old story, new perspective

i've been reading a lot of books by paulo coelho recently. if you haven't heard of him, you should check him out; he's a brazilian author whose books deal with a lot of spirituality.

and his work has really helped to change my perspective on things.

most recently regarding the story of nicodemus.

while reading the zahir, the most recent coelho addition to my collection, something about that story finally clicked and i was able to see it in a new light. or rather, have the idea of "rebirth" explained from a different point of view.

an excerpt:

"do you believe that your past loves have taught you to love better?"

"they've taught me to know what i want."

"i didn't ask that. have your past loves taught you to love your husband better?"

"no, on the contrary. in order to surrender myself to him, i had to forget all the scars left by other men. is that what you mean?"

"in order for the true energy of love to penetrate your soul, your soul must be as if you had just been born."

reading through this dialogue between two characters in the novel, the story of nicodemus popped into my head. i don't know if that was the author's intention or not (i would venture to guess no), but that was the immediate mental jump for me the second i read that last sentence.

coelho, through one of his characters, goes on to discuss at length how in order to truly experience love, it is necessary to forget our past--all the scars, failures, disappointments . . . and even the good things--and focus our energies solely on the present.

is this the process Jesus sat up speaking to nicodemus about until the wee hours of the morning? i don't think that's an unreasonable idea. hearing the story as a child i always thought nicodemus had to be pretty dense not to understand what Jesus was talking about as the sunday school teacher explained it to me: to be reborn is simply to ask Jesus into your heart.

that doesn't seem too difficult.

certainly something that a teacher of the Law could wrap his mind around.

but, as with many things Jesus tried to explain, i don't think it was that cut-and-dried.

hmm. there are words in my heart, but i just can't seem to transfer the exact idea in my head to here.

i guess the biggest thing that was impressed upon me as i thought over this today and that i would like to pass on is the idea of living in the present and forgetting the past--both good and bad.

that's the sort of "rebirth" that is a little difficult to fathom.

the wind blows where it pleases, and you hear its sound, but you don't know where it comes from or where it is going. so it is with everyone born of the Spirit. -john 3:8

the greek word, pnuema, that was here translated as "wind" could also be translated as spirit or Spirit (. . . or so say the notes at the bottom of the page in my Bible). now, i'm not a theologian and i haven't been to seminary, but try to stick with me here.

this passage about wind seems kind of random thrown in the middle of a passage about rebirth and the kingdom of God . . . so it has to be some sort of metaphor.

to me, in light of the new perspective granted by the zahir, it presents the idea of the importance of the present. you can hear the wind (an act in the present) but you don't know where it came from (past) or where it is going (future). the focus is on the here-and-now, and the here-and-now only.

you must free yourself of all the prejudices and mental souvenirs of the past.

you must free yourself of worry about the future.

you must exist only in the present and give yourself--your soul--over to Love. completely.

and through this--the embrace of Love and appreciation for now--you will experience a kind of "rebirth" for your soul.

yesterday's the past, tomorrow's the future, but today is a gift. that's why it's called the present. -bil keane

the disturbing disappearance of faith

"Abram believed the LORD and it was credited to him as righteousness." Genesis 15:6

i've found that in today's world there is a disturbing lack of real faith in God.

and i don't just mean in the secular world, i mean in the church.

let me ask you this:

which do you place your faith in: God or the scriptures?

yes, i realize these often overlap. and yes, i agree that scripture is the word of God. but it is the word of God spoken through certain men to specific people in specific places at specific times. it is enlightened and holy, but only in light of these facts.

in order to know the true will and Person of God, it is important to know the context of these--His--words. the God behind the words is more important than the words themselves.

but i'm afraid we're losing that.

and i would like to know when the church got off telling people that God can only make His will known through the written word.

for the duration of His earthly ministry, Jesus was continually praising children for their faith and instructing His disciples to be more like children in their thinking with regard to His teachings and the Law.

let me ask you this: can children read?

(especially in that day and age?)

. . . no.

so then, if children can find the will of God, then it has to be as apparent outside of the Bible as it is inside.

it has to be evident in His creation, in the world around us.

when Jesus wanted to confirm the plan of His Father before His death, did He roll open a torah scroll and read? no. He went to a garden. He immersed Himself in creation itself: the most evident of His Father's works, visible to everyone.

Jesus did this--withdrawing into nature--repeatedly through the course of His life, as did the prophets before Him, who received the word of the Lord in caves and on mountains as far back as moses and the forefathers. john the baptist even lived in the wilderness.

do you ever think how easy it must have been for abraham? imagine being able to listen to God without having to filter Him through 3,000 years of tradition and opinion. did he have a bible to read? no, but he had a heart willing to listen and obey. and he trusted so much in the Person of God that he was willing to sacrifice his son.

imagine being able to have that sort of blind faith and trust.

you can. just listen.

open your heart and mind to hear the Voice, and when you think you have heard God speak, then go to the Bible to see if what you heard lines up with the Person that the written words describe.

and in that way you will find the true will of God.

distractions

do you ever wonder if all the things we have are only distractions?

take your ipod, for example.

i mean, i love mine to death . . . i can just put the earbuds in any time and boom! i'm listening to my favorite tunes.

however, by the same act, i'm missing out on everything that is happening around me . . . i'm unable to hear the voice of the world.

the voice of God.

i sometimes felt that my parents were needlessly strict and "stuck in the stone age" when i was growing up. i wasn't allowed a television in my room, was only allowed to spend thirty minutes on the computer each day, and didn't receive a cellphone until last year.

now, looking back on it, i'm glad.

and i know that, while i may not have enjoyed it at the time, it served a purpose.

that time helped me learn to hear the Voice. and, spending nights in my room writing in my journals or reading by candlelight, i was able to cultivate a much closer relationship to the world around me--and God--than most people that i can think of. my imagination was free to soar, uninterrupted by text messages or distracted by mind-numbing tv shows.

unfortunately, now that i live away from home and HAVE a television in my room and HAVE a laptop i can take wherever, whenever i feel like i've lost that connection. i feel like i've taken that relationship i am supposed to have to the world around me and replaced it with a connection to the virtual world--which, while entertaining, is not nearly as fulfilling.

do you really think society is that much more advanced that it was 100 years ago? 500? 1,000?

or have we just found more ways to distract ourselves from our true purpose?

i think miracles don't happen anymore because people stopped believing that they were possible.

i think your childhood dreams only become impossible when you decide they are.

i think most people never realize their potential.

so turn off the television and go for a walk. leave the ipod and cellphone at home, and just listen: there's a great big world out there with things to teach you. if you don't hear anything the first time, that's okay. try it again. it could take some time for you to get plugged back into the world around you.

i think people have lost touch with their natural place in the world--it's more than just a place for you to live and work. it's more than just a resource for your exploitation.

it's an adventure.

as children we understand that adventure and live in contact with our imagination--nothing is impossible.

we often forget our purpose and lose that optimism as we get older. we come to accept what we are given without asking for more; or we greedily ask for all the wrong things. either way we are cheating ourselves, unable to fill the hole in our hearts--either by denying its existence or trying to fill it with shovel-fulls of the wrong things.

maybe that's why Jesus said His kingdom was for the children.

maybe that's why Jesus said it would be easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven.

there's a Voice calling to you, just be quiet enough to hear.

and never settle.

my epic . . . the first chapter

"what is it you fear, m'lady?" -aragorn

"a cage. to stay behind bars until use and old age accept them and all chance of valor has gone beyond recall or desire." -eowyn

even from the first time i saw the two towers in theatres, this quote has stuck with me. because, i think, on many levels it echoes my own inner fears.

i want to do something big. i feel like i'm supposed to.

and here i am, with twenty trips around the sun under my belt, still with no clue what to do with my life and whether or not i will amount to anything. rather than helping me towards my goals, college feels more like a space-filler, something to do to kill the time. but i don't need to kill the time. in fact, i feel like i'm running out of it.

some days i even feel like i've taken dramatic steps backwards.

i'm not getting any younger.

and--as people around me are getting married, graduating, and settling into their lives--i'm beginning to panic.

where's my epic?

when does my story begin?

eowyn got to ride off to war . . . when can i?

*pause for breath*

so, as i was writing the above, a thought occurred to me. well, not so much occurred to me as hit me like a brick wall.

this is still the first chapter.

not making any sense? don't call me crazy yet . . .

have you ever read a biography?

unless it happens to be about a child star, there is never really much emphasis placed on the early years of a person's life.

in fact, the childhood and education of people being profiled are usually crammed into one short chapter at the beginning of the book that reads like a glorified timeline. this boring chapter is usually entitled "the early years" or "the formative years" or "the years before they knew what the heck they were going to do with their life."

okay, so maybe the last one was a bit of an exaggeration. but you know what i mean.

there's never much emphasis on the beginning of someone's life, it's more about how they end it.

epics begin like every other story, it's in the course of the story that it becomes something special, something larger than everyday life, something for j. r. r. tolkien or c. s. lewis or george lucas.

strike that last one. he should have stopped closer to the beginning. but that's another post . . .

deciding life isn't going anywhere now is like turning off the television at the cantina scene in a new hope because you think its stupid. think of all you're missing!

i mean, Jesus didn't even begin his ministry until He was thirty. and He was a carpenter before that.

general lee had to spend all those years in private schools and at west point building character before he could become a hero.

and mother teresa spent YEARS in schools and convents before embarking for india.

that's some pretty good company.

i think so, anyway.

i just have to hold on and persevere. everything will work itself out and i will be okay.

and all chance of valor won't be gone until i'm dead. ;)

hey daniel, interpret this

i had a very interesting dream last night for the first time in a while, and i just can't get over the feeling that it might have some deeper meaning.

try to help me out?

i don't remember the beginning of the dream at all, but the part that has stuck with me begins with me riding a horse across campus accompanied by two other riders. one of the riders is someone i know (my arabic professor from the fall semester, nabil) and the other is some invention of my imagination. we're all in arab garb.

we are not moving at a slow pace, either: we are riding as fast as we can go. saladin, an historical figure i find very interesting, is advancing behind us with his army and we have to seek the help of the other sheiks to defend against him. i find it interesting that in the dream i am scared to death of saladin, whereas sitting here right now i think he's pretty cool.

anyway, back to the dream. the sheiks we are riding to are, conveniently, living in the apartment complex on-campus where i am an ra.

the sense of urgency is pervasive and i am apparently not content with my horse's speed, because i am continually beating the horse with my palms . . . hard enough that when i look down at my hands, i am bleeding. the horse, a beautiful white-grey, has (my) bloodstains on his shoulders. despite my beatings, the horse is unable--or unwilling?--to speed up.

we finally reach the complex and dismount, heading towards the office where all of the sheiks are in council. the member of my party that i don't recognize keeps talking and talking about how glad he is that we have nabil there to help present our case because he is wise and highly respected by the entire community.

i'm glad nabil is there, too, because he makes me feel a lot safer. in the course of this dialogue, the first chance the characters in the dream have gotten to talk, it becomes aparent that the nation we need aid for is mine and nabil is just there to act as a helpful intermediary between me and the sheiks.

the dream ends with the three of us tying up our horses outside and making our way to the office. i woke up when i had my hand on the door, about to open it.

so, in case you didn't follow all of that, here is the reader's digest version:

brian and his former arabic professor are riding across campus on horses to get help from a band of bedouin sheiks in defense against an invasion of saladin.

the palm thing seems important to me, as well as the fact that i'm on a white horse being chased. the presence of nabil and saladin is also intriguing.

anybody got anything? i've looked around a bit online at different dream dictionaries, but nothing really seems to hit the spot.

thanks for your help!

brian's opinion on . . .

. . . the israeli-palestinian conflict.

okay, so . . . i know this subject has been rehashed and rehashed a million times and no one seems to be able to agree to a settlement. i know not everyone will agree with what i think.

but here is my view on the best way to resolve the issue.

the two-state solution has always made the most sense to me. give the palestinians their own sovereign country and they will be far less likely to harass israel. israel, in turn, will also be far less likely to bother the palestinians. the neighboring arab nations would also be happy.

so . . . everybody wins!

except for maybe israel . . . from a certain point of view . . . but even they would have to be happy to have peace after dealing with this for so long.

so basically, in brian's world, the west bank and gaza strip should be made into a palestinian homeland. ideally, the government would not be religiously affiliated. of course, ideally, neither would israel's.

israelis currently occupying the settlements in these two areas would be offered the choice of palestinian citizenship or the chance to move. maybe even given a nice period of time to make this decision. some period of time, say, between 3 months and a whole year.

after this period is over, israel removes military forces from the area and palestine gets its independence. a government, possibly elected during the interim period of israeli decolonization so that they would be prepared, takes over.

poof! two countries! and, while they still may not like each other, at least the likelihood of rocks and missiles flying through the air would diminish.

biggest obstacle to this plan working? jerusalem.

and there are several solutions to that problem. namely, three: split it, share it, or make it independent.

my vote is for the first option, considering the city is already partitioned. as long as tourists and pilgrims could get in and out to visit the various religious sites with ease, this seems the most viable.

sharing the city would never work because i don't see them agreeing on how to run it. and an independent or u.n.-mandated jerusalem would just be a smaller, probably more violent, version of what is going on throughout the whole area at the present time.

so . . . in summary, brian would:

1) give the gaza strip and west bank to the palestinians after a period during which israelis may choose to leave or stay (a new palestinian government would be elected during this period, as well),

and

2) divide jerusalem east/west on the condition that everyone can get across the border with relative ease to visit the temple mount and other religious sites.

does that really seem so hard?

both sides just need to realize that they can't reasonably (or peacefully) have everything they want and learn to compromise. and, considering the palestinians have continuously gotten the short end of the stick since israel's conception, i think they deserve their independence.

anyway, that's my opinion on the subject. take it or leave it.

salaam and shalom,*

bk

*i put these in alphabetical order . . . just so no one can get offended at which came first.

friendships

so, admittedly, friendships are quite a large part of most peoples lives. unless, of course, you're some kind of hermit like emily dickenson . . . but that's neither here nor there.

for a long period of my life, i obsessed over being popular . . . or at least having friends. i was extremely concerned with whether or not people liked me and would go to almost any length to ensure that everyone did.

and now i'm sitting here thinking back on it and wondering if that was incredibly stupid.

why am i thinking about this?

well, i learned not long ago that someone--an acquaintance--finds me dull. me. ME. brian alan king. called dull.

the nerve.

obviously, i was highly offended, my ego bruised. this person had behaved particularly rudely to me on one occasion and i had no idea why. when i asked someone else about it (a mutual friend) they said that the reason for the individual's behavior was that they found me boring.

first of all, does thinking someone is boring give you an excuse to be rude? i don't think so. i wasn't raised that way.

this person's behavior troubled me deeply for the better part of a day. thoughts of "i'll show him" and "how dare he" filled my mind.

then--as i was pacing outside behind the library on campus--it occurred to me.

does it really matter what this person thinks?

i know i'm not boring. i find myself rather charming and witty, actually. ;)

and i do have a decent number of friends to prove it. so what does one person's opinion matter? especially someone who i have only been around twice.

if he wants to write me off like that, so be it. not my problem.

his loss.

so i shrugged it off and moved on.

whatever my actions were in the past regarding other people, it was always out of a desire to please them, to make them happy. usually with the ultimate motivation of making them like me.

but i don't live my life for other people. not anymore.

i live my life for me.

which segues rather nicely into my next point. well, less of a point than a musing.

and this isn't much of a segue, either.

but moving right along . . .

do you have those people who always expect something from you but never give anything back?

because i really seemed to be plagued with them. probably because of my aforementioned past role as a people-pleaser.

but really . . . i can think of one person that only calls me every 2 or 3 months when her life is going badly. she talks about her problems and i listen, try to help, but when i start talking about what's going on in my life . . . "oh, hey, i gotta go, bye." and she's gone.

and i'd like to be friends and i want to help her . . . but i'm really beginning to have trouble caring.

there are other people who i talk to much more frequently who just talk, talk, talk about themselves. all the time. and i listen, trying to be a good friend, but never really getting anything back out of them.

isn't a friendship supposed to be mutual? doesn't it go both ways?

and my biggest question right now is . . . how much of this am i supposed to put up with before i bail?

aren't you supposed to have fun with friends? aren't they people you are supposed to make memories with?

so what's the point in being associated with someone who is more interested in sharing their own memories than making new ones with you?

it doesn't seem like there really is one.

at all.

and yet, if i do withdraw from these people, i'm labeled as unsociable and selfish. people get upset because i don't care about every little thing going on in their lives.

what do these people want from me?

and where does that fit in with what i want for myself?

i mean, i know there's a balance . . . and compromise. that's what any friendship--or relationship--is based on.

but if we're really friends, won't we want to know what is going on in each other's lives? won't it come out naturally without me feeling like i am doing some sort of charity by listening to a person? shouldn't i enjoy it?

maybe i don't really have any friends. maybe it's just that i don't know how to handle the ones that i do have. or maybe i just don't know what they want.

but i know what i want.

i want to be myself and spend my time with people who i enjoy being with . . . and who enjoy being with me.

is that really too much to ask?

isn't that what friendship is?

just wondering . . .

bk