My New Favorite Parenting Book

​The following excerpt is from the introduction of Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids by Bryan Caplan. I bought Caplan's book after listening to this conversation regarding his book. 

Adoption and twin research provides strong evidence that Parents barely affect their children’s prospects…

…[Researchers] find that when adopted children are young, they resemble both the adopted relatives they see every day and the biological relatives they’ve never met. However, as adopted children grow up, the story has a shocking twist: resemblance to biological relatives remains, but resemblance to adopted relatives mostly fades away. Studies that compare identical to fraternal twins reach the same conclusion.

The lesson: it’s easy to change a child but hard to keep him from changing back. Instead of thinking of children as lumps of clay for parents to mold, we should think of them as plastic that flexes in response to pressure—and pops back to its original shape once the pressure is released. (pages 4-5 of Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids by Bryan Caplan)

One more sentence from the first chapter, “The best available evidence shows that large differences in upbringing have little effect on how kids turn out.” (pg 34)


We can all chill out about parenting. My previous advice stands: don't abuse your kids, avoid poverty, and love them. The rest, I agree with Caplan's conclusions regarding the science of nature vs nurture, is not going to have a large lasting difference on who your kids become.

The Temptation of The One

The Temptation of The One

Before The One was known, the future leader was indistinguishable from an average ascetic. The ascetic was around thirty years of age. Removed from society, the ascetic wandered into the wilderness. 

The ascetic fasted for days and weeks. A future following and teaching of the true nature of reality was imminently approaching when a tempter appeared. The tempter was transfixed by the ascetic’s adherence. Humanity was drifting towards disastrous waters, and the ascetic was the anchor that could save humanity. 

The tempter tried testing the ascetic’s bodily desire for food. It failed. The tempter tried to intimidate the ascetic, trying to identify a fear or insecurity, but the ascetic was impermeable.

In anger, the tempter intensified the temptations, but the ascetic’s resolve would not dissolve. The efforts of the tempter were ineffectual. the tempter could do or offer could appease the ascetic. 

A Tale of Two Ascetics

If this story sounds vaguely familiar, that’s because it is. 

This is a common story of the Buddha being tempter by Mara dating back to the fourth or fifth century BCE (before common era). In Buddhism, there are several tellings of this story with varying details and implications.

In the western world, this story is even more familiar as Satan tempting Jesus, told in chapter four of both Matthew and Luke.

In both traditions, the stories are very short and the details are sparse, with one exception, see sources below. Jesus’ story is pretty straight forward. I can easily give both versions. For the Buddhe, I’m just going to share my favorite version. The version of the story that inspired my post. I recommend reading the whole scene here.

An Ending

Satan takes Jesus to the top of a mountain (Mathew) or the top of the temple overlooking Jerusalem (Luke). Satan offers it all to Jesus. Jesus tells him, “Worship the Lord your God, and serve only him” (Mathew 4:10); or Jesus tells him, “It is said, ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test’ ” (Luke 4:12).

11 Then the devil left him, and suddenly angels came and waited on him... 17 From that time Jesus began to proclaim, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near. (Mathew 4) 

13 When the devil had finished every test, he departed from him until an opportune time. 14 Then Jesus, in the power of the Spirit, returned to Galilee, and a report about him spread through all the surrounding region. 15 He began to teach in their synagogues and was praised by everyone. (Luke 4)  

From this point the ascetic becomes The One.

Another Ending

Māra, with armies at his command, throws storms of projectiles at The Future Buddha. In frustration:

[Māra] cried out, “Get up, Siddhattha, from that seat! It does not belong to thee! It is meant for me!”

[The Great Being] …said to Māra, standing there before him, “Māra, who is witness that thou hast given alms?”

And Māra stretched forth his hand to the hosts of his followers, and said, “So many are my witnesses.” 

And that moment there arose a shout as the sound of an earthquake from the hosts of the Evil One, saying, “I am his witness! I am his witness!”

[Māra] said, “Siddhattha! who is witness that thou hast given alms?”

And the Great Being answered, “Thou hast living witnesses that thou hast given alms: and I have in this place no living witness at all. But not counting the alms I have given in other births, let this great and solid earth, unconscious though it be, be witness of the seven hundredfold great alms I gave when I was born as Vessantara!”

And withdrawing his right hand from beneath his robe, he stretched it forth towards the earth, and said, “Are you, or are you not witness of the seven hundredfold great gift I gave in my birth as Vessantara?”

And the great Earth uttered a voice, saying, “I am witness to thee of that!” overwhelming as it were the hosts of the Evil One as with the shout of hundreds of thousands of foes.

Then the mighty elephant “Girded with mountains,” as he realized what the generosity of Vessantara had been, fell down on his knees before the Great Being. And the army of Māra fled this way and that way, so that not even two were left together: throwing off their clothes and their turbans, they fled, each one straight on before him. (The Nidanakatha pg 177-180)

From this point the ascetic becomes The One.

Conclusion

I'm listening to a lecture series on Buddhism. I was interested how similar the Buddha/Mara story is to the Jesus/Satan story.

The Mara temptation progressed with time as different authors focused on different instructional, historical, and theological points. After a thousand years, The Nidanakatha tells an engaging literary work: the back and forth between the adversaries; the fantastical elements of Mara's army and ability; the Buddha's wit and serenity at the Bodhi Tree; and, then, my favorite part, the finishing touch, a calm hand to the Earth. The touching the Earth an excellent addition, a perfect theological and literary touch.

The Sources

Text	Canonical units	Approx. words	Narrative density	Date (Approx.)	Earth Touching
Padhāna Sutta (Sn 3.2)	25 verses	430–480	Very high	5th–4th c. BCE	No
Bhaya-bherava Sutta (MN 4)	~10 paras	300–400	Medium	4th–3rd c. BCE	No
Ariyapariyesana Sutta (MN 26)	~4 paras	120–150	Very high	4th–3rd c. BCE	No
Vinaya Mahāvagga (I.1)	6 sections	<100	Very low	4th–3rd c. BCE	No
Buddhaghosa / Nidānakathā	2-3 pages	1,000–1,300	Very high	5th c. CE	Yes
Luke 4:1-15	15 verses	330–360	High	c. 60-95 CE	n/a
Mathew 4:1-17	17 verses	360–400	High	c. 60-95 CE	n/a

The Odyssey Pre-reading for Ryan

Language and Translations

The Iliad and The Odyssey are epic poems attributed to Homer. They are written in a archaic poetic Greek- a Greek different than what the ancient Greeks would have spoken. The structure is dactylic hexameter. The original Greek is rhythmic and lyrical. The epic poems would have been performed by bards. It would have been more like a musical concert than a modern day book reading.

Because of the poetry, translators have many stylistic choices to make. Do they use prose or verse? Do they follow or use a meter and structure to mimic the epic poem format? Should the translation be more literal meaning or more spirit of the meaning? 

As a result, English translations cannot capture the original Homeric Greek. 

Setting

The beginning of the Odyssey takes place about 20 years after Odysseus and The Greeks/Achaeans left home to fight in the Trojan War. The Odyssey is about a decade after The Iliad.

Events between The Iliad and The Odyssey

The Greeks/Achaeans, Homer mostly uses Achaeans, sack Troy. This is where the Trojan Horse comes from. The Achaeans sack and plunder hard corps. When the Achaeans go home, they face trouble. I think it's implied their troubles are consequences of they sacking. 

Agamemnon, the King of the Achaeans, also the main conflict for Achilies in The Iliad, is murdered during a celebration upon his return home. Agamemnon was killed by his wife's lover, Aegisthus. The names do not matter. The basic plot does matter. A hero from the Trojan war was dishonored and killed on his homecoming. Agamemnon's son, Orestes, avenges his father's dishonor. This is the point.

Agamemnon's wife is banging while her her husband is off fighting. Meanwhile, Penelope, Odysseus' wife and Telemachus' mother, is fighting off suitors long after her husband is considered dead. 

Odysseus has not returned home. Suitor's dishonor Odysseus by abusing his absence and wasting his wealth/resources. So far, Telemachus does nothing.

Kleos and Xenia 

One way to look at The Odyssey is in contrast with The Iliad. The Iliad takes place near the end of the Trojan War. The story is contained to a few events over a short amount of time. The gods actively intervene and engage in their own political battles. The story largely focuses on Achilles' rage, fate, honor, and kleos.

Kleos is an important idea in The Iliad and The Odyssey. For the Greeks, people earned and gained kleos from accomplishing great things, like success in battle. Achilles achieves everlasting kleos. 

At the beginning of The Odyssey, Odysseus' kleos is in question. Odysseus has not returned homes from war and no one has heard from him. His son, Telemachus, inspired by the gods, leaves home to find news of his father and take responsibility for his life.

Through Telemachus' interactions and travels in the first chapter, the readers observe xenia. Xenia is one of the most important concepts in The Odyssey. Greeks had a duty and responsibility to travelers and foreigners. There are unwritten rules and customs that hosts and guests follow. During The Odyssey there are many encounters between hosts and travelers. Readers learn xenia by these interactions. We see good and bad host. We see good and bad guests.

The Gods

The story starts with the Gods. The gods are a lot less active in The Odyssey than The Iliad. I love Zeus's opening statements about humans. Zeus says:

“See now, how men lay blame upon us gods for what is after all nothing but their own folly...”

Zeus sets the context for the rest of the story. Humans are responsible for themselves! They blame the gods because they are losers. 

In the Iliad, the gods are more like chess players. They are constantly affecting the battles of characters. But, in The Odyssey, the gods are more like nudgers. Readers will see it in the first chapter.

3 Main Chunks 

The Telemachy (Books 1–4): Telemachus’ call to action and search for news of his father.

Odysseus’ Journey (Books 5–12): Odysseus' adventures and encounters with lots of fantastical obstacles like Calypso’s island, Cyclops, Circe, Sirens, and the Underworld. Mostly told from Odysseus point of view to his hosts. 

The Homecoming (Books 13–24): Odysseus returns to Ithaca. Nostos is the Greek idea.

Teaching Kids Religion

Background

My daughter is being taught Christianity by her friends. I could make a good rant of that...

In general, I think it is wrong to only teach one religion to kids. I assume when kids only learn their parents' and or communities' religion, that decreases their ability to objectively and critically analyze religions as adults. They become too skeptical of other religions and not skeptical enough of theirs (I want to explore more). I think it is a barrier to truth.

Listen to my second more concise brainstorming here. Read my first brainstorming here. I think the first brainstorm is of higher quality, but you have to read/skim it, and it is a lot longer.

Introduction

I want to create a world religions series for kids. I'm going to gear it towards my kid, but I will share it for other kids and families too.

I identified my main ideas, questions, and research focus for my initial project. My first brainstorming is the best place to see a detailed investigation of my current ideas.

Next, I plan to interview several of my friends and family. I want to find a decent landscape of ideas. I'm selectively choosing friends and family that might offer differing ideas than me or at least a variety of perspectives. I don't know what people think yet. Again, I assume the default is parents directly and indirectly teach what they believe.

My Current Philosophy (based off my brainstorming)

• Teach and present the religions' ideas not my beliefs.
• Give my opinions when asked, but answer with epistemic humility
• Children should not be taught exclusive religious truth-claims before they can evaluate them.
• Premature certainty is more harmful than premature relativism.
• Religion should first be taught as human meaning-making before being taught as truth-claim. (This I want to explore more. I stand behind it for now.)
• Parents should model epistemic humility, not epistemic neutrality.
• Presentation, explanation, and evaluation should be developmentally sequenced.
• Moral formation can and should occur independently of metaphysics.
• My role is not to produce a conclusion, but to preserve the child’s capacity to reach one later.

Side note- besides the third bullet, I don't expect my values to change much during this project. I do expect to learn a lot more regarding religions and child development.

Questions and Ideas to Explore

• Development stages and questions
• Think in probabilities
• When can kids grapple with metaphysics? 
• When and what type of abstract ideas can children understand?
• Understand- fact vs belief, metaphor vs literal claim, authority vs evidence, historical vs theological, etc
• Psychology and impact of fear/punishment based concepts for kids
• How and when do children make sense of conflicting and opposing ideas. 
• Critical thinking skills, statistics, textual criticism, historical criticism, the criticisms in general
  
  
• Psychologically and Socially
• Does teaching one religion or ideology affect open-mindedness
• Should a kid be nice because God, The Tao, or utilitarianism says so? Is there a difference? Either way, we want our kids to be nice, respectful, etc.

• Pedagogical
• What does age appropriate mean ad look like for different ages?
• How deep to go into diversity within religion?
• Minimum exposure, how much is better than nothing.
• Too confusing vs too simplistic vs too difficult
• What if isn't interesting for kids?
• Stories vs beliefs
• Historical accuracy and reliability

• Ethical
• Is my presentation nudging my conclusions?
• What ideas do I add and or leave out?
• Who are the authorities?
• Are parents justified to teach their beliefs? Justified to indoctrinate their kids? Where is the line between the two ideas?
  
  
• Religions
• What basic questions all religions answer?
• What functions do all religions provide?
• Core ideas
• Diversity within
• Similarities across religions
• Ancient, pagan, folk, and indigenous religions
• Progressions from animism 

Questions for Interviewees 

• What's your religion?
• What's your feelings about religions in general?
• What do you think about relativism?
• What do you think about pluralism? 
• What are you teaching your kids? Directly and indirectly?
• Are you concerned about your kids ability to determine truth claims now or in the future?
• Can or should you teach a truth claim before a kid can evaluate it? 
• What do you think about my ideas? 
• Are parents justified to teach their beliefs? Justified to indoctrinate their kids? Where is the line between the two ideas? 

More Lotus

I'm reading The Lotus Sutra: A Contemporary Translation of a Buddhist Classic translated by Gene Reeves. I wrote a little bit about how The Lotus Sutra rewrote Buddhism in a recent post. I first learned about The Lotus Sutra from Donald Lopez Jr.. Lopez described The Lotus Sutra changing the theology of Buddhism. Reeves offers a less strict interpretation his introduction to his translation. I especially liked the following paragraph:

“It is also a very clever way to answer the question of how it is possible for one to overcome obstacles, however conceived, along the path of becoming a buddha. If ordinary human beings are completely under the sway of passions and delusions, by what power can they break through such a net of limitations? Some say that it is only by one’s own strength; one can be saved only by oneself. Others say that it is only by the power of Amida Buddha or perhaps Guan-yin that one can be led to awakening. The Lotus Sutra says that it is by a power that is at once one’s own and Shakyamuni Buddha’s. The Buddha really is embodied in the lives of ordinary people. He himself is both a one and a many.” Gene Reeves

Other religions have a similar dilemmas between God/gods and free will. Even the non-religious have a similar dilemma between determinism and free will.

Both is a great answer. It keeps responsibility on the individual, and people need to take responsibility. But it's also good to be able to let go to a high power. According to Reeves, Buddhism, like other religions, keep both ideas.

As an atheist/agnostic, I really like a solf determinism where free will and determinism are compatible. It's both!

More Dry

​It has been a while since I had a rant. I’ve almost ranted about face tattoos a couple times, but I’ll save that for a more dry day. 

More Dry

My dryer sucks. The default setting leaves clothes damp. So, before I start my dryer I have to adjust the settings which brings me to my rant. 

There are several series of settings. For example, “Time” has 20, 40, or 60 minutes. Temperature has high, medium, and low. 

But then there is a dryness series. “Damp dry.” Okay that makes perfect sense, I’d never choose that setting, but I get others might or certain materials may recommend it-I’m a wash and dry everything together guy. 

The next option for dryness is normal dry. Okay. I’d just say dry, but whatever. 

The next option! “More dry!”

Oxford Languages defines the adjective “dry” as, “free from moisture or liquid; not wet or moist.”

How can you get more not wet. You’re either moist or dry. You can’t get anymore dry than dry. It’d be like being more dead. When you are dead, you can’t get more dead. 

What really gets me is that if you want your clothes dry, you have to stoop to their stupidity and select “more dry.” Because for this asinine idiot dryer “normal dry” leaves 10-20% of your laundry damp. 

I should have used more exclamation marks and curse words. 

Until face tattoos…

Jimbo Out

My Dive into The Lotus Sutra

I'll probably read or listen to the entire Lotus Sutra. I'm especially interested in the commentaries. Below is what I'm consuming so far.

My Sources

The Lotus Sutra translated by Burton Watson: this is a free online version. The translation reads fine. This is where I read the first two chapters. It motivated me to check out the other sources below.

The Lotus Sutra: A Contemporary Translation of a Buddhist Classic translated by Gene Reeves: this is a modern translation. Reeves claims to use as few Sanskrit words and eastern terms as possible. So far I have only read Reeves' introduction. I'll update my opinion after I read some of his translation. I found his background information about the text and history to be very informative and interesting. I'm reading this from my phone on eBook through Libby.

The Lotus Sutra: Saddharma Pundarika Sutra or the Lotus of the True Law translated by Hendrik Kern: I started listening to this translation on Hoopla. It is the only audio version I have access to from my library. 

The Lotus Sutra: A Biography by Donald Lopez Jr: I didn't start this yet. But Lopez got me interested in the topic.