What is Honor?
I was asked three interesting questions today: What is Honor, who should we honor, and how should we know whom to honor.
That set me thinking, and here I present some thoughts. In order to understand honor, we have to make a distinction on it's movement. It can be either offered or received. When it is offered, it is usually a selfless act, else we classify it as flattery. A selfless act is always beautiful. When received, it is a dangerous temptation, for that is when we stand the risk of identifying ourselves with our ego. In Sanskrit, the word for honor is "Maan." And the word for bruised ego is "Abhi-maan." They are deeply connected.
Honor is the recognition of selflessness. When we see someone who has gone beyond the little self, we are reminded of our own potential or self-imposed limitation. It is to acknowledge this potential or limitation that we recognize one who has gone beyond. A teacher who has gone beyond the call of duty and truly cared for the student is worthy of honor, for they have used their work (karma) to transcend their ego. We can draw a similar analogy for all work.
We have answered what is honor and who should we honor. The third question, prima facie, seems to be the same as the second. But it is distinct and also the most interesting one. For, honor is meaningless without the perceiver of selflessness. A perceiver must transcend their own ego in order to recognize the selflessness of another. A philosopher-friend once told me that the one who gives honor is greater than the one who receives it. For the perceiver has chosen to see the good while having other options and has recognized the good. In so doing, the perceiver has connected deeply with the divinity in the other through the divinity in their own self. One knows when to honor when one makes this connection. This connection often happens involuntarily when we see great acts of selflessness.
Once this is accepted, it is clear that receiving honor as one's due is a disaster. The receiver must understand that it is the giver's greatness that they choose to see the divine, and must in turn honor the giver. To think otherwise is to walk down a path of great self-deception.
The astute reader will point out that we are then engaged in cycles of honoring. This is quite true, and signs of this are to be found in all cultures. The anicent Indian civilization has brought this idea into their cultural routine by greeting one another with joined palms and uttering "Namaste." Namaste comes from "Namostute," which implies, I recognize the divine in you and bow to it. Please wish me that I may realize this divinity in my heart. If we explore other cultures, we will find similar routines.
That set me thinking, and here I present some thoughts. In order to understand honor, we have to make a distinction on it's movement. It can be either offered or received. When it is offered, it is usually a selfless act, else we classify it as flattery. A selfless act is always beautiful. When received, it is a dangerous temptation, for that is when we stand the risk of identifying ourselves with our ego. In Sanskrit, the word for honor is "Maan." And the word for bruised ego is "Abhi-maan." They are deeply connected.
Honor is the recognition of selflessness. When we see someone who has gone beyond the little self, we are reminded of our own potential or self-imposed limitation. It is to acknowledge this potential or limitation that we recognize one who has gone beyond. A teacher who has gone beyond the call of duty and truly cared for the student is worthy of honor, for they have used their work (karma) to transcend their ego. We can draw a similar analogy for all work.
We have answered what is honor and who should we honor. The third question, prima facie, seems to be the same as the second. But it is distinct and also the most interesting one. For, honor is meaningless without the perceiver of selflessness. A perceiver must transcend their own ego in order to recognize the selflessness of another. A philosopher-friend once told me that the one who gives honor is greater than the one who receives it. For the perceiver has chosen to see the good while having other options and has recognized the good. In so doing, the perceiver has connected deeply with the divinity in the other through the divinity in their own self. One knows when to honor when one makes this connection. This connection often happens involuntarily when we see great acts of selflessness.
Once this is accepted, it is clear that receiving honor as one's due is a disaster. The receiver must understand that it is the giver's greatness that they choose to see the divine, and must in turn honor the giver. To think otherwise is to walk down a path of great self-deception.
The astute reader will point out that we are then engaged in cycles of honoring. This is quite true, and signs of this are to be found in all cultures. The anicent Indian civilization has brought this idea into their cultural routine by greeting one another with joined palms and uttering "Namaste." Namaste comes from "Namostute," which implies, I recognize the divine in you and bow to it. Please wish me that I may realize this divinity in my heart. If we explore other cultures, we will find similar routines.
# posted by somik @ 10:52 AM 
16 Comments:
Thank you.
I had a conversation with my mother today about the definition of honor, and this started a debate about whether or not honor relies on morals. You define an honorable person as one who is able to act selflessly for what he believes in. An honorable person is able to follow his convictions, for the most part, unconditionally. Yet does honor rely on morals and ethics? I brought up the example of the Japanese in WW2. In most cases, the Japanese soldiers had such strong pride in their nation that they would kill themselves rather than surrender to be prisoners of war. This is commonly attributed to the "honor" of the Japanese. I can understand this, but does that also make the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 honorable? Because these terrorists were able to give their lives for what they believed was a higher cause, are they honorable? These terrorists for us are heroes in another's opinion. Does the cause behind the selflessness matter for the honor? In other words, is honor in any way dependent on morals and ethics? Is honor relative?
Honour is the ability to show integrity. It is a decision to determine that "I will do what is right, say what i mean and mean what i say" and when there are any shortcomings, it is the courage to either say by our words and more importantly by subsequent actions that "I made a mistake and i will make ammends so that it does not happen again".
Tolu, I think you are mixing up morality with honor. Emily - I like your distinction between the two. Your question is an important one - are terrorists selfless? I think they are - its just that they have defined their self in a manner that it only includes "their people," "their country" or "their religion" in it. The issue we face today is how to increase the definition of our self to such an extent that we leave nothing out. All countries are then mine, all people are mine and all religions are mine. Under this frame, narrow acts of violence toward some "other" would not be selfless, for it hurts myself to hurt any one. The distinction between the one and the other are rendered meaningless. What do we need to do to awake in such a space?
Just a passing thought...Honor cant be taken or given. Thats the beauty of it. Its one of those few things which is a both an action as well as consequence in itself, a function of your own perspectives. Else it would be like a commodity like the rest of the stuff around us. A man acts honorably, so we honor him. So its something i cant give him coz he already has it. Giving honor or paying respect is just a the consequence of his honorable behavior. If u didn't know of his action, you wldnt honor him, but that doesn't take awaay or make him less honorable. So giving honor as i put it is dependant on information, but honor by itself isnt tied down by such constraints. I hope i hv been clear, expressing such things in words sometimes turns out to be really difficult...:)!!
Good question Emily and thank you to Capital Socialist/Social Capitalist, that is right along the lines to what I felt should be said and you said it better than I would have.
i am teaching an r.e lesson (we all have to do it) and i am wondering if you could help me with honor?
HI HI I AM BORED!
I am writting a book on Honor. Here are my theories thus far:
http://seekingtruthinreligionandpolitics.blogspot.com/
I have always lived my life in such a way as to never bring dishonor to my family, my friends or myself, thus honor is a gift you give to yourself. Just an old cop reflecting, Gordon Martines
Well is honor bestowed or inherited?
Can't honor be held for yourself? As a form of self-respect, while still being selfless? Knowing who you are, recognizing your worth, And treating yourself accordingly?
I think you would have great difficulty being honorable to others if you do not first honor yourself. Inside, where it matters. Otherwise... The first time you are angry, or disturbed, you'd turn on others... If you're secure in yourself... You can begin to be yourself, and be to others, as you would choose to. Maybe I'm not making much sense... I feel my words more than type them.
I think it's important to distinguish honor from heroism and morals! Doing something honor doesnt make one a hero and doing something moral doesn't have to honorable...
Also if it's only honorable if one makes an effort beyond his duty then most of the soldiers dying in wars arent honorable cause they just doing they duty....
I think honor should be solely defined as acting on one's beliefs or defending them and shouldnt be convoluted with heroism or morals.... but its still complicated...
bethshek:
I think there is an important thing lacking in the blog, just one question... Where does the word "Honor" started?
Thank you.
Thank you emily, and I agree with you in thinking that honor is relative . I believe there is a way to define honor (as in terrorists and other) and here's how. Just as you recognized the terrorists are in a way honorable but not the same honor as the us officers. I think there are different types of honor, on a receiving level, which effect the giving level. When someones is honorable in the way you be live is honorable, is is your obligation to show them honor, but when someone shows honor against what you believe, it is still honor and it should be recognized as honor, but it is not your obligation to do anything for them. You are not any less honorable by doing something against them.
I believe that honor is not what an individual gives to a specific group, but it is something that an individual gives to someone that is recognized by the majority of the population of the world as selfless and above and beyond the call of duty no matter the profession or situation. Most prevalent in firefighters cops and military personnel. The people who will make the supreme sacrifice for one another and strangers who's background is unknown.
Post a Comment
<< Home