. Prudence would dictate that one should withhold ones fruit of renunciation (nowadays call net assets) for ones immediate family and its rainy days instead. In short, what really stands in the way is ones concern not only for ones future, but also for the future of ones family. Since few if any has really dared to live like sparrows in the wild and lilies in the valley, as Jesus once recommended (not just for monks and nuns), it goes without saying that to love altruistically is something that most of us would rather entertain in the realm of idealistic wishes. It is true that some might have indeed succeeded in instantiating such selfless sentiments in their lives, it is yet too difficult for most to try and be

carefree in the same way. In this light, one may well appreciate why the fire of hell had to be ignited to form part of the teachings. Do not underestimate the ancients. They also knew how to use carrots and sticks. What I am trying to say is therefore this. If what one looks for is nothing more than social order, fear of law (human or divine) and its punishment (just or unjust) should be able to do the job (most of the time anyway). On the other hand, if what one seeks were a kinder and more caring humanity, it seems to me that there is really no alternative but to appeal to that human capacity to feel for the plight of another. This feeling of sympathy that flickers occasionally in our hearts is what Confucius (551-479 B.C) labeled as human-heartedness or Ren. It is a humane sentiment not motivated by any threat or promise of law and its enforcement agencies (civil or divine). It is grounded rather in one of the spontaneous capacities of the human mind. It also seems to me that in a world where weapons of massive and lasting destruction (poverty, hunger, sickness, illiteracy, ignorance, hatred and what not) are still everywhere to be found, there is indeed plenty of room for that sympathetic flicker of the human heart to get to work. If this flicker could indeed be kept alight and make to glow a little, perhaps just a little more than it had, it may still be something that Mother Earth may come to appreciate. That is to say, if more were to translate that selfless and altruistic stance of our religious founders into flesh, a difference or two might still be made in our kind of world. Remember, if you can, the story of five loafs and

two fishes. Dont get me wrong. I am not about to be succumbed by the idea that five and two could actually become a few thousand. What is more miraculous to me is that such a simple and inadequate act of giving (by the thirteen men who had nothing more substantial to offer for the day) is already able to escalate a wave of sharing encompassing eventually the entire crowd on hand. What I am suggesting is that if people in general were to become more selfless and altruistic toward all the weeping and crying in what is already one global village, it might still be possible for the human kind to realize a kinder kind of hell, if not also a terrestrial kingdom of heaven. And it is with this little wish, if nothing else, that I should like to leave the reader to his own thoughts
Peter M.K. Chan is the author of The Mystery of Mind (published 2003), and Soul, God, and Morality (published 2004). Recently, he has also competed another work titled The Six Patriarchs of Chinese Humanism (available in e-books, but not yet in print). For details regarding the above, please visit http://sites.google.com/site/pmkchan/home http://sites.google.com/site/ancientchinesehumanism/home http://stores.lulu.com/store.php?fAcctID=4267121