Thank you, long past due

This NY Times article made me ponder over the unrealized impact that my high school teachers had on my life. I can be the first to admit that many, if not a majority, of my public school teachers were incompetent, as an intellectual, leader, and counselor. However, there were certainly a few that amazed, inspired, and changed the way I engaged my life.

In reference to the article and a growing societal concern over the "value" of our teachers, I think it's critical to understand the dynamic role of a teacher. Teachers are more than a conduit to shoving facts down our throats so we can regurgitate knowledge and pass examinations. Teachers (the good ones) challenge the way we think, help us find our passions, stir creativity, expand our interests, develop our social skills, strengthen our confidence, and make us all-round better global citizens. Here's a shout-out to those teachers (whom I can remember..) who've made such an impact on my life.

- Mr. Pie from U.S History made class fun! His jokes and lackadaisical approach to class challenged my "chinese" mentality of an all work, no play classroom setting. I realized I had to take life less seriously.

- Mr. Stewart from Health Class forever seared the image of gonorrhea as cottage cheese excreting from my urethra. Safe sex was no longer an issue.

- Ms. Everett from AP Language had us read an article about Ingrid Newkirk's will (read it here, for some amusement). Inadvertently or not, she introduced me to PETA, and I am forever grateful. Although, admittedly, I use to be quite the animal rights activist, I am more appreciative of the resulting epiphany: for 16 years, I did not think twice about where my food came from and the effects of my eating habits on not just myself, but the world around me.

-Miss Daube from AP World History was also my tennis coach; thus, I was able to see a different personality to teachers. Not only do they try to develop us holistically, but they're also fun and normal, trying to get through life like any one of us.

-Mrs. Quinto-Green from AP Calc 2 remains a constant reminder that selfless, good-hearted people really do exist.

Yes, I'm talking to YOU!

Apparently, more people read my blog than I give credit to. Although I appreciate the feedback and compliments I receive in person, I'd be even more grateful for some comments. After all, "to better learn, understand, and live together, it all begins with dialogue." And the effects only multiple once it spreads beyond a bilateral conversation. Likewise, with three fingers pointing back at me, I will (try to) ramp up the posts. Good-on-ya.

the SELF

Despite our infinite differences, there is an unmistakable universality to all human beings - we share the innate curiosity to realize an ultimate truth and seek happiness. As for how we go about it, there's often a distinctive perception between the genealogies of Eastern and Western philosophies. The East emphasizes inward reflection to integrate with the natural order of the cosmos and experience the ultimate truth (that is assumed to be self-evident). Whereas in the West, we attempt to rationalize how we think and live in order to prove (to ourselves?) that an ultimate reality exists. If we move forward from philosophy, I think these differences are still prominent in the traditions and livelihoods of today's Eastern and Western societies.

Even though these two philosophies developed for centuries exclusively from each other, I think many concepts and lines blur together in support of the universality of human conditioning. There's many examples if we look at schools of thought from Stoicism to Empiricism, but here is one:


On the concept of the SELF (i.e. does the SELF exist?), the Buddhist principle of anatman (no-self) aligns with the famous David Hume (note that I am not arguing for any particular direction, but rather, noting the comparisons).

To help comprehend the Buddhist idea of no-self, the concept of anatman is crafted in a dialogue between King Milinda and the monk Nagasena. When King Milinda asks for Nagasena’s name, Nagasena explains that although his name is Nagasena, this person does not actually exist. The dialogue demonstrates that nothing can constitute the self because the self cannot exist when dependent on things that are constantly changing. Physical feature, feelings, and even the five skandhas do not make up the self of Nagasena. Nagasena’s form—his nails, teeth, skin, flesh…—changes at every moment. His feelings, perceptions, actions are never the same in any given moment.

Nagasena metaphorically compares the idea of no-self to a chariot. When a chariot is dissected into its individual parts, each part alone cannot constitute a chariot. Piling the parts together in any form does not make up a chariot either, yet at the same time, a chariot cannot exist without these specific parts. Nagasena explains that similar to the idea of anatman, a name such as ‘chariot’ or ‘Nagasena’ is nothing more than a word. Hence, language is simply a convenience—a tool to communicate with others and describe ideas. Words only come into existence because ‘chariot,’ for example, depends on each of its parts to describe the whole, and ‘Nagasena’ depends on his skandhas to describe his identity, but not the self. Therefore, it is impossible for the self, the person of Nagasena, to exist.

The desire for permanence in life and the belief in a Self causes suffering because material and emotional attachments arise. If existence is seen as impermanent, then people would refrain from considering objects and relationships as possessions that can sustain to satisfy their desires.

Similarly, David Hume critiques the concept of the self as non-existent because it is simply "a bundle or collection of different perceptions..heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure...which succeed each other with an inconceivable rapidity, and are in a perpetual flux and movement." Hume's quote basically defines the the Buddhist thought of independent origination. Buddhism believes that the constant changes in every moment of existence creates a rippling effect on countless other factors. All of existence—every object, act, feeling, thought, etc. --is an interconnected web of causality.

However, Hume disagrees. Let's say A causes B (pool ball A hits pool ball B). No matter how many times we see A causing B, we only assume that A is expected to cause B. This concept is inherent to our human psychology, but not the laws of the world. Even if a causes B 100% of the time in the past, must it do so in the future just because it has happened in the past? Even if we apply causality to Newton's laws of nature, what (if anything) guarantees the laws of nature will still be valid tomorrow? Hence, Hume concludes that no two events in the universe are necessarily connected. Bummer.

But there is a commonality between the deterministic view of interdependent origination and the doubtfulness of Hume's view (east and west): what little control we have over our lives! It speaks to the uncertainty of our fate and the options we have to live it in - either accept it or keep trying to control it.