April 21st, 2009
wrote this circa 2004…
—
I think the better version of that witticism is “I’m a vegetarian not because I love animals. It’s because I hate plants.”
The anecdote might have been simply a hyperbole to convey what I think is a very wise teaching: should it ever come to a point when one’s uncompromising principles lead to the possible loss of compassion, better relax and compromise. I think the head-monk ate the meat not so much because he didn’t want to refuse the host but because his fellow-monks were berating the hotel staff.
Likewise, the “animal-loving misanthropist” bit simply referred to the abundant cases of eccentrics who get featured in the media who shun human society and spend millions of dollars for the upkeep of their pet cats/dogs.
I wasn’t all that concerned with vegetarianism per se.
Obviously, vegetarianism is a very excellent tool. (A tool I wouldn’t mind using myself.) Difficulties arise when tools become absolutized. As they say, one man’s religion is another’s superstition.
Wala lang, been reflecting on the issues of “sticking to one’s guns” and “compromising” these past few days… (That’s where I’m coming from.)
Saw this great film when I was a kid (with Peter O’Toole, I think) about the proud Jews of “Masada” who’d rather commit suicide than be captured by the Romans. Uncompromising… probably unnecessary, but admirable nonetheless.
“The Heart of the Matter”? The title of a novel by Graham Greene. It ends with a guilt-ridden diplomat making the sacrifice of his life to “protect and avoid hurting” his beloved wife. As it turns out, the sacrifice was unnecessary because his wife knew all along about his indicretion/s and loved him nonetheless. Pathetic? Poignant? (I think poignant…)
I’d like to be constantly vigilant, to keep looking at (and hopefully do see) the heart of the matter.
There is no sure-fire formula with which we can handle reality in all its complexity. And yet, it’s so simple if we do see the heart of the matter.
Sometimes we may need to stick to our guns, be steadfast and uncompromising; other times, we need to compromise.
The question is when. And here’s where the clarity of our vision becomes crucial.
Once, in the Inquirer comic page, Elizabeth Chionglos’s “Love Knots” had this penitent confessing about his witnessing/participating in an election fraud. The priest-confessor tells him not to worry and just forget about it. Puzzled, he asks why. The priest replies, “Would you rather have an actor win?”
Funny? Acerbic? The truth?
I’m really getting to admire Conrado de Quiros more and more. Most of the Inquirer have gone soft and wimpy on the issue of really checking instances of election fraud.
Confronted with evidences of such instances of election fraud, abuse of power, misuse of government funds, many would rather look the other way and turn into monkeys, no, pillar of salts who simply cannot see, hear, and smell evil.
Conrado de Quiros… Frank Chavez… now, here are men made of sterner stuff.
Their uncompromising attitude doesn’t spell rigidity or narrowmindedness. It spells I-N-T-E-G-R-I-T-Y.
Integrity… delicadeza… palabra de honor…
Values of old that we sorely miss as a nation.
But I’m getting too serious… and off-tangent.
I need a drink. =)
best regards,
ian, the man who would be chow-king
—
“Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion.”
- Julius Caesar, upon divorcing his wife Calpurnia(?), on suspicions of her having had a tryst with some cross-dressing guy breaking into the premises of an all-female temple.