Dom Talks about Jesus

I grew up semi-Catholic and have been questioning my relationship with Christianity, Jesus, etc. ever since then

Dealing with experiences with involvement with evangelical Christianity and missionaries a few years back pushed me to the point where I felt I had to prove Christianity was wrong,
I used to read up on a site called Jews For Judaism to prove that the teachings were wrong, Jesus was not the messiah, etc. etc.

Over the past year or two I've been looking at esoteric representations of Jesus,  Jesus in Espiritismo (from Puerto Rico and Cuba) and Spiritism (the codified doctrine of Allan Kardec), gnostic Jesus. Something has definitely clicked, I feel that Jesus represents something powerful, not the Jesus who holds the real and only keys to salvation, but still powerful, the Jesus that connects to each of us.

I respect Judaism as a religion which asks people to be just but I've felt that the emphasis on roles between Gentiles and Jews is distracting from the true face of God that connects to all of us.
I can read and enjoy Kabbalah seeing it as fulfilling yet ultimately something that needs to be seen less as a fulfilment of only practitioners of Judaism but as something which connects to each of us (esp. in Hermetic/Christian C(Q)abalah).

Understanding the Bible for me is about looking at esoteric and hidden meanings, it takes one step for 'good Christians' to look at how the Old Testament leads to Christ through allegories but another to see Christ within each of us that we are "sons(and daughters) of God".

The Jesus that came back from the cross was a spiritual body and not a physical one (as stated in docetism, and Kardec's Spiritism).

Hermeneutics and Interpretation of Religious Texts

Interpreting religious texts is quite a varied approach, hermeneutics is the way we approach and interpret these texts (philosophical texts too).

Hermeneutics comes from the Greek "hermēneutikos - (an) expert in interpretation".

The major approaches to interpreting religious texts I have been looking into are:

• Religious interpretations: Christian (Orthodox, Catholic, Evangelical...) and other religions which interpret texts in accordance with their dogmas and revealed beliefs, to read through divine revelation.
•  
• Historical interpretations: Historians explore religious texts through looking into the possible religious influences into that text (external or internal), whether there are political contexts that may affect the readings (i.e Book of Revelations in reaction to events in the Roman Empire).
•  
• Esoteric interpretations: Kabbalistic interpretations using gematria or a numbering system that uses the Hebrew (Imperial Aramaic) script to interpret words thereby giving secret meanings. Hidden meanings of words and texts understood by mystics/esotericists serve to further direct this understanding or interpretation.

Volunteering Overseas to Teach Theatre

So, I've been thinking about volunteering to teach theatre overseas and I've been focusing on two places:
Brazil and the Philippines. Both places have volunteer theatre programs, I admit the Philippines has a specific program which is connected to the local traditional theatre and that would be special.
But honestly I really want to go to Brazil, so I do intend to save up to travel there. The thing is though with the flight expenses it won't be easy going to Brazil (3500-4000 in total for the complete journey).
So, I've been looking at various options: doing crowdfunding or getting a grant
Crowdfunding is a new way to save up by putting your project on the internet for others to chip in. Considering, my present situation means that I may be studying sound production this year and I'm not too sure about the time periods writing a specific advertisement for funding doesn't sound so good at the moment. So, I'm left with working which hasn't been going anywhere even though I've been putting in an average effort because I'm not too fussed about what I've been applying for.

Confusing situation, eh?

Finding a Sense of Community and Identity

I've been debating community, identity, tradition and modernity in today's world.

Firstly, living in a modern Western society (Australia) ensures that I am free to be an individual, free to define my own journey. Of course peer pressure is relevant here and we do have expectations from ourselves and from others around us but in a different way to other societies.

We want meaning, we want to define where we stand, find out whether we fit or don't fit.

Recently, I read a book which relates to these issues by Robyn Bavati called 'Dancing in the Dark'. It is about the life of a young Haredi/Ultra-Orthodox Jewish girl living in a conservative family who wanted to become a ballet dancer (fictional yet based on a real individual). She faced difficult in doing this and had to lie about her other life and what Robyn does in this book is interesting, you would think she would condemn them and their ways but she shows that there is something about living in a Haredi community that can be fulfilling and that we as individuals are continually making choices to be where we are or to change directions and maybe the walls that limit us can be empowering for some people (giving them a sense of meaning and place-i.e Sara, Ditty's friend) but limiting for others (i.e Ditty, the main character).

I, as a Mauritian-Australian am constantly asking myself about my identity. My Creole culture (which was explored in an earlier post) is based on the interactions of slaves who lost their cultures and Europeans and other Mauritians and finding meaning in Creole identity, community is something that isn't really easy to work out. You can say it's our music or our involvement in religion (Catholic, Anglican, Evangelical and even Rastafarianism) but I don't see that as fulfilling for me as an individual. Growing up in Australia has definitely made me feel different from people in Mauritius, our culture here is not quite defined, it was about a specific British/Northern European heritage and that still plays a role (hence of course, use of the English language) but transitioning into a multicultural society has led us to ask what makes us Australian. And, I find that I don't personally connect to Australia's British heritage overly (although it has obviously influenced me) and modern civic, multicultural Australia hasn't developed the culture or symbols for me to connect with (on a deeper level) coming from my background.
Maybe, it's because I don't feel complete with my Creole heritage and the people around me with a strong cultural background can relate to cultures with stronger identities and traditions which can then interact with their Australian identity for a stronger, more complete one?

I am searching, spiritually and culturally to fulfil myself and find a greater sense of meaning that I can connect with. I do have good friends and having friends you can talk to is truly a sense of community. Family, forms another community and I do have many cousins (many overseas and interstate though) and I do feel I can connect with a few of them fairly well (e.g. Mum).
But because culture is so important to me, I feel that in places such as Brazil, Mexico and a few other Latin American countries have experienced cultural hybridity on a deeper level and can fulfil the aspects of both Creole and Australian cultures I find lacking. I can learn about Brazilian spirituality and connect it to the ancestor veneration of my Malagasy African heritage, the Catholic practices of other ancestors (e.g. religions such as Umbanda, Catimbo, Candomble in Brazil, Espiritismo and Santeria in Cuba). Indigenous and European heritages have meshed in Mexico where in Australia they have mostly remained separate (Day of The Dead).

Dominic

My New Life in Asia: East Meets West: Myths About Collectivism and Individual (re-post from other blog)

My New Life in Asia: East Meets West: Myths About Collectivism and Indi...:
This was a good read and shows how we think Eastern societies care more about the community but actually Western societies can be more caring! It shows that we make major assumptions about these two groups but they can actually be misunderstandings.

Slavery in the Indian Ocean

 Slavery in the Indian Ocean was focused on two trades:

• The Islamic

• European-Colonial

Undertaken by or in the direction of the Islamic world (the trade run by Zanzibaris is a good example of this, in fact Tippu Tib the sultan was notorious for his thousands of slaves). Examples of Islamic or Muslim-majority countries with African descended populations would be Yemen, Iraq, Iran, Turkey.

The trade undertaken in the direction of the European colonies (Mauritius, Reunion, the Seychelles, South Africa) as well as, of course, to the Atlantic colonies.

Slaves heading to European colonies were eventually integrated culturally and spiritually(though music such as Sega in Mauritius, Reunion and the Seychelles was continued) into those societies and those heading towards Islamic societies converted and eventually adapted to those societies while keeping some traditions (Zaar spiritualist cult* is an example as well as music such as Fann at-Tanbura).


These two slave routes were differentiated historically:

•  The Islamic Indian Ocean slave trade was conducted from the early 9^th Century to the 20^th Century (the Sultanate of Oman as a historical maritime society played a role in this being heavily connected to Zanzibar, Tippu Tib was half Arab). Saudi Arabia stopped slavery in the 1960s (Sudan is another that has continued but I am only referring to Indian Ocean societies).

• The European trade was conducted from the 16^th Century to the 19^th Century during the colonial period being firstly stopped by the British (trade stopped in 1807 while slavery itself stopped in 1833) then by the French (1848).

Note: I refer to cult in the academic sense and not the demeaning, pejorative sense, i.e a cult is a practice or group of practices relating to a specific theme/object of devotion, the cult of the dead, the cult of the Virgin Mary)

Review of Souvenir Play

Souvenir is a play based on the life of Florence Foster Jenkins, an eccentric of the early 20th century who believes in her non-existent ability to sing.

This play was directed by Peter J Adams and the Australian premiere was created by Stephen Temperley. It was performed at Chapel Off Chapel theatre in Prahran, Victoria.

It explores the relationship between Hart(Stephen McIntyre) and Lady Flo (Helen Noonan) leading up to her final performance at Carnegie Hall. I found both characters to be well played, McIntyre interacts well with the audience, adds a sense of jazz and comedy through his piano playing and monologues. Noonan embodies the character fully through her physical language and spoken language successfully building an eccentric performance. She reached the climax of her performance in the Carnegie Hall play, embodying a Spanish-singing maraca playing role with costume to match and adding her lack of tone to the laughing opera song. They both make use of rhyme in speech and song with success. I also found their voices to be representative of their social status, with Hart having a colloquial New Yorker accent while Lady Flo has an upper-class air in her speech, inserting French phrases, reminiscent of the Anglophile American speech (influenced by British English) of the beginning of the 20th century.

There are various moments of tension in the play: firstly, by Hart being disgusted with her singing and almost leading himself away to live a separate life. Secondly, Lady Flo comes to the realisation that her performance at Carnegie Hall is being laughed at and the two characters have to find their sense of trust again. Hart, sees Lady Flo as a source of financial support and is willing to mislead her through false promises to keep her confidence up.

Another point for their interpersonal relationship is Hart's own interests in music (jazz and the songs he has written) and Lady Flo's commitment to opera and older forms of music. Lady Flo belittles it at first but as their relationship builds Lady Flo intends to use Hart's music which Hart is scared of using at first (because of his personal embarrassment) but Hart gives in and Lady Flo performs it on Carnegie Hall to a full crowd.

Although this play was overall successful I do find fault with the over-emphasis on Hart as narrator and supporting character, I do feel that they crossed the line drawing emphasis away from Lady Flo. By Hart serving as narrator and supporting actor we need to be continually drawn into Lady Flo's life and by his role as supporting actor we can't let ourselves be overdrawn into his life.