“I got this cool joke,” I said as a group of us Scrabblers sat and sipped our coffees after an exhausting round of Scrabble at the coffee shop on Fish Hoek beach some years back.
“A long time ago a Jewish couple had a baby and the father, Giuseppe, especially wanted to know what career his son would take. Giuseppe went to his rabbi who was quite a mystical bloke and asked how he could find out what his son would become one day. The rabbi scratched his beard, intrigued by this challenge. ‘What you should do,’ the rabbi thoughtfully said, ‘is when your son can crawl you should put on the first step of your staircase a bottle of wine on one side and a bag of money on the other side … ‘ ”
Daniel, one of our fellow Scrabblers, interrupted me with, “I hope this is not going to be offensive or irreverent”. He was usually an amicable chap with a keen sense of humour but now his eyes were blazing as he glared at me. He was Jewish. I hasten to add that this blog is not an attack on any religious group; I have had many Jewish friends who have been kind to me, including when I was down and out in my twenties, jobless and homeless (I was taken in by Jewish people at one stage … you get my drift. “Oh not at all, not at all,” I quickly replied to Daniel.
“Anyway,” I continued, “the rabbi said to Giuseppe, ‘if your son crawls towards the wine first and grabs that, that means he is going to be a successful merchant and quite possibly a liquor store owner and therefore a wealthy man. If he crawls over to the money bag and grabs that, then he is going to be a successful banker and also a wealthy, successful man. Either way you need not worry; he will be able to take care of you in your old age’. The rabbi looked at Giuseppe keenly, guessing the real reason and worry for the man’s concerns about what career his son would take. Giuseppe nodded, impressed by his rabbi’s wisdom. ‘But what if he doesn’t grab either the wine or the money bag?’ ‘Pray he doesn’t,’ the rabbi solemnly replied, ‘but don’t let that bother you. Come back to me with whatever happens and we will take it from there.’
“When the baby could crawl Giuseppe decided to try out the experiment. On one side of the first step of the staircase he placed a bottle of wine. On the other side he placed a bag of money. The mother put their little son on the floor a few feet away from the two articles. The lad, an exuberant boy who could crawl fast, eyed the wine and money bag and scooted across the lounge floor.”
Out of the corner of my eye I could see Daniel listening intently to the joke, clearly curious, but concerned about the punch line.
“The baby grabbed both the money bag and the bottle of wine at the same time and tried to pick both up most enthusiastically. Giuseppe was astonished by this turn of events and went and told his rabbi. The rabbi slapped his own head and cried, ‘Oy vay, the boy is going to be a Catholic priest!’ ” “And,” I added for Daniel’s benefit who was now grinning and chuckling, “I heard this joke from a Catholic priest whilst he stood at the altar speaking to his congregation during his sermon one Sunday morning. All the parishioners laughed.”
Daniel smiled at me, nodding. In a sense the joke was a profound lesson for both of us; nobody was offended.
I am not a Catholic. But I have learned a lot from them and their literature, including the teachings of Meister Eckhart and contemporary writers like Henri Nouwen and most definitely that wonderful monk who was once an abbot, Father Thomas Keating. Such wise fruit and healing teaching has to come from that profound, ineffable source all spiritual people of all persuasions revere.
At one stage I was a big ecumenicist and loved visiting different churches. I slowly “evolved” into a universalist and attended Catholic and Buddhist retreats and sometimes the two faiths combined. I miss that in China.
The essence of many spiritual traditions is to rid or purge human beings of what is sometimes called “the false ego”, that superficial structure of graspings and longings that identifies too seriously with … oh, stuff. Stuff like identity, prestige, money, how intelligent I am, my qualifications, anxiety about the future and guilt about the past. The absolute infallible rightness of “my” religion. Through this process we learn to be present to what is instead of resisting or denying it and thus feeding a false self that does not accept things as they are. In other words a false self that cannot take jokes about what it clings to so dearly, missing out on all that life has to offer. I love that magic Dido song with the constant refrain, “Cos nothing I have is truly mine”. There is a wonderful reverence in that song.
Jokes teach us to not take our egos, our false selves, our attachments, so seriously.
As Eckhart Tolle says in that wonderful book, The Power of Now: “If a fish is born in your aquarium and you call it John, write out a birth certificate, tell him about his family history, and two minutes later he gets eaten by another fish — that’s tragic. But it’s only tragic because you projected a separate self where there was none. You got hold of a fraction of a dynamic process, a molecular dance, and made a separate entity out of it.”
Related Posts
None
This entry was posted
on Monday, October 19th, 2009 at 6:24 am and is filed under Perspective.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
29 Responses to “Jokes put the ridiculous side of religion(s) into perspective”
That is so true - however, there are some jokes you have to admit that are plainly injurious and offensive, you know, those that cross the line and even straddle a few kilometres into the ‘no-go zone.’ I try not to be offended when someone makes a joke about my mother (who I love very much - but the joker is usually not malicious when making the joke). What I do abhor is someone making a joke that may not even offend me, but then expects me to not take it to heart and will stubbornly not give me the right or the latitude to feel that way primarily because he doesn’t expect me to be human enough to experience human feelings such as feeling offended and ambiguously expects me to ‘man-up, it was just a joke’.
For example; I was personally not offended by the substance or content in Bullard’s controversial article, what I did have issue with is that he seemed as if he felt perfectly entitled to write that article and we (the people he may be offending) have no right to feel offended because he has freedom of expression. There is an element of humanity and consideration in these things as well and one’s humanity will come with how he treats the fact that the other person becomes offended - never minding what the joke was.
A youngish Aboriginal chief is asked by tribesmen if the next winter will be a cold one. New to chieftainship and unschooled in the predictive traditions, the chief plays safe and says it will indeed be cold and the men must gather lots of firewood.
Two weeks later, they have a big pile of wood. But the tribesmen ask whether this is enough or if it will be extremely cold.
Again the chief plays safe, saying it will indeed be very cold and even more firewood is needed. As the tribe goes to gather more wood, the chief feels guilty at his call, so trudges off for 4 hours to the nearest phone booth along the main road north. He calls the Meteorological Office, asking for their winter predictions. Met Office guys says it looks to be a record cold winter ahead.
Chief asks how the Met Office know this so far in advance.
Met Office guy says they have space satellites over Australia and these can see how much firewood the Aboriginals are gathering every autumn. They’ve never ever seen so much wood being collected, so it’s got to be a sure sign of a record cold winter ahead.
But let us not press the cosy communality too far. Tolle has it wrong. It was tragic for the particular fish, molecular dance or not. And it is for the particular fish to take that particular view, not for the rest of the fish to deny him it.
Two men are standing in a coastguard room, and one has headphones on and is listening to a distress call.
‘Help, mayday, mayday, we’re sinking’
The coastguard gives his friend a funny look, but before either can say anything, they recieve another call.
‘Seriously, coastguard, mayday, we’re sinking’
The coastguard flips on the microphone and says, in a heavy German accent.
‘Hello, zis is ze coastguard, vot are sinking about?’
But whatever happened to Van, Gammat, and the others? They were such fun and it’s so sad we are now too politically correct to give them regular airings. They were, in fact, the heart and soul of South Africa and which of us didn’t feel affection for all of them?
> It was tragic for the particular fish, molecular dance or
> not. And it is for the particular fish to take that
> particular view, not for the rest of the fish to deny him
> it.
Certainly, one can have one’s tragedy if one wants — no-one could deny the fish his tragedy if he wanted to have it. That’s the way of things; only you can change your mind. But why cling to tragedy? The fact of the matter is that, if one realises for oneself the truth of what Tolle is saying, that the notion of a unitary, truly existing self is falsely imputed where there is actually no such self, then the notion of personal tragedy is seen for what it is: a false construction. Then there is no tragedy except that others suffer under the delusion that personal tragedy is real.
Mark Kerruish - I suppose I see myself more as a Capetonian ex-pat South African - but I only lived there for about six years altogether. But in terms of my character and outlook? Yeah, Capetonian and if I ever return to SA that is where I would rather live.
Theories, theories - and just as very many of them are perfectly reasonable lines of argument, so each of us is perfectly entitled to accept or reject them.
Where I come out on this is that if a unitary self is false, something or other ‘inside’ is putting up a pretty good job of suggesting that it is not.
Beyond that, there is, I believe, a moral issue.
Yes, seeing us all as One removes the personal tragedy. But I find it not a little irritating at times that others are so generous with other people’s lives. Witness the posts saying that the shooting of the innocent women in the car by the police is ‘unfortunate’ - but these things happen and must not detain us unduly.
I am more and more with the poet: ‘Any man’s [or fish’s] death diminishes me because I am involved in mankind. And therefore never send to know …’
Geez, all this philosophising over a joke. Not a very funny one at that.
If people get offended by remarks about their religion, tough luck. Since when as anyone not been offended about something.
Religious people have used this “don’t offend my religion” for 2000 years or more. Why the hell not.
Try telling some jokes about muslims and islam and see the response eg the Danish motoons. As an atheist I couldn’t care less about anyone’s religion. Never mind jokes, the whole god business is just a load of fairy tales as far as I am concerned.
Hi Jeff - according to you the joke on this blog is not that funny, but mature Catholics find it most amusing because of communion wine and tithing/ giving donations. Jokes are contextual. Chinese people here in China where I live cannot understand, say, British or SA humour because of the foreign context. The blog was not about God or god, it was about reverence and learning from others. I assume you can spell “reverence” but no more than just that… an ability to spell the word. Pity. Such a rich world out there.
@Rod MacKenzie,
Sure, jokes are very subjective. Even from one area of a country to another sense of humour differs, let alone individual sense of humour. I often enjoy the way the Jews can laugh at themselves with their jokes. I particularly like Jackie Mason.
I’ve always regarded anyone who gives tithes or donations to a religious institution as particularly stupid. “Stupid is as stupid does” to quote Forrest Gump.
Donating to the RC Church. Now that really is a joke. Filthy rich institution and still conning the gullible out of their money.
Ubersturmbahnfuhrer Ratzinger and his Gauleiters are laughing all the way to the Vatican bank. Mind you they are going to need that money to pay the child-abuse victims of their priesthood.
I have reverence for plenty of things, however I have none for primitive myths that purport to tell us how the world began and how some sky god rules our lives. Now that really is something to laugh at.
@Rod MacKenzie,
Another thing I find quite hilarious is the idea of the communion wine turning into the blood of christ as one drinks it. Oy vay! Or in local parlance, Eish!
- Paul Whelan - a fish’s death diminishes you?? I personally prefer one with a white wine sauce if its a snapper or yellowtail and salmon is awesome when pan fried till nearly crumbling splashed with lemon butter and a side of steamed peas and carrots all washed down with a merlot. I most certainly do not feel diminished and speak for many.
You have not understood the Tolle quotation. I doubt you have read the book(s) and spent the time in meditation to understand what people like Tolle et al are talking about. It cannot be understood intellectually - usually the ego level. And it cannot be explained in a simple comment box here. But hey, I am not trying to insult you, just disagree with your observations.
Your response is lighthearted but nevertheless comes as something of a disappointment.
For the rest, Tolle has, to my knowledge, made no better effort to understand me.
The plea that it cannot be understood intellectually has for two thousand years and more been the explanation for all those propositions that cannot be understood at all.
Paul Whelan - I find your response disappointing. You clearly have not read the literature or spent the time engaging with the methods, such as meditiation. If you have not seen the ocean you cannot talk about it.
What kind of ludicrous remark is “For the rest, Tolle has, to my knowledge, made no better effort to understand me”? On the idiotic level, he has never met you. How do you know he does not understand “you” or human behaviour when it is clear you have not studied his material?
If a person does not know what they are talking about, he should shut up. The problem is we have people who talk about what they don’t know because they don’t realise they don’t know or deny their ignorance. The name for it should be the Julius Malema syndrome. You are showing alarming signals of having that syndrome.
A two thousand years plea? For a start Tolle does not preach religion. If you are referring to Xianity, as that is the 2000 figure in terms of origins, he is not a Christian. He is not a religious person at all.
Jeff - agreed on your observations. Kind of surprised you did not mention my pet dislike, Rhema and asll the rest of the charismaniacs. I particulay do not like Ray McCauley and his obscenely expensive lifestyle in direct contradiction to the teaching of the New Testament which I have thoroughly read. However, I prefer to focus on the positive and go with tolerance and respect for other people’s views even though I disagree and find some beliefs (communion wine becoming blood, the transubstantiation) sadly ludicrous and is part of how Ireland got torn apart. One dumb belief set against another.
You are permitted to quote Eckhart Tolle to your readership and no reader is allowed to comment on that quote and its plain meaning unless he has read Tolle’s entire works?
If a reader departs from this regulation, he is suffering from Julius Malema syndrome.
OK. Now:
“You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.”
Are you expecting me to say that you have no right to comment on that quotation without having read the entire works of Nietzsche?
I like your lighthearted style Rod. To those whom the shoe fits - — ??
If your perspective of reality as manifested on a daily basis in your interactions with others is hostile, aggressive and selfish, whether you are a theist or an atheist, your mindset is not an improvement over what we already find dominant. Fanaticism and extremism in any ideology is not the answer. D.M. Murdock
Paul Whelan - I dont know what the heck happened to my reply to you but I noticed it hs been existentially defined by its nothingness it disappeared somehow. Yes, I do think one should have read a fair amont of Nietzsche before making comments. It is called responsible literacy. Yes, I don think one should have at least read with an open mind Eckhart Tolle’s The Power of Now, attend some meditation retreats before opining.
It is a bit like a person explaining what the ocean is when you havent seen an ocean, never mind swam in one - to use an old analogy.
OK then, heard you, evens and pax! - you’re obviously not such a bad chap (don’t know how to insert a smiley.)
The likely difference between you and me is that I don’t believe there is such a thing as Truth and even if there is, it cannot be accessible by any human procedure and certainly is not in the possession of any human being.
As for god being Truth (most folk’s substitute for thinking about it), you know what Betrand Russell replied when he was asked what he’d say if after he died and he found there was a god after all: ‘My lord, you should have given us more evidence.’
Hi Paul - sure pax and all that but why are you assuming I beleive there is such a thing as The Truth? When did I say that? I dont really. As quantum physicists will point out it depends on HOW you are looking at reality - it can be a wave or it can be a particle, the atom you are looking at.
I dislike or at least distrust organised religions, especially the lunatic fringe of the Christian happy clappy charismatics, especially greaseballs like Ray McCauley who just manipulate people out of their money.
I disagree with Bertrand Russel though - there is plenty of evidence for the sacred and the divine in every moment. What is lacking is us is awareness of it. Meditation and the like opens that awareness, says he who has not actively meditated in a while.
Smileys? A : plus a ) together gets you a hopefully.
All comments must be approved by our editors, click here to read the editorial guidelines for comments. Please allow some time for our editors to approve your comment after posting.
profile
CRACKING CHINA was previously the title of this blog. That title was used as the name for Rod MacKenzie's second book, Cracking China: a memoir of our first three years in China, which is now available at Exclusive Books and other good bookstores. ISBN-13: 9780620451079.
Or contact the publicist, Helco Promotions, at (011) 462 2302 or E-mail helco@mweb.co.za.
All who were involved in the Cracking China project publication found the book hilarious.
Rod and his wife, Marion, AKA the Chook or chookie, lived in China for five years. They have now moved to Auckland, New Zealand, where they hope to give Kiwi-land a crack. They live in a six-bedroom house along with the family, altogether seven rather individualistic and opinionated (sometimes self-opinionated) people and a small, mad terrier, Joey, who thinks he can pick up a rugby ball with his mouth.
Long ago Rod completed a post-graduate degree in English partly under the glacier presence and tutelage of J.M. Coetzee (who nevertheless encouraged Rod to keep writing). Rod has recovered from that ordeal.
He has written numerous other books, including two blockbuster novels and one novella. He is patiently waiting for publishers to See the Light.
Rod's links
Kalahari.net CRACKING CHINA, Rod's witty memoir about living for three years in China, is now available for orders on this website.
Knowledgethirstmedia Knowledge Thirst Media: Ordering CRACKING CHINA, the memoir, is NOW available for ordering on this website
"It won't take your mom long to get permanent residence," said the immigrations official to Michelle, the Chook's mom, on the phone. "She isn't an Asi...
It's the simple things in life that give us the most pleasure. The most meaning. And what can be more meaningful than sinking your teeth into the deni...
"Right," said the exasperated customs official at Auckland international airport to the poker-faced Chinese gentleman. "In your country, if yew make a...
Thabonk! Skrreek! The bottom part of our bed collapsed at about two in the morning the other day here in Shanghai . "Oh for - - sake!" Marion, The Cho...
In the railway station Marion goes off for a smoke and I cover her seat with her jacket and mine to book her spot. A Chinese woman promptly comes over...
Loading ...
hopefully.
That is so true - however, there are some jokes you have to admit that are plainly injurious and offensive, you know, those that cross the line and even straddle a few kilometres into the ‘no-go zone.’ I try not to be offended when someone makes a joke about my mother (who I love very much - but the joker is usually not malicious when making the joke). What I do abhor is someone making a joke that may not even offend me, but then expects me to not take it to heart and will stubbornly not give me the right or the latitude to feel that way primarily because he doesn’t expect me to be human enough to experience human feelings such as feeling offended and ambiguously expects me to ‘man-up, it was just a joke’.
For example; I was personally not offended by the substance or content in Bullard’s controversial article, what I did have issue with is that he seemed as if he felt perfectly entitled to write that article and we (the people he may be offending) have no right to feel offended because he has freedom of expression. There is an element of humanity and consideration in these things as well and one’s humanity will come with how he treats the fact that the other person becomes offended - never minding what the joke was.
(Report abuse)