p e a c e f u l t u r m o i l

Sharing a post on naturalistic religion

2023-07-14T16:52:00.002-04:00

Image from Hardae on Pixabay

Hello there.

I just happened to pop on and see a post in the blog roll I assembled long ago that reminds of some of themes I discussed on message boards and that are covered in various ways here. Might have time to react or bounce off of it later. Or not.

Either way, if you are here reading this, then you probably also should at least take a look at this: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/monkeymind/2023/07/a-meditation-on-naturalistic-religion.html

Work Changes, Peace in Dreams

2023-04-23T12:36:00.002-04:00

Some significant changes to my employment are coming.

I currently work in an office that uses multiple companies for different purposes but has a central staff common to all of them. However, one company belongs to a different owner and he is moving to another building nearby, so whether I end up working for one (set of companies), the one that is moving, or neither remains to be seen. This will be especially telling because of an issue of integrity and principle that has arisen that adds further complication.

Change isn't necessarily scary or bad, but it is constant, so we'll see where all of this goes.

I've also noticed that my dreams over the last many years continue to not be life-like and full of intensity or realism. They tend to be feeling and sensation with a thin winding narrative or just impulse that doesn't stand to focus. They, and often any memory of them, just vanish. Even so, I've noted that they also seem to be calm and peaceful, whatever the theme or direction.

I've observed much chaos, hatred, and fear going on and it is hurting many people but it is also preventing many helpful and good things as well as keeping people from noticing and being renewed and uplifted from the helpful and good things that remain. No wise sayings or pinning down how and why people think and act the way they do will change them from being hateful and hurtful. Speaking out and acting responsibly to offer a better example and inspiration, even in small ways for small audiences, may reach some. Others may be forever lost in bitterness.

Yet when I sleep and recall my dreams, the anger and frustration I can feel during the day isn't there. It's an encouraging thought that below the turmoil that can arise in my waking thoughts and reactions, the poison hasn't taken hold. It may not seem like much, but it is a good place to start as I reflect on the present and the future.

Be well.

My 19 1/2 year old dog's impending death

2022-09-25T21:36:00.003-04:00

Poo, a rat terrier, was born on February 5th, 2003. He came to live with us a couple of months later. Now his death is near.

But not because his organs are giving out or some illness. Because he is old and we don't have the capacity to give him the level of care he will now required. My spouse or I would have to work from home, which isn't possible at this time. We would need a custom-made doggy wheelchair because the culprit here is degeneration of the muscles in his hind legs. And when would need him to accept he can't get up on his own anymore and adjust to that reality, which based on his personality is pretty much impossible.

That makes his impending loss harder. The fact that maybe, somehow, he might get a couple of more good years in some alternate version of reality.

Faith traditions and sacred teaching typically have quite a bit to say about death and loss, but I've never really found any of it useful when faced with situations like this. It just sucks.

I think that's a good lesson. Sometimes things just suck. Looking on the upside or to comforting mythology isn't always going to help or even be desirable. A lot gets tossed around about acceptance, but acceptance doesn't mean no pain, no grief, and so on. Acceptance in fact means having to face those things and the sadness they bring.

So, my dog is going to put to sleep, and I hate it, and it sucks. My best friend for two decades is going away and I can't do anything about it.

September and Labor Day

2022-09-05T21:20:00.001-04:00

Labor Day Weekend was quiet and mostly spent at home except for some errands.

In the United States, Labor Day Weekend and the start of September are seen as the start of the transition to Fall, though it won't be the Equinox until the 22nd. Another Summer begins to fade. Halloween items have shown up already in some stores, online and physical, even though that holiday isn't until the end of next month.

I continue to wonder what moves I need to make. Not for wealth or fame, but to adjust to the environment and continue growing in healthy and meaningful ways. My health, while not terrible, has nonetheless been on an unplanned course of improvement thanks to a five hour ER visit in the middle of a Friday night a few weeks ago. However, work is as bad or worse than ever in all of its flaws - terrible management from the top, chaotic environment and agenda, overloading people far beyond capacity, inadequate compensation for the effort made, and so on.

There is much made over appreciating what we have, find the value (lessons, joys, meaning, wisdom, etc.) where we are, but that doesn't mean drifting or stagnating, let alone being take advantage of. There is room for seeing the value of each day and taking care of oneself. I hope you are on a course that allows for anticipation and fulfillment. If you are not, I hope a chance for change that brings such opportunities is in your future. Even small and simple routines that offer such things can make a world of difference.

Growth or transformation?

2022-06-01T17:04:00.000-04:00

Ohhhhh, who or what should I be next?

Whether I attempt to continue with my current conditions in life or move on to something else, I wonder if I have been too lazy about self-maintenance. I don't mean eating or exercise, that's a separate issue. I mean - how to say? - allowing assumptions, attitudes, and self-perception.

People reinventing themselves is nothing new, but it doesn't always work out. Of course we have influence on guiding who we become and continue to change over time, but this must also allow for growth, which can come about through transformation, big and small.

The absence of genuine introspection - of paying attention rather than only evaluating and judging - may have led me to a bit of a dead end.

Holiday evening reflections (or, On being untethered in a mundane world)

2022-05-30T21:49:00.004-04:00

The end of May draws near and in the United States it is unofficially now summer.

My job for the last nearly six years has been... uhh... well, to describe how unusual and stressful and frustrating it can be would require actual examples that no one would believe. It's not all bad, but the unbelievable and vexing parts are made worse by how unnecessary they are. So having a three day weekend is really valuable.

I would have posted something hear last week but my attention was grabbed by another mass shooting at a school in America. Once again the same well-funded political movement is blocking any meaningful changes to save lives by idolizing guns and gun violence. Once again there is a chance to put momentum into calls for reforms.

Whether heart-rending tragedies or the banal vagaries of every day life, many people have some form of reframing or re-contextualizing their experience of the world, either to try to make sense of or accept what transpires or generate and sustain motivation for change. While some will quibble over the use of spiritual as inadequate to label all such transformations in perspective, many such transformative experiences share common events such as being moved by natural beauty or music or other inspiring stimuli. Or by having one's mortality brought sharply into view for some reason.

In my last entry I referenced themes of health and wellness connected to our circumstances and how any type of spirituality, whatever its form, needs to be able to address everyday concerns as well as existential ones. The writing could use some revision but it was a quick lunchtime musing so it is a little untidy and lacking a bit in focus.

Nonetheless, it does lead to this: I never have been able to really get into or stick with any religion, sacred tradition, or anything more than an intellectual yet generic spiritual framework. As I've no doubt shared here before, I don't perceive the world around me as full of wonder and mystery and potential. It offers no sense of hidden truths or unseen depths. It's just flat. Mundane.

To use other language, no sense of the numinous. A super low score on the M-scale. A world without a soul. Neither empty nor full. Neither hot nor cold.

I like parts of Christian monasticism and a lot of the Westernized translations of Buddhism and so on, but commitment is hard when the mystique and newness wear off. I can appreciate the wisdom regarding the human condition but it's hard to not wander off and let whatever practice I had picked up lapse as there is little or no personal connection.

Some people may wonder what that means for dealing with everyday life or horrible catastrophes, but it's just like everyone else I guess only without turning to a liturgy or prayer or whatever. I guess we are all used to what we know? We all have our own ways of filtering and processing our experiences.

Sometimes I use spiritual language and gestures anyway because they are a form of expression even if you don't feel a deep belief or faith in the literal meaning of the gesture or expression, because why not? It's part of our shared human heritage. I don't mean any disrespect to those who idolize such religious forms, especially ones I have a personal connection to.

In addition to general curiosity and intellectual curiosity, I think some spiritual things interest me because they often have to do with meaning, direction, connection, and so one. One reason that has grabbed my attention from time to time is because I do not "dream" (in the sense of having big ambitions), nor do I have major hopes or aspirations. To be brief, those experiences along with relatives such as joy aren't really a part of my live experience, at least not since perhaps when I was a small child.

Many religious people will read the above and proscribe any number of religious actions such as various forms of prayer, meditation, and so on. Trust me when I say that I've been there and done that. I get why, because of the assumptions embedded in their beliefs, why they think and react that way. But to me, it is backward. If you experience the world as flat and ordinary and don't have affective aspirations then telling someone to pray is like recommending a painting to someone who is completely blind.

Yes, the familiarity and rhythm of some prayers and other ritualistic actions can be comforting and have other positive effects, and meditation can help people center their minds and regulate aspects of their bodily functions. Absolutely. And these things can with the proper context be very helpful. Yet the other potential effects are muted or absent if you don't have the capacity to detect or process them or their signifiers.

It is interesting (to me) to contemplate what some of these things would look or feel like if whatever it is about me that limits my sense of wonder, ambition, hope, etc. was altered. Would I be more likely to believe some religious stories, or just to appreciate them better for what they might inspire? Same for practices like meditation and so on. Yet, I can also appreciate that I have my own perspective even it is dissimilar from what others claim to experience.

My only concern would be whether my perspective is just the way I am or whether it is something that came about due to some part of me shutting down at some point as a response to some set of conditions I encountered. I mean whether it's genetics-brain structure or whether it's some defense mechanism gone wrong, in the end its a difference in people's basic psychology. Would be interesting to see studies and correlations about this with decades of comparisons.

Anyway, enough ramble-musing for tonight.

A beautiful, sunny with blue skies and fluffy white clouds set of days off that were warm but not hot and humid with gentle breezes have ended and night has fallen and my soul-sucking job is looming just past whatever time I decide to go to bed.

Have a great week.

Late lunch break thoughts

2022-05-18T14:41:00.001-04:00

Original version of this photo from Pixabay

Opening sentence

Something of a late lunch break at work. Writing of any kind can help focus the mind so that gives me a chance to share something here with you as I work on an apple and a banana.

While philosophical, shared interpersonal experiences, and artistic themes are common for questions of meaning and existence, especially in any kind of religious or spiritual or closely related context, the baseline of physical, psychological, and social well-being shouldn't be overlooked. Our perceptions, thoughts, creativity, and so on vary in quality and intensity based on our health.

In addition to blogging I also keep a private journal that helps keep me honest.

To distill some of that honesty while digesting another bite of fruit, my sublimation of and inattention to dissatisfaction with my job, financial stagnation, the state of the society I live in, and so on has helped bankroll bad fitness habits and drain the reserves of willpower needed to stay healthy physically, psychologically, and socially.

On the surface level, my personal circumstances by broad socioeconomic metrics of human wellness on a worldwide scale is fairly high, which then compels me to an almost forced pseudo-gratitude and bypasses any helpful introspection. That simple leaves the vagaries of the day to test my ingrained inner structures of patience, releasing temporary agitation, and so on. Bobbing up and down on the daily currents of my external surroundings.

Fortunately my practiced temperance and ability to reframe many things in a way that lets me handle them better works well, but that only helps me stay afloat, not to get back to a healthier and more worthwhile state of existence.

I mean, my job of the last several years could be the basis of a television show with no embellishment. Honestly, no one would believe me if I told them the unpolished and unexaggerated truth of it. It pays kind of OK, not great, for the workload and responsibility but has no benefits other than PTO. I do a wide variety of things I have no background for most of it other than general intelligence and strong reading and writing skills. It's very chaotic and often unreasonable or just bizarre but it looks at a glance like a normal office. It has its rewarding moments and also cascades of sudden deadlines and stress.

That is mixed with other issues outside of work, including my own variety of inner struggles. And hat would be fine if I had extra motivational energy (and time, and other resources) to improve my health.

So rather than just journaling where only my eyes can see, I am putting this up as an example of where the "theory" and speculation covered in places like this blog actually hits the road. Not in self-pitying fashion but to acknowledge that this, too -- no, especially this kind of thing, must be part of the talk and practice of spirituality or whatever term people are comfortable with.

This particular type of existential suffering or dissatisfaction is a (primarily, as far as we know?) human condition, formed by our individual and collective imaginations and the pocket realities we create in our philosopher's caves. If spirituality cannot aid us to a better place and state of being here and now, it must inevitably devolve into facile habit propelled by a mindless dogma.

Perhaps such an attempt at honest introspection will aid me in my own path. Or mayhap it will spark something for you, reader.

May your day be well, and your burdens no more than you can manage.

Opened the windows today

2022-05-09T19:28:00.003-04:00

Warm sunny day, not hot, with blue skies.

I've will have lived in the same place for 14 years next month, and tape up the windows when cold weather comes. When they get un-taped varies. This year it go to freezing or below randomly early this spring so it wasn't until today that it seemed like a safe bet to swap the space heaters for fans and let the outside air in.

I've gone from a career I worked for to employment struggles to an "interesting" job in these last fourteen years and yet the annual un-taping is a milestone for each spring. Brighter, longer days are very good for me, especially since I was recently diagnosed with a vitamin D deficiency serious enough to be put on supplements by my physician indefinitely.

Questions of mystery, meaning, causality and purpose have always intrigued me but they've been hard to connect with on a real level. But a day like today, especially getting a rare chance to work from home, doesn't need philosophy or theology or science. It is enough that it is what is.

Hopefully my decades-long inner stuckness will have another chance to get less stuck, to put it in professional terms.

Be well.

May Day 2022

2022-05-01T20:15:00.007-04:00

The year is now 2022.

This is only my sixth entry in this blog since 2014, which I suppose isn't really that surprising to me given the twists and turns my life went through just before that hiatus and everything since. I spent 1998 to 2010 on message boards with religion, spirituality, science, politics, and community as the main themes. I also read quite a lot of books and articles on related topics including new age/self help, general spirituality, general religion, Buddhism (many varieties), interfaith reflections, mysticism, and even some open-minded monastic Christianity.

I was able to practice with a Chan-Pureland sangha for a couple of years and then later even get a little first hand experience with Christian monasticism (as a layperson) after giving a more "high church" approach a try from what, 2010-2013? (I think my last service at the nearby church was early 2014 after a bit of an absence.) Late in 2013 I had to have open heart surgery because of some random defect and enjoyed reading a Buddhist book in a hospital while waiting so some test a week or so beforehand.

(As I am writing a heavy thunderstorm has just rolled in for this Sunday evening.)

I think, though, that some of the steam that drove my interactions online wore out. The people I chatted with on the message boards largely evaporated or went on repeat in a shrinking medium. Personally, I was too far from any Buddhist stuff to participate in person and the intellectual intrigue of the re-visiting of Christianity had faded. Meanwhile, political hate with a religious mask was on the rise and my own personal situation wasn't so great as to encourage the hobby of religious or spiritual exploration, whatever the mode or medium.

Not to mention that apparently I score really low on tests that aim to measure your likelihood of having what many people call spiritual or religious experiences, even though the experiences need not be tied to either. There is an difference between having an intense hobby related to pathways of meaning and questions of human existence and actually being committed to and drawing strength and meaning from such pathways.

Of course, a healthy curiosity and well-roundedness in a variety of topics isn't a bad thing, but, it is different than actual paths of faith or seeking because you are trying to put a face or name to something that you have had a brush with. I still see many interesting, inspiring, and true things from what I read, saw, and heard in the past. That is well. I even got to see a couple of Buddhist sites in China during a business trip in the fall of 2016.

However, I don't seem to be much for community so wherever I end up at different parts of the rest of my life, I can try to appreciate them for what they are as much as what they do or don't inspire in myself. I suppose we shall see where that leads.

Have a happy Sunday and a good week.

The (not quite yet) Year of the Ox

2021-01-01T13:58:00.001-05:00

Slow, steady strength

While the Gregorian calendar has us all in a new year, the lunar calendar hasn't quite gotten there yet. I have a connection to the Ox, so it's interesting to me on a personal level. Whether cosmic and natural forces work along the line of tradition or faith, such symbols still help color our human world.

The Ox is associated by those who dabble with Buddhism in the West with the Ox Herding Pictures, wherein the Ox is in some ways both (the concept of) Enlightenment and the Mind. Eventually, the Mind is tamed through practice and faith as the herder rides the Ox with ease and joy. Then the Ox vanishes. Then the herder vanishes. Then emptiness comes and beyond it is...

Well, anyway. Cool imagery, eh?

Perhaps this year such imagery can help those interested in seeking their own peace and strength in the midst of the turmoil the world finds itself in.

I wish you all the best.

The end of another year (2020)

2020-12-31T19:46:00.002-05:00

Winter blooms and 2020 ends.

In my location we are still not yet to 2021 at the time of this posting.

I have fixed feeling about the tradition of New Year's resolutions. They are often a form of wishful thinking that can actually depress people when the resolution fails, especially if it's made in black and white (giving up this, taking up that).

Fifteen years ago I recall a Buddhist teacher saying to a small group that the precepts cannot be broken. We can take them up or set them down. But the precepts themselves are still there waiting. The same person also compared that to the practice of staying and returning in meditation. If your mind wanders from focus, just return. No judgment. It's all a success. Just stay focused as long as you can and then return when you notice your attention has wandered.

Perhaps more New Year's resolutions would benefit those making them if they were approached in this way, whether it be losing weight or taking up a new hobby or building relationships.

This is a good time for reflection as societies are also reflecting, giving us some momentum. Also a good time to then look ahead. We can't know what will happen, but we can think about who we've been and who we want to be.

If you have any resolutions, I wish you success.

hello again

2020-12-28T16:21:00.004-05:00

There is either quite a lot to say or not much at all.

This blog was much more active between 2005 and 2014. I was going to start writing more in again in 2016, then midway through the year I started a new job that took up much of my time and the political and religious environment started becoming much darker. When I logged on to write, criticism and frustration emerged.

There has been much to criticize the past four years, but I didn't want to be bitter or give an impression of bitterness to others. I also found myself just being very, very tired in many ways - physically, mentally, emotionally, socially. And, to be honest, I wasn't sure what to write beyond pointing out the hypocrisy and harm of those who substitute idolatry for faith.

When I became tinythinker many years ago, I was coming from a somewhat American fundamentalist Christian background. I had already left all of that behind and was still near the beginning of my graduate school days, studying evolutionary theory, cultures from the past and present around the world, and so much more. I started using the name for message boards back then, where I encountered some interesting Buddhists on forms otherwise full of Christian and atheists going at it. Sometimes with respect or some kind of boundaries, and sometimes not. So even before I brought my net handle to this blog, I had developed a curiosity in things like Unitarian Universalism, Buddhism, and even mystical Christianity.

I continued exploring such things to varying degrees between 2005 and 2014, as evidenced by the content from that period. But it wasn't just those thing in of themselves, though that was also intriguing, but also what they might mean for questions people tend to wrestle with and the answers that they fight over. Still, for me much of it was also self-image and construction, solving intellectual puzzles, and just finding out about different views that seemed so interesting.

Around 2010, having gotten into readings the preceding couple of years on contemplative and mystical Christianity, and with no Buddhist groups around, I tried attending a nearby church for a while. It was interesting, and I participated pretty well, but after a couple of years my curiosity and interest expired. So my attendance and participation drifted off. Still, I had been able to go beyond a lot of what I had previously experienced and known in my youth, through books and actual live services.

Which left a question.

What then?

Apparently, I wasn't sure of the answer to that. So I went on posting here somewhat regularly for well over a year exploring (or re-exploring) some topics. But the thing about actually putting lots of though into things and actually trying them first hand (for example while I was in that new Christianity phase I did the Daily Office of the Episcopal Church a lot, which is similar to the Divine Office of the Roman Catholics), you get to places quicker. Where I got to was a place of futility.

Futility as in not being where I thought I would be: spiritually, physically, career-wise, and so on.

Looking back I did make important realizations and had openings for growth, but those can be missed or dismissed as being unimportant or irrelevant.

For example:

I love that (parts of) Buddhism are non-dogmatic
I really enjoy many Buddhist images and concepts
Basic Buddhist teachings as they are known and expressed in these times can be useful to non-Buddhists
Christianity has some smothered and pruned aspects that are also non-dogmatic with beautiful images and concepts
There are people working to emphasize these things in Buddhism and Christianity
There are people working to root these things out or dismiss them
Buddhist and Christian monasticism are fascinating but challenging
Buddhist and Christian monasticism are often over-romanticized, which in fact is bad for monasticism
I tend to draw from a lot of sources for images and concepts and teachings
I score pretty low on any kind of mysticism scale - that is, seeing hidden connections and meaning, experiencing the numinous, perceiving greater depth to reality, etc; to me it's all just flat/as it seems/ordinary
Related to the point right above, on a scale of 1 to 10 on whether I personally feel/experience a sense of connection to something greater or that there is some larger meaning to existence, I am around a 1.5 or 2
Related to the point right above, intellectually I can see my way to a bit of a higher score but in a highly non-committal way
I see religions as human made, but also don't think that means they contain no valuable insights or that they can't offer experiences or perspectives that can help people expand their awareness or perspective
I don't really go for demystified/wholly securalized Buddhism or Christianity and so on but I am also not against people finding something helpful in religion even if they don't agree with every core tenet and common practices
Anti-religionism is a waste of time but anti-idolatry/anti-extreme fundamentalism is not
When we choose to associate with a religious identity, spiritual pathway, or sacred tradition it can still give us some measure of peace or inspiration even if we aren't committed enough for some to consider us "true" members or followers or disciples
Nonetheless I still tend to think or feel in terms of authenticity when it comes to religion-related things, which tends to contradict or be at unease with the point listed immediately above
Authenticity or the desire for authenticity is not wholly wrong or counter-productive but it can be an obstacle to actually being authentic or benefiting from the resources our societies and cultures pass down to us from preceding generations

Then after being in that time of futility, along came the rise of visibility and influence of the idolator fundamentalists (wherein idolatry here can be loosely translated as worshiping an image or symbol as a totem of power, of allegiance to such symbols rather than the actual values and principles they stand for, lip service combined with utter hypocrisy).

So, the blog went on hiatus. I tried to pop in a couple of times after that, but that's it.

I don't where things go from here.

Perhaps we shall find out.

At home in Holy Saturday

2020-04-11T22:52:00.000-04:00

Which may sound odd.

This isn't about liking or disliking or agreeing or disagreeing with Christianity or a particular stand of its orthodoxy or orthopraxy.

This isn't about belief in Christian creeds or faith in Christian visions of divinity.

And this isn't about provoking or instigating.

It's about using imagery from a religion that has dominated western cultures for a couple of millennia and that was influential in my childhood.

But my appreciation of that imagery is very likely different than yours. Some people are bothered by that. If it bothers you, you can stop reading, get upset, or consider a different view. That choice is wholly yours. I don't feel like arguing about your reaction, however.

Of course, I didn't know the term Holy Saturday growing up. I was familiar with Easter Sunday. Didn't have much on Good Friday, either. The Holy Week schedule came in later as I learned about strands of Christianity that focused more on the liturgical calendar and rites.

But it fits me in some ways. Holy Saturday, that is. Not necessarily what other people have written about it. Maybe, depending on what they wrote. The story goes that Good Friday commemorates the crucifixion and death of Jesus Christ, while Easter Sunday commemorates the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Holy Saturday technically has a name, but it's kind of the filler day for some people. The day in between the highlights.

Or, if you focus on it, it's the day when hope dies. When you lose faith or are sorely tested. When you just don't feel like putting on the act and airs of a normal day. When you are down, depressed, tired, or at the end of your rope. When you feel disappointed or defeated. Pointless. Useless.

So naturally for Christians, Sunday morning is the big relief. The happy ending after the dark period in the story of their lives. A new chance. A renewal of hope and opportunity. And so on. When everything was at its worst, a complete reversal, snatching victory from the jaws of defeat.

I can see why that's popular. Why it resonates with so many people. Why they look forward to Easter Sunday. But it doesn't resonate with me. Not my lived experience. Not my personality. It isn't a match. Good Friday and Holy Saturday, sure. But not Sunday. It feels contrived. Forced. I don't begrudge those who find solace and hope in Easter. That's great! For them.

In the sense of renewal or passing the torch, I find a little common ground. But total and final victory? Unwavering faith and confidence in the surety of a future that is the culmination of the noblest wishes and highest good our species can imagine? Naw. That doesn't compute. The ultimate pipe dream, however various Christian imagine it, is too remote.

But picking up the pieces and carrying on after disappointment? Even with no guarantees or assurances? Hard, yes. For many, too hard. For me, too, sometimes. But it has the ring of genuineness to it. It may not be a first pick for many people, but it feels and reasons as accessible. Meaningful. True.

Whatever your take, be well.

Excerpt Only - Choosing Sides

2018-10-29T14:27:00.001-04:00

"So if we went with familiar imagery then, would you say you see yourself as perverse -- being disruptive? Upsetting expectations? A devil scouring the details like the Accuser?

"Or more a light of the divine? A servant of peace and understanding?"

The face across from him nodded. "Yes."

"Yes?"

Nod.

"So... what? You see yourself as playing both sides?"

The face shook. "No."

"You just said--"

"Same side."

Now it seemed certain this was some kind of mockery or joke but the serene, sincere expression lingered.

"So you're taking a side?"

Shake. "No."

Still Away

2014-11-04T20:29:00.002-05:00

[Pixabay]

Just a quick note to let anyone passing through know that while this blog isn't officially closed, it is (still) on hiatus.

At this blog I casually work with religion and spirituality as ideas, much in the same way some people solve logic puzzles, make creative connections between different conceptual frameworks, or analyze the worlds brought to life through fiction. On what some what call a "heart" level or even a "direct existential awareness" level, it's kind of moot for me. No acceptance, no rejection, no substantial interaction. Even when faced with the sudden revelation of unexpected peril or in the face of an long term struggle.

This blog is kind of an intellectual hobby, but I've just not been interested in speculating about the topics and themes covered here. The only aspect of religion on my radar at the moment is the continued bigotry and xenophobia of the Christian far-right and how such fundamentalism is affecting the public debates and political landscape in the United States. I don't feel like dissecting any of that, though. At least not in the form that is typical of this blog, and perhaps not in any form. Maybe for a just while, or maybe ever.

What is there to say?

It exists as part of a resilient subculture of disgust, paranoia, and a passive-aggressive form of self-pitying and martyrdom that revels in boastful ignorance. Anyone who would seriously question that worldview would already be on the path out of it, and those who don't seriously question it inoculate themselves regularly against any alternative way of thinking about or perceiving the world. And it isn't like either type of fundamentalist would be at this obscure little corner of the world wide web to read anything I might write about their views.

Other topics typical of this blog have simply been more of the same, so even if I had a desire to go through them again, it would just be redundant. If I find the time and interest to once again to share and play with concepts and impressions related to religion and spirituality, I will return. Until then, be well.

Who the hell needs Jesus?

2014-06-13T16:18:00.001-04:00

[Pixabay]

No really, that wasn't just an eye-catcher title to get you to scan further down. It's a genuine question.

Having run across something online earlier, I spontaneously thought of Christian evangelism and how the approach a Christian uses in sharing their "good news" sums up what they think of God and their faith.

That took half a second, so then in the other half the idea popped into my head of comparing approaches to evangelism in a society that is filled with so many people who are tired of the implications of over-used methods for proselytizing and the responses those methods can elicit. A few seconds into this line of thinking I came up with an idea that I've never heard expressed before.

Now maybe this idea was common in the first decades of the Christian faith, or maybe some theologian wrote such an idea down in a book I haven't read, so I can't claim it is one hundred percent original. I'll work out how I got to the idea and what it could mean for the image of Christianity below, but here it is:

Not everyone is called to be a Christian and that doesn't mean that they are going to hell or that they will face some kind of annihilation after their physical death.

Before I write anything else, understand that I am not writing this out of concern over whether anyone is or isn't a Christian or whether anyone becomes one. I am not promoting Christianity or validating any of its claims by discussing its basic concepts and ideas. Also, the reason I tossed in the "no hell/annihilation" part is because Christians are usually all about what happens after physical death even if they don't emphasize it. If I just said "not all are called to be Christians" people might think I had simply re-discovered generic predestination theology.

So if that is enough for you to chew on, go ahead. But if you are considering a response such as a share or comment, read a little further for additional context and clarification.

Above I skipped from tiresome forms of evangelism and their theological requirements and implications to where that line of reasoning ended up in my head several seconds later. Here is the missing stuff with more words and elaboration than was necessary when I was just turning it over in my own mind, along with the extra stuff that occurred to me as I was writing it all out. Starting with the idea that everyone needs Jesus and its attendant arguments.

First there is the "everyone needs Jesus to be saved because of original sin" argument, which many do not find compelling at all as it requires that you subscribe to a particular theology first and because many see no good reason to accept that theology. The arguments for it tend to be insulting and circular and its advocates don't tend to give it a good name by their example.

Next is the "everyone needs Jesus because of (some rewording of or a substitution for the concept of) original sin" argument. It's kind of like updating the theology to match the color of the current culture's drapes.

Then we have the more rare and never stand-alone twist which is "Jesus needs you (to be his active presence in the world)."

Other twists that get added onto some variant of "everyone needs Jesus..." include the suggestion that the Christian Logos, which the faithful believe manifested as Jesus, is also the same presence that is operating in all other religions that are sincerely practiced by honest, decent people. And maybe even in the lives of those who practice no religion at all. So technically your striving for goodness, your yearning for a better life and a better world, and so on, is really being illuminated and guided by the same thing that Christians follow. Hence it's OK not to go around trying to convert everyone to your church's rituals and theologies because if they are sincere they will come to know Christ in their own way.

That last sentence is really a separate twist associated with universalism, the idea that all will eventually be saved by/reconciled to God through Christ.

The one thing they all have in common, though, is that root assumption that everyone needs Jesus, wherein Jesus is the Christ, which means in virtually all Christian theology that he is somehow an aspect of or co-equal to God.

Not everyone?

This view that everyone is supposed to need Jesus and to be reconciled with or through Christ creates some really awkward encounters in a multicultural and religiously plural society in which religious tolerance is promoted. Hence the relief and eagerness with which some Christians embrace the reconfiguring of original sin and the kinds of twists I've described. Yet the uncomfortable subtext remains: our religion is superior and conversion to our faith is probably the best and safest thing for everyone in the world.

Now I am not trying to start some new theological approach based on a couple of verses from a canonical gospel, although I wouldn't be the first to try, but what might happen if enough Christians who already reject the "accept Jesus or else!" view really took this example from Mark 2:15-17 more seriously?

While Jesus was having dinner at Levi’s house, many tax collectors and sinners were eating with him and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. 16 When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the sinners and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?”

On hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

To be clear, these Christians could keep their theologies and liturgies that revolve around the claims that Jesus is the child of God (however they understand that), that he is one with God the Father (however they understand that), that his incarnation, life, crucifixion, and resurrection are part of a reconciliation of humans to God (however they understand that), and so on.

The only difference is one idea, which so many Christians seem adamantly determined to cling to even if they are willing to allow their understanding of other doctrines to evolve or to be understood in a broader context. That everyone somehow needs Jesus. The difference I am suggesting is that while such reconciliation is open to anyone it is not needed by everyone, nor do those who might need it require it to be regularly renewed. Not everyone is sick. Not everyone is called.

Now of course this view hurts the established methods of recruitment and retention efforts for the Christian religion and church membership, but that is declining in the older regions of Christendom anyway.

Consider what this might look like in practice.

There would be no high-pressure "turn-or-burn" pitches to the "unsaved", and you could talk about being called to Christ without sounding sanctimonious as the call itself marks you as among the unrighteous and the spiritually sick. This doesn't mean that others might not benefit from your message and practice, but rather that you couldn't presume their spiritual status nor try to pressure them into conversion. You would have to primarily rely on your own example and whatever powers or gifts, if any, that have been bestowed on you.

The latter wouldn't be viewed as tools for conversion, as salvation would no longer be a numbers game with a potential market the size of the human population. Rather any talents or abilities would be geared to help others regardless of their views on your religion or any religion. There would be no need to try to plaster the popular images and identifying symbols and words of your religion all over every little act of charity, nor a need to idolacize excessively in an effort to make every book, album, film, store, and nick-knack properly pure and reflective of the faith. At the same time sharing your faith wouldn't be so intrusive and presumptuous so actual word of mouth could function again outside of its current "Oh no someone is trying to 'share Christ' with me" context.

Other possible outcomes include not requiring people to abandon or renounce every non-orthodox wisdom teaching or non-orthoprax spiritual practice. Moreover, people wouldn't feel compelled to remain in the religion out of fear of somehow losing their salvation or displeasing God but rather out of gratitude, a feeling of genuine belonging, and a desire to share their healing with others.

This approach ignores the fact that religions sometimes function as social markers/identifiers to denote "us and them" and as supporters of the status quo, but I am guessing those who want to use religion that way probably don't mind the prevailing theological mindset in Christianity anyway.

But if you do fancy the picture I've painted of a possible Christianity where not all are called but all are still loved, why not give the idea some thought and share it with other like-minded individuals? You're probably the type that more conservative Christians see as heretical or blasphemous false prophets or anti-Christs anyway, so what have you got to lose?

Alternatives to debating things like religion and atheism

2014-06-10T12:53:00.000-04:00

[Pixabay]

Am I open or closed to possibilities beyond my familiar expectations? Do I genuinely respect other ways of understanding the human experience? Can I get beyond certain stereotypes and baggage attached to language associated with (a particular) religion? Rather than asking if religious images, stories, and experiences can be shown to be adequately accurate in a more objective sense, can you see how the teaching and practices help you or others to frame, understand, and process human experiences that are better suited to poetry and ritual than dry, empirical rationalization?

As someone who used to invest time and energy into debating religion, atheism, and the like, I can state that it is really hard to get out of the mindset that there is always one best way to understand everything and that finding and defending this best way must somehow involve a battle of logical-sounding arguments that make you feel smart and superior to those ignorant people who disagree with you.

Even if you perceive yourself to be fair, open-minded, and tolerant of other views, this basic mindset is so prevalent in places like the United States that it can continue to color your perception no matter how fair you try to be.

These topics are emotionally charged, despite how coldly analytic some may wish to claim they are, and that energy bound up with attitudes about related experiences and engagements can take quite a while to dissipate. You can spot this by how aggressive or defensive someone is when discussing religious topics. Especially if this takes the form of emphatically and insistently protesting how they aren't wound up about such topics yet still have all sorts of reasons why they are so certain about their views.

If you can appreciate the questions I began with without feeling a need to start throwing out qualification after qualification, you might actually have those bonds loosened enough to thoughtfully engage with religious topics beyond the normal arguments posing as debates.

I spent quite a bit of time thinking that there some singular way, some right and true way, to understand spirituality and religion, whether this was by rejecting such things or by finding the proper way to practice leading to specific states of awareness, thought, or feeling. Even when the teachers and teachings said to reject being too rigid about what is "supposed to happen" and so on. There may be broad indicators of going in a good and healthy direction, but this isn't the same as some step-by-step blueprint. Over-identification with a label or specific (ir)religious identity is just as problematic in that you can end up worrying about being a true, good, or proper whatever.

This is one reason why it is challenging for me to try to break down where I am on these thing into something that fits the preconceptions found in debates over religion. This isn't to say my perspective is better than anyone elses. It is just a reminder that there is something beyond the false dichotomies that so frequently dominate discussions of religion.

Where is God? Christians tired of being "misrepresented" need to work harder to show what they believe

2014-05-07T19:09:00.000-04:00

[Pixabay]

Where you locate God affects how you relate to social justice. One location allows you to keep your religion separate from social change and political discourse, the other insists these cannot be viewed separately.

If you have or choose to read previous essays and speculations published here, you will come to recognize that my views on religion and spirituality are nuanced and fluid. For example, I find the declaring belief or lack of belief in God to be an impediment rather than a useful clarification (at least for myself). And while I rarely use the word much in my personal life, I often use "God" when writing about religion and spirituality as a shorthand for the deeper, grander mysteries of life and existence that transcend a human capacity for (full) comprehension or control.

I eschew adjectives such as "personal" and "impersonal" when it comes to discussions of divinity, with the use of the word "God" revealing an orientation toward understanding and experiencing existence. Neither strictly as an ideal nor as a specific object, but a larger unity underlying and pervading all we are, all we know, all we can be. Again, at least when I'm writing about this stuff or pushed to ask what kind of God might make sense to me. There isn't much need to worry about such depictions or definitions of God for my daily living. In practical terms I tend to leave "God" unfettered by words and overly specific expectations.

So if you're trying to figure out which category my views belong in when figuring out what angle I'm coming from in relation to the topic at hand, it's one of those really open approaches that drives some people with more fixed notions of what God must (not) or can(not) be to distraction. Yet I bring this up for more than honest disclosure about my own take on the idea of something like the concept of God. Because how one thinks about God shapes how one thinks about the value and purpose of formal religion in state-level societies as well as the larger global community.

If I had some need to worry about it, I suppose it would make sense that "God" (used here to represent the central concern or focus of religious notions of spiritual depth and personal transcendence) would be omnipresent yet not limited to any particular place or time. One of those weird sounding ideas theologians and philosophers talk about, this is sometimes rendered as being immanent (it's here with us) and transcendent (it's far beyond us) at the same time. There are ways of discussing how this works, including a kind of split-level monism in which immanence and transcendence reflect differences in perception and thus represent different modes of awareness, but we aren't getting into anything so heavy here. Not today.

But why does it matter where God is "located"? And what does it have to do with how those who identify as Christian behave and how they are perceived?

Where is God?

Now, just so you know, if you ask Christians, particularly those with some formal or even informal inclination toward theological reasoning and debate, you could get quite a bit from them about God being either immanent, or transcendent, or both, or neither. Most of them would justify their views by emphasizing the incarnational aspect of Christian theology, that is, God becoming human in the form of Jesus of Nazareth. That's all well and good for such debates and for those who adopt such theologies.

But it seems to me that for many Christians, regardless of their views on things like transcendence and immanence, God in fact only seems to exist in their own beliefs.

This is not a dig at religion, to say that "God only exists in their imaginations and therefore isn't real!" That issue is neither here nor there at the moment (see above). Rather it is to say, "God only exists in their imaginations and therefore isn't real to them" or in some cases "God only exists in their imaginations and therefore isn't relevant to anyone else." Both are problematic.

Let's deal with the first part, "God only exists in their beliefs/imaginations." What I am getting at here is that there is this constellation of related words, concepts, and images in a religion like Christianity that tend to become ever more inwardly focused and self-referential. They each point to and reinforce each other. This perpetual reification gives a sense of "something there", or at least "something somewhere", with a kind of social mass and psychological gravity of its own.

So, when you mention God in this context and there are these images and concepts that get stirred up, but if you ask someone to point it out to you, as in "Where actually is God?", the issue becomes a conundrum. If the answer is that God is transcendent (other-worldy), then there is nothing to point directly at, and the only thing that is accessible is that constellation of feeling and images and ideas associated with the religion. This is how those debates and arguments begin about whether those ideas and feeling count as evidence -- where did that constellation of ideas and feelings originate? Was it divinely inspired? One could also try to point at examples of recent miraculous claims associated with the religion, but these are controversial and problematic as well.

I pause here to point out that I am not rehashing such debate or inviting others to do so. Don't bother either trying to defend contemporary miracles or to ridicule them. The issue is that transcendence is sometimes used as an out (to oneself or others) for what this fuzzy constellation of things in people's heads is pointing to other than itself.

The other major option is to emphasize that God is (to some degree) immanent or this-wordly, but, the same kind of problem emerges. What specifically ties the everyday observable world to that specific constellation of beliefs about God? Where is God in the immediate world we inhabit?

Now, this can get into some deep philosophy about any set of assumptions and beliefs and their tether to the world around us, but again, that's not the point. We aren't going that deep.

The point is that the constellation in question tends to be self-sustaining, self-referential, and self-contained. So if you point to an incarnational theology showing that some aspect of God is (at least) a part of the world and is therefore directly connected to and concerned with it, then you are locating God (or at least God's interests) somewhere observable. For the transcendent angle, if people are somehow connecting to some larger realm beyond normal experience, again, it is relevant because it is connecting that greater reality or other-wordly awareness to our more conventional sense and experience of existence. To "this" world.

Or, to short-hand that, if such a constellation of thoughts, feelings, and symbols regarding a religion only points to itself it fails to be useful to anyone else not adopting that worldview. If such a constellation points only to itself, it must reinterpret everything in the more broadly shared and conventional view of the world to serve itself:

Why believe or act a certain way? "Jesus."

Why does that matter? "God."

And why does that matter? "Jesus."

And why does that matter? "The crucifixion/resurrection."

And why does that matter? "God."

And why does that matter? "The Bible."

And why does that matter? "God."

And why does that matter? "Jesus..."

When enthralled by such a constellation, it seems self-justifying and self-explanatory. Yet eventually, a half-way thoughtful Christian will begin pointing to things outside of the constellation. To claims about conventional miracles connected to Christianity. To reports or anecdotes about how believing somehow helped the faithful. Or how it led to actions and movements that helped others regardless of their belief. And so on.

Christian tired of being misrepresented by conservative traditionalists and regressive fundamentalists

So yes, it matters where Christians locate God and God's priorities. There is a tendency on the part of some Christians to want to be apart from the conventional world, and therefore to keep their religion away from issues surrounding social change and related political discourse. God is strictly transcendent and lives in that self-referential constellation of thoughts, feelings, symbols, and ideas associated with "Christianity". Salvation is a ticket to relocating to a heavenly realm after death. Charity with a "this-wordly" focus is OK as long as it is limited and doesn't suck you into larger issues and make you take sides.

In a sense, this makes sense for some non-fundmentalist Christians who are wary of seeing their fundamentalist counterparts injecting their fundamentalist Christian beliefs into politics and politics into their fundamentalist Christian beliefs. Those non-fundamentalists feel that their own beliefs are based on timeless values and that their beliefs shouldn't be weighed down or diluted by becoming overly intermixed with, or even contingent upon, particular stances regarding current social and political topics. So church is church, and the rest is separate except for some non-controversial charitable works. God and Jesus and the rest are tucked safely away in the pure constellation of beliefs and symbols, where they become largely ineffectual and irrelevant to everyone else.

It is one thing to have a constellation of images, feelings, and values that are set above the specific details of current social and political debates, it is another to refuse to try to translate those values for new generations and to tackle recurring sets of challenges. Or to do so in a wrecklessly overly cautious way that is always waiting to see which way the wind is blowing and taking up the rear of the parade. Sure, it makes sense to keep something like "God is love" or "Jesus is the icon of redemption" in the cloud of tradition, but what good are such views if they aren't taken out and exposed to the current problems facing individuals, communities, and societies? Go ahead and pass on "God is love" to the next generation, but also give them your own best effort at showing what that actually means, what it might look like, rather than allowing it to degrade into a hollow platitude. Otherwise the images and concepts stored in that self-referential constellation lose any sense of meaning outside of themselves, as per the sample dialogue provided.

I have had Christian friends tell me they are tired of being misrepresented, and there is even a Facebook group using that sentiment as their name. I understand where they are coming from. I understand their frustration. But they are at least as responsible for their own representation as other Christians are for such "misrepresentation".

Take marriage equality as an example.

In the United States, two of the most socially progressive Christian denominations are the United Church of Christ and the Episcopal Church (of the United States of America. Or, the UCC and ESUSA. As of 2005 the UCC's national body has encouraged its member congregations to recognize marriage equality for the LGBQT community, but given the UCC's structure that is all it can do and there has been definite resistance this recommendation. While the has UCC also recommended recognizing LGBQT people as full members of the church and promoted non-discrimination policies, again, its member congregations are not bound by the national body on such issues. Only a small percentage of them have officially adopted an "open and affirming" statement regarding LGBQT individuals.

The ESUSA made headlines in 2003 when an openly gay priest in a committed relationship with another man was installed as Bishop of the Diocese of New Hampshire. The elevation of the now retired Bishop Gene Robinson caused an acrimonious split between the ESUSA and many parishes who didn't approve of an openly gay bishop, especially a non-celibate one. Yet in 2006 the denomination's General Convention rejected a proposal to allow priests in Massachusetts to officially recognize marriages between gay couples. Other General Conventions in 2009 and 2012 have given Episcopal bishops the option to allow the blessings of same-sex unions in their own dioceses, and to do so with an official liturgical prayer, but the wording of these resolutions is clear in stating that this is not an official endorsement of same-sex marriage.

Let's be clear also. Unless the Unitarian Universalist Association is included, which is arguably a post-Christian church, we are talking here about two of the most LGBTQ friendly of the major mainline denominations in the US.

To provide some context, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) has a congregation-focused set up akin to the UCC and its national body officially endorsed an option for blessing same-sex unions in 2009, while the Presybeterian Church USA allows such blessing as long as the distinction between such unions and actual marriage is clear. The United Methodist Church (UMC) still does not recognize same-sex marriage and made the news after starting an in-house trial against a pastor who performed such a ceremony. Other pastors have also broken with the official policy regarding such ceremonies and may also face sanctions. Finally, some smaller denominations active the United States such as the Metropolitan Community Church endorse same-sex marriage and perform same-sex weddings.

And then there are all of the denominations and unaffiliated congregations who have no policy on the issue or are clearly and staunchly opposed to marriage equality.

The picture is one in which national leadership of some of the mainline denominations have tried a political solution of being somewhere in the middle on the issue of marriage equality by allowing individual congregations or dioceses to bless or perform sex-same unions so long as they aren't technically performing a wedding and sanctioning an actual marriage. Yet the number of parishes and congregations actively participating in programs to welcome LGBQT individuals, let alone to to actively promote marriage equality in their own houses of worship, is still underwhelming. And receiving a few kudos by virtue of standing out as being somewhat accepting of LGBQT people because so many vocal Christian groups are indifferent or outright hostile to the rights and dignity of gay and transgender individuals isn't exactly a badge of honor.

I wonder how many of these mainline dioceses and their parishes (or for those with a different structure how many congregations) are involved with equality and non-discrimination organizations such as PFLAG? After all, technically many of the mainline Protestant denominations at least mention an accepting attitude towards the LGBQT people somewhere on their national organizations' websites. Is that and the odd national committee on equality supposed to be an adequate response to the anti-LGBQT movement fueled by the religious right? To consequences such as teen bullying of gay and transgender youth and the associated suicides?

There are certainly other issues besides marriage equality and the challenges facing the LGBQT community, but given how loudly the anti-LGBQT horn is being trumpeted by those that are supposedly misrepresenting many of these Christians who are worried about the presentation of their faith, the issue is certainly a fair measuring stick. But hey, let's also look at issues like opposing war, eliminating nuclear weapons, promoting voting rights, and ensuring basic housing, nutrition, and healthcare for all. Other than social media slogans, standing committees, and a press release here and there on the national level, what are members on the ground working through local congregations doing?

Misrepresented by whom?

So who or what exactly is misrepresenting the Christians who do not endorse the views of the religious right in the US? The implication is that it would the religious right itself, but who else may be involved?

The national bodies representing these denominations and their slow and "safe" triangulation of how to please as many of their members as possible?

The large number of members in the various congregations and parishes who are not ready for or comfortable with more progressive views and activities?

All of which prompts the question: Are these socially liberal-leaning to politically progressive Christians actually being misrepresented? Or are they the outliers?

Perhaps more importantly, what are they actively doing in their own congregations and communities to live out their values and change such perceptions of Christians?

If that sounds like a challenge, you read it right.

Evangelical fundamentalists are guilty of the sin of homosexuality

2014-03-13T17:09:00.000-04:00

[Pixabay]

Even as they rail against the so-called gay agenda and wring their hands over what they perceive to be the legitimization of immorality, homosexuality remains a source of sin of which for which many who identify as Christians are guilty and for which they have yet to repent. But the gay community and its allies may yet set them free.

I say this for good reason, but there are some reasons that I do not claim. I don't claim to speak for anyone other than myself. Nor do I have any desire to pass judgment over any particular person or set myself up an official arbiter of religious righteousness or holiness, whether for Christianity or any other tradition.

But I do choose to emply the language some Christians use in passing judgment and condemning others for their sexual orientation (and we can expand that to their hangups over gender identity as well) in describing some observations about their perspective and behavior that I find objectionable.

A few words on sin

I find it interesting that sin and salvation can be understood in terms of spaciousness. The Jewish conception of salvation has a direct connection to the imagery of spaciousness, of being in a broad and fruitful place. This imagery can be taken in many ways, including phenomenologically, literally, metaphorically, imaginally, practically, and so on. Similarly, sin is connected to being confined, of being in a pit, or bound in chains, or in a desolate place.

As an offshoot of one of the first century sects of Judaism, Christianity has appropriated much of the imagery of its cultural forebears, at times keeping its original sense and at times modifying it. Dante Alighieri used this same imagery of constriction, for example, for depicting Hell as a place that gradually becomes narrower and more sparsely populated until it reaches Satan stuck in a small, dark, isolated space at the bottom.

Taking in this imagery, it suggests that the more deeply one becomes lost in such limiting and stale space, the more one descends into a barren, joyless, and fruitless existence. Shallow diversions and intense emotional distractions may temporarily seem to liven up this space, but their effects wear off more quickly after each use. A sense of hollowness and a deep malaise lurks when the noise stops. When silence is heard once more in the heart and mind.

The more time one spends in such a space, the more it changes a person. While the effects may not be perfectly consistent or universal, they involve a deep insecurity and sense of being unfulfilled. How these effects are expressed also varies. Some respond to this by denial, oddly enough by trying to fill their lives with noise that gives at least the appearance if not the sensation of being confident and successful. This becomes transmuted into arrogance and greed.

Other coveted virtues yield similar results, with condescension and cheapness masquerading as charity, manipulation, coercion, and gossip as concern, and so on. Unable to experience or express the genuine article, the counterfeits are tainted or corrupted. This perversion isn't necessarily intentional, and may in fact be the result of better intentions. Outwardly things may appear pleasant if not a little artificial or overdone.

Based on my own experiences and the reported experiences of others, this kind of sugar coated hypocrisy has become a stereotype of the evangelical fundamentalist Christian. They are by no means exclusive in having members that fit this mold. It does seem to be related, though, to seeking the kind of noise that covers the unease and gives the desired appearance and sense of self. A kind of noise that betrays a sense of not knowing or being comfortable with what it is they claim to possess.

This noise is manifest as an externalizing desire that transforms that hidden need to possess, to control, what they claim to already have by turning it into concrete expressions. Expressions based on loose perceptions of something they understand only in words and gestures. Thus "Jesus", "Christ", "The Cross", "God", "Salvation", "Heaven", and others are sold as books, music, decorations, and knick-knacks in circular, self-referential theology and diluted liturgy.

Some may end up resembling this stereotype based on imitation and inherited cultural patterns, so the underlying dynamics described aren't meant to reflect everyone who in someway resemble this stereotype. Nor is this stereotype the only outcome of those who find themselves in such a stifling, suffocating space. Rather it seems to be an outcome for those who are trying to convince themselves and others that they really do have the "fruits of the Spirit" (love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control) when they lack sufficient inner spaciousness, springs, and light to bear them to the degree that they wish to present.

For those who are unfamiliar with or who have an aversion to religious language, as well as for those who recognize it but want to see how it works into the observation I started with, allow me to briefly unpack that imagery a little as I show why this relates to fundamentalist attitudes toward issues such as sexuality and gender identification.

The Divine as growth and freedom

Understand, this language is poetic, meaning it is imaginal and metaphorical. No active religious commitment is required to use or understand it. The spaciousness of the heart is a commentary on how much of reality it can take. How many triumphs and disappointments? How much excitement and tediousness? How many people and which kinds? In other words, how much patience, gratitude, and acceptance is your emotional center able to handle? The inner springs are the sources of what emerge in the heart as hope, creativity, faith, spontaneity, and vitality. Light represents compassion, wisdom, insight, and the like.

So, a spacious heart that is bright and filled with active springs is able to channel or generate, and thus able to increase the reality and magnify experience of, that which we call love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, the ultimate source of these things is Spirit, hence they are referred to by the Apostle Paul as the fruits of the Spirit. Those in other religious traditions or adhering to non-religious philosophies or ideologies can readily understand this imagery whether they agree that the Spirit of God, as represented by Christianity, is in fact the source of these things.

This is an important point. Whether the Abrahamic, and specifically Christian, view of God is ultimately useful or meaningful to anyone in particular, this imagery of spaciousness and fruitfulness is describing the nature of a person who is open to reality as it comes and who is able and willing to live in it. A person who doesn't need a cloud of noise composed of words, concepts, emotions, and general busyness to keep the revelations of silence at bay. A person who doesn't use such a cloud to avoid exploring existential depth, and who explores such depth directly and without obfuscation; that is, without pretending that clever arguments about doctrine and philosophy are the sum if such exploration. Who is comfortable dwelling in a place beyond the reach of her intellect, physical strength, political influence, and other sources of human power and security.

You can well imagine then what the opposite of this would be like. And, sadly, you don't have to imagine. There are people of every political, social, and religious identity and affiliation who match that description. Some who knowingly dwell in such a dark, claustrophobic space and those who only sense a kind of unease when confronted with the limits of their familiar expectations and sense of control. Who grow restless when silence begins to reassert itself from the margins of their lives.

A popular theological construction of this experience of a lack of spaciousness and of increasing limitation is that it is the result of sin, wherein sin is that which causes separation from God or the Divine. What this might mean is related to how one perceives God; that is, what one understands as the meaning and value behind the word God. But if we consider the concept of freedom and spaciousness given, we have some clue to the meaning implied. As one Christian prayer states, to know God is perfect freedom. The gist of it all is that moving toward wholeness and growth is both the nature and the will of the Divine, while becoming and remaining stuck and stunted is not.

I can hear many of you sarcastically or bitterly retorting, "Knowing God is freedom?!?"

That's the idea. Or should I say the ideal? Yet you wouldn't know it by looking at the stated beliefs and recorded activities of many professing Christians. Which brings us back to the what happens when people get stuck in their smallness and try to emulate the feelings, thoughts, and actions of those who actually know the pain and joy of spaciousness. In turn that takes us back to the Christian evangelical fundamentalists and their attitudes and actions regarding sexuality and gender.

Repentance and salvation

"OK", you may say, "so some aspects of various major religions at least talk about growth and liberation. But what about those who are determined to turn their religion into a rigid, unchanging set of rules, attitudes along with strict interpretations of key stories and images? A tradition wherein there is a a narrowly pre-formatted path for growth? Similarly pre-patterned sets of behaviors? Lists of approved music, reading, and movies? Where keeping up the proper appearances is a demonstration of your loyalty as well as spiritual wellness?"

Ask those who have left such forms of religion. You can see it in their eyes when they talk about their experiences. Some are very bitter. Some shake their head and laugh. Many abandon the entire religion for another, or for some loose form of spirituality, or become non-religious. They talk about the strange mentality one had to maintain, the cognitive and emotional dissonance involved. And they talk about how liberated they felt to leave, whether it was for another religious tradition or for atheism. They feel they can finally deal with reality rather than the artificial sets of expectations and filters that everything previously needed to pass through. They talk about how they have grown and expanded.

To put it bluntly, to use Judeo-Christian imagery and language, they have been brought into a more spacious, fruitful place. To repent means to turn away, to change direction. It isn't an easy thing, as it means going a new way, entering places that seem uncomfortable or unfamiliar. At least at first. Again, the imagery of salvation is tied to moving toward spaciousness. So to leave that which is familiar, and to strike out in a different direction is, for those trapped in fundamentalist religion, a form of repentance. And the eventual relief they feel, a measure of salvation.

I am sure that if those who are into rigid evangelicalism/fundamentalism, whether it is the more common non-Mainline Protestant variety or not, were to read that, there would be an impulse to defend their form of inflexible narrowness by quoting something about the narrow way leading to life, but if the kind of narrowness they impose is so amazing and life affirming, why do so many people leave it behind? Why is it that people experience such affirmation of life and a sense of growth after abandoning such a religious outlook? The point here isn't to convince such people of this, as there is always another response, and another, and endless debate. No doubt it would involve a notion of the elect, and predestination, and the temptations of evil, and so on.

Rather, the point is that if we take the Judeo-Christian imagery of sin and salvation seriously (if not every theological claim and spin that has been attached to them), it would seem that in fact many fundamentalists, especially those of the saccharine hypocrisy and the spoiled spiritual fruits, are in fact trapped in their own dark pits. And those who have left those pits give some grim depictions of what they are like. Yet no less grim than similar accounts found, appropriately enough, in places like the Bible.

If we were to ask if fundamentalist religion is the only such pit, or whether people who escape from one kind of pit sometimes end up in another, we would be on a good and healthy track. Whether or not you practice Christianity or any other religion, the imagery it offers of sin and salvation is worth pondering. (Assuming you can get past all of the baggage.) Ones life is regularly in need of examining. By now, having followed along to this point, you might already see how we get to my initial observation. Still, let's finish it up.

Trapped in the sin of homosexuality (and other pits)

Using our spaciousness/growth versus confined/stunted imagery, with one leading to what we are calling here salvation and the other to damnation, we can see that imagery playing out in a number of ways.

On the LGBQT* side, we have the pain, guilt, and frustration of being "in the closet". Of having to hide or disguise who they are because of fear of the judgment of others as well as their own condemnation and dissatisfaction with themselves. That is a form of Hell, and it leads many to self-harm and suicide. Surely then, having encouragement and support to repent of such self-loathing and fear and come out of the closet is a form of salvation. Again, no commitment to Christianity or its theology is required to appreciate the use of this imagery.

On the flip side, trying to keep people in such spaces -- spaces that suffocate their souls -- would be a form of evil. That's the thing about sin. Again using Judeo-Christian imagery, it wounds in both directions. It binds you in a set of chains and drops you in a dark place. In trying to use outdated sexual mores and misinterpreted scriptural passages to justify inherited cultural norms of bigotry, those same Christians are walling themselves off from reality and preferring the darkness of their ignorance. And it isn't just about sexuality and gender. They are doing it with religious xenophobia, science denial, economic denial, and so many other things.

The rotten fruits of such a spirit allow hatred or exclusion to be preached and practiced as love, with ignorance and denial accepted as wisdom. (And for those who would suggest that Divine wisdom appears foolish to wordly wisdom, keep in mind that "the world" in such a context isn't simply material/physical reality is the realm of the dark pit).

At the end of the day, we are all bound and we are all free in ways that are good for us and bad for us in relative terms. Some restrictions are helpful and beneficial at particular times in life, and some options and choices can be overwhelming and cause problems. But when it comes to what we can call a spiritual perspective, a perspective rooted in our common potential and aspiration as human beings, a perspective that transcends where and who we are at any given moment, being limited by fear, anger, aggression, self-doubt, callousness, hopelessness, and similar chains is always lamentable. Setting people free from such chains and helping them into a more spacious and fruitful place is always commendable.

Currently, many people who identify as Christians are trapped by chains in which they have bound themselves in through their ignorance, fear, or loathing with regard to the LGBQT* community. Homosexuality, or at least their understanding of it, has become pit into which they have fallen. It is a sin in which they trapped.

Those who have been hurt by the impact of such discriminatory rhetoric and activity may have little sympathy for those trapped in such a place, and I'm not sure what I could say to those too wounded to have mercy on those who persecute them and to forgive those who sin against them. I could say that, ironically, it's the "Christian thing to do". But I would like to believe that it's more than that. That maybe we can decide that it's the human thing to do.

So go on, take action to help someone get past their assumptions and their limitations today. Help grant a measure of salvation for their soul. Those in the most constricting forms of fundamentalism are not "bad" or "evil" people, and they often can only assume that others reject their views because of the temptations of Satan and the culture of permissiveness that he inspires. But harm can come from decent but misguided people as much as from those who lash out in pain, disregard the welfare of others, or intentionally seek to inflict harm. Help show them that there is nothing to fear or despise in accepting basic rights and dignity for the LGBQT* community.

Underinformed Speculation and Elaboration on Buddhist Teachings

2013-11-26T20:38:00.001-05:00

[Pixabay]

Is there a point to the core Mahayana teachings that people in the West can appreciate today?

First let me tell you that the under-informed speculation and elaboration on Buddhist teachings refers to what I write here when I happen to be pondering such a topic. A perusal of the past eight years worth of material confirms this.

This means I am not here to present myself as speaking with any kind of authority on behalf of the Buddhist tradition as a scholar in the field or a long time fruitful and insightful practitioner who speaks from years of ever-deepening wisdom. It's important to state that up front. If you think I sound ignorant, I probably am.

So what background am I coming from? In my spare time I've read some key sutras, many commentaries on major sutras, summaries of commentaries on important sutras, and summaries and commentaries compiled about the summaries and commentaries of those sutras, and once in a while I actually attempt some form of practice. Plus I've got a little familiarity with materials comparing different traditions such a Christian and Buddhist mysticism and monasticism. If that sounds impressive, you're funny. If you think it is, trust me, it isn't.

So with that introduction out of the way, off we go.

The World of Illusion

So much ink and so many pixels have been used to write about terms such as emptiness for Western audiences and who, including me, have little real appreciation for the unspoken cultural transmission and atmosphere that provides context for such concepts.

And I suspect that many people are intellectually over-dosing on these terms.

I think they are useful and even ingenious, but I can't help feeling that they are what are called skillful means, or tricks to get people to follow the right path and help them overcome obstacles on the path. Allow to me to explain what I mean by using the broad, generic translations of the terms as they are widely known in the English-speaking world.

Emptiness refers to lack of intrinsic existence of phenomena, i.e. things we encounter in our experiences of reality. We discriminate our experiences into different individual "things" (phenomena), divide those phenomena into named categories (taxa), assign properties and qualities to those taxa (traits), and establish causal scenarios in which taxa interact with each other via their traits. We use these causal relationships to understand and explain what we observe. For example, the Earth's gravity pulls the ball back to the ground. Earth and ground are the primary phenomena, and gravity is another phenomenon that acts as a property of the Earth acting on an unnamed property of the ball (its mass) to produce an effect -- the falling of the ball.

Social scientists and psychologists study how we come to have a sense of reality and how it works. By making our taxa and weaving them together into causal scenarios, we have a sense of how things are and how things ought to be. We produce a subjective sense of reality. We use our mental algorithms for shaping and interpreting our perception to augment that sense of reality and similar algorithms to explain and predict what is happening around us based on that sense of reality.

If those latter algorithms seem to correctly predict things more often than not, we assume they are accurate, even though it is possible that we are right sometimes for the wrong reasons or that we are simply selectively seeing things that match our expectations or interpreting our experiences to fit our expectations. Because we have a sense of how thing ought to be as well as a sense of how things are, we feel any disconnect between the two in emotional and moral terms: fairness, justice, rightness, satisfaction, and so on, as well as their opposites such as unfairness, injustice, wrongness, dissatisfaction, regret, longing, and so forth.

"Fine", you may be thinking, "but where are you going with this?"

Fair enough. Here is why it matters to the topic at hand.

Since we make categories within categories within categories of experience, name them and assign them qualities and properties, and then create narratives and scenarios for how they interact, we are creating an artificial and abstract sense of reality. We get just a bit of info about something and interpolate and extrapolate with the mental algorithms used in creating, maintaining, and employing our subjective sense of reality to connect that little bit of information to the categories and patterns we accept as fundamentally real. In plainer English, we use the sense of how things work, a sense produced by our minds, to "know" the objects of our perception -- who or what they are, what they are like, what they will likely do, etc. Even from a small bit of information.

By way of example, when we see someone of a certain skin color, dressed a certain way, acting a certain way, at a particular place and time, and wa la!, we suddenly have all sorts of assumptions about the person. Even if we remind ourselves of the dangers of assumptions and of stereotypes, deep down we still kind of think we have the score.

Racism is a great example, because people will point out different skin colors, face shapes, hair texture, and say, "See, race is real!" But what people fail to realize is that if that is all people meant by race, no one would give a damn. "Oh look, what superficial traits did you inherit? I love that color and the shape of your cheeks!" The term has been used that way for non-human species at times, but for ourselves, scientific racism implied that such traits defined clearly divisible categories with fixed boundaries (they don't) and that they were connected to deeper aspects of our being. Aspects such as inherent physical strength or weakness and the capacity for morality, cleverness, creativity, aspiration, and so on.

By making racial categories along these lines much harm has been done. And the categories themselves aren't accurate. Biology, psychology, sociology, and anthropology tell us that much of what we defined as race was arbitrary and artificial. That is, socially constructed. And what is left after correcting those errors doesn't support attempts to classify people by race.

This is an example of how our human way of understanding reality can be misleading and harmful, but it isn't always so. Many great discoveries and inventions have come about thanks largely to forms of discriminating conceptual thinking. Still, errors such as racism mean that we have to be humble and cautious. That's sensible when you realize that we create and live in an artificial world based on incomplete, inaccurate, and biased information.

Emptiness, Impermanence, and No-Self

So emptiness is great in this regard because it seems to recognize these kinds of problems and operates off of an awareness of the artificiality of our conventional sense of reality. This includes the fact that each category upon which our conventional sense of reality is grounded is connected causally to other categories. Emptiness reveals this by telling us that everything we think is real is conditioned, which means that it arises from particular causes and conditions. Because this requires a consideration of components that are used to describe and explain the thing itself, this in turn implies that all individual things are composites or aggregates made up of other, smaller things. Of course, these other smaller things have their causes and components, and so on and so on. This is how our "discriminating mind", the mind of ideas and concepts and language, works.

So all conditioned things are empty, and everything you think is real is conditioned, so it follows that everything you think is real is conditioned. Perfect.

And because of how we perceive our experiences in terms of motion and hence time, we see these conditioned phenomena arise and pass away. Or in classic Buddhist terms, we see birth and death, emergence and extinction. So Buddhism teaches that conditioned things are impermanent. Therefore, everything you think is real is impermanent.

Now, if that is so, then we have to apply these rules to ourselves. That means our bodies, thoughts, and feelings are also empty and impermanent, which naturally leads to the idea of no-self. As in no permanent and inherently existing self that doesn't depend on specific causes and conditions.

In perusing Buddhist writings you will frequently read that the value of these teachings is that they keep us from grasping at the illusions we create about our experiences and the suffering that results.

In quick summation:

We have avarice or aversion to things because we think we know what they are, but we mostly see what our minds conjure for us based on limited information and presumption. We become fixated on ("attached" to) these things, sometimes aggressively. We do so out of our ignorance, experiencing emotions like greed and anger. We then become disappointed or frustrated with our experience of these things (ideas, physical objects, people, etc), so we suffer. Being self-centered, we may be disappointed that the world doesn't seem to give us what we want the way that we want it.

And even if we aren't disappointed with the things we focus on and are satisfied with our sense of how the world ought to be, because these things we grasp at (including those that create our sense of the world) are impermanent, we will still suffer. Either when these things change or when they fall apart, both due to impermanence. This includes our own sense of self and the aggregate composite of who we think we are -- our minds and bodies. Buddhist scriptures and teachings go into highly detailed and laborious detail about all of this, but for brevity's sake, this description of grasping and suffering will due.

So here we are, with our egoistic minds at the center of our sense of reality trying to cope with our existence. But they can't. They keep churning and churning like a series of linked supercomputers with extremely sophisticated software trying to adjust to individual experiences and make sense of it all, yet we stay sane because our minds hide a lot of the discrepancies and inconsistencies from us and keep us from spontaneously thinking about really deep existential questions. If you want to see the man behind the curtain, or what exactly lurks down the rabbit hole, you have to be intentional about it. And strong focus and concentration doesn't hurt either. Which is where many traditional Buddhist practices involving concentration and the contemplation of the nature of things come in.

What we have so far is that the teachings of emptiness, impermanence, and no-self help us see the limitations of our egocentric, inter-subjective sense of reality. These teachings also suggest that we suffer because of our inaccurate or distorted views and our attempts to create a coherent view of existence with our limited minds. If we apply these teachings, we can overcome such suffering somehow.

And that, as readers of contemporary popular Buddhist literature, from magazines to books to professional blogs, is mostly what everyone focuses on and writes about, finding creative ways to suggest how these teachings can "solve" the problems upon which a particular a segment of society is fixated.

But something important is missing here, isn't it?

Where Does Any of This Take Us?

For some contemporary Buddhists, this conclusion or summary doesn't "take us" anywhere. That's it. That's all Buddhism is about. Just severe your attachments by accepting emptiness, impermanence, and no-self and your suffering will cease. Any elaboration is just meaningless, counter-productive, and misleading speculation from the same mind that created all of the confusion and distortion in the first place.

That may be so, in which case I am going into error by writing more. But that's how we learn, right?

To get at what is missing, let's consider some of the implications of what has been stated already:

Does emptiness mean non-existence? No, it just means no inherent existence that doesn't rely on particular causes and conditions. This is universally accepted Buddhist thought as far as I can tell.

Does impermanence mean non-existence? No, it just means that everything changes and is transformed according to circumstances.

Does non-attachment mean not having any feelings toward or serious interaction with conditioned phenomena? No, but exactly what is or isn't appropriate interaction is definitely up for debate in Buddhist teachings. In some cases certain feelings, like love, are considered attachments to be severed. We could inquire what exactly is meant by love, but from what I've read it often refers to a kind of selfish attitude involving how the object of affection makes you feel or supports your sense of how things ought to be. More egocentrism. In other cases, the issue is that you aren't "loving" (or having any other meaningful interaction with) the object as it is but rather as you see it or want it to be, which will lead to problems for ourselves and, if the object is a person, for them as well.

Does no-self mean non-existence? No. Maybe. Sort of but not really. Yes, this is a juicy one. For some Buddhists, it is OK to accept the conventional existence of conditioned phenomena, yet since conditioned phenomena are impermanent aggregates, the causes and conditioning holding that named conglomeration of parts (that would be you) cannot last and so the object will eventually fall apart. Even while it is still holding together, its smaller parts are still falling apart and being replaced according to other causes and conditions, so the thing is never quite the same from moment to moment anyway even before it comes undone. The upshot, if we leave things here, is that as a person you only exist temporarily and most of what you and other think about who you are is a mirage. In that sense, you exist. You change and change and then the body fails, the mind fails, and you die.

This brings us to the 64 billion kalpa question:

What does this all of this really mean for my existence and the nature of reality? This is broken down numerous ways, with popular versions such as "What actually happens when I die?" and "If there is no self that continues after death then what revolves in the cycle of birth and death" and "If there is no self that continues after death then what is liberated or realizes nirvana?" These are not new questions, as you can find versions of them in texts such as the Lankavatara Sutra, which is estimated to be about 1600 to 1700 years old.

Both the Hidden Consciousness (Yogacara) and Mind-Only (Tathatagarbha) traditions of Buddhism posit a kind of eternally existing and blissful something from which all conditioned phenomena arise and to which all things return. So purification of the alaya consciousness (quick and dirty definition: the deepest part of your individual nature which transmigrates from life to life and influences the nature of your rebirth) or some similar attribute is essential to practice. The point is to recognize this external, blissful something as the true nature of all things, including yourself.

The Middle Way (Madhymaka) tradition focuses primarily on the emptiness of all things and a rejection of eternalism and annihilationism. But just how it does so is another issue that is up for debate. One way of doing this is to say that because of emptiness and impermanence, nothing stays the same forever, so eternal existence in your present form is impossible. On the other hand, there is a kind of (gasp!) "self", at least in the sense of a continuity of some indescribable essence which molds itself according to causes and conditions but which is technically not destroyed (or annihilated) when the form it takes ceases to exist. Even when that essence is no longer you, it still exists.

I am sure Buddhist scholars would have a bone or three to pick with my summaries, and comments to that effect are welcome, but if we go with this rough picture of the major historical traditions of Mahayana Buddhist thought we can see how there might be different answers to our big question and its correlates.

Yet all of those traditions tend to emphasize the teaching of emptiness and to argue against particular notions of eternalism and annihilationism. For example, the traditions emphasizing an eternally existing something identify that something as being pure and empty. Meanwhile, some interpretations of the Madyamaka tradition seem to turn emptiness in a kind of eternal well of infinite potential from which form (conditioned existence) arises. So what does that mean for our question?

And this is where it gets tricky, because here is where consensus begins to really break down.

So, Again, What Does It Mean?

If you read this far thinking I have the answers, I apologize for disappointing you. I'm also really shocked that you would think so. Someone better versed in the sutras and ancient teachings of Buddhism could do a better job of running through the different options for what it all means at this point, as well as what if anything it's good for in light of what has already been described. As for myself, I will use the "wildly-swinging-a-machete" approach to sorting out this Gordian knot.

We can break the issue down into a few major options based on what I've come across so far. In doing so I'm broadly generalizing and summarizing.

First is a nihilist position. You are a conditioned thing. You will cease to be when you die. The teachings are meant to help you reduce or eliminate suffering in this life. For some this is it -- the whole point of Buddhist teachings and practice. For others who accept the reality of karma, the teachings are also meant to keep your karma from generating another life of suffering after you are gone. That new life won't be "you" in any sense. Extinction means just exactly what it sounds like. Nothingness, except maybe for some ethereal cosmic play dough that is longer being shaped by the consequences of your actions. This position or a variation on it seems to be somewhat popular in Western societies.

Second is a pseudo-nihilist position. This is similar to the first one, but it emphasizes that extinction can be realized while you are still alive rather than after your conditioned existence ends. Hence, while "you" are still "alive" you can live in bliss being freed from illusion and its resultant suffering by simply appreciating the freedom of emptiness, impermanence, and no self. The freedom to explore your life and its experiences unfettered by limited assumptions coloring your perception. Still, when you die, you die, and some essence (usually "emptiness") goes on without you. Another less common variation is that you may still kind of exist if causes and conditions are right to "summon" you, such as living on in someone's heart. In this case, every potential thing exists in emptiness and comes and goes as they are summoned, but "you" are more like a stored imprint or memory.

Third is an eternalist position. It is similar to the variation on the pseuo-nihilist position, except that you aren't just a memory or imprint. Not exactly. You exist in the well of infinite potential (which is how emptiness is presented in this view), and you can indeed return and materialize in the world of form, that is, the world of conditioned things. But it is by choice, not because you have been summoned against your will by karma (those causes and conditions of rebirth). You are "you" in the sense of your conscious continuity and thus your recollection of your previous incarnations, but you are not quite the same you. Just as you are and yet are not the same "you" at age 50 as you are at age 5 or 15. "You" are the same trajectory or continuity of awareness that has been accumulating wisdom and growing in compassion, and you readily merge with or diverge from the unity of all things when existing in emptiness or existing in form. In fact, you can do both simultaneously, so that "you" are capable of being a you, a we, an us, an I, and nothing in particular at all at once. In other words, you exist as something that cannot be categorized, labeled, or conceived of by the individual human mind. We can refer to this indescribable state for the sake of convenience as Mind.

Fourth a pseudo-eternalist position, which in some ways is like the eternalist position and also the pseudo-nihilist position. The whole eternally existing Mind that dwells in emptiness is the same as the eternalist position, but you lose your distinctiveness as continuity of awareness and instead merge permanently into the larger awareness of Mind. So any appearance of "you" or any of your individual qualities is more like a projected image or replica for the sake of convenience or usefulness.

I am sure people can come up with other positions, but these summarize the poles around which people seem to be revolving when they write and teach about Mahayana Buddhism. At least that's how I break it down. I strongly suspect anyone who has studied or practiced Buddhism, at least in Western societies, will have an affinity with one of these positions above the others. Or at least recognize something in them.

Nor is this just idle academic or philosophical speculation. Since Mahayana Buddhism is concerned with the welfare of others as well as oneself, the meaning of such concern and the possibilities of how one can reach and help them is paramount. If one wishes to take Buddhism seriously, then the meaning of things such as wisdom, compassion, bodhi(-mind), and so on, as well as the value and purpose of practice, must be properly understood. Each of these positions gives a different spin on these things, as well as concepts like liberation, nirvana, Buddha-nature, and so on. Even if one "goes beyond words and concepts", which meanings of what words launched you there? Which are you transcending? In the nihilist position, for example, nirvana is just bait to get people to practice, so why bother discussing it?

And speaking of going beyond words and concepts, let us recall that emptiness, impermanence, and no-self are human concepts based on a recognition of the limitations and flaws of trying to understand reality based on -- yes -- human concepts. Which rely on our "interacting categories" that make up our artificial view of the world, remember?

Do we then assume that everything in reality must play by those rules, or just the things we experience and turn into categories and definitions? Some varieties of Buddhist thought seem to insist on the former, making their claims a little suspect.

So if one is able to get a glimpse beyond such blinders, what would one see?

Is it what the Buddha saw? And which of our four major positions (or something else) would it support? Are the symbolic and poetic images of the sutras and other teachings (and even the scriptures of other religions and sacred paths) just wishful thinking, or perhaps skillful means to make people happier and kinder? Or are they revealing something that is indeed ineffable and amazing? Something toward which one should set ones life?

I suppose to get the answer to that question, one should make up ones mind to practice whole-heartedly, and by being open and vulnerable to the possibilities, make ones way to the unknown. That is, have diligent practice guided by faith.

What do you have faith in? Does my summary fit with your own experiences of the presentation of Buddhism in the English speaking world?

Thanks for reading. I'm going to go now and learn something about patience, compassion, and loving-kindness by spending some time with my dogs.

God (and religions) are and are not one, so there

2013-11-09T14:09:00.001-05:00

[Pixabay]

With Stephen Prothero's book God Is Not One still causing waves in religious writing online, I am going to put forward some thoughts that are probably completely unoriginal.

I haven't had a chance to properly read Prothero's book, but based on summaries, blurbs, and reviews, I get the feeling that while he acknowledges commonalities such as the Golden Rule and the similar experiences of mystics and contemplatives, he also worries that specific differences between theologies, dogmas, rituals, etc are being over-looked or minimized. Those who have used Prothero's book echo this sentiment as well as the belief that treating all religions more or less the same is both disrespectful and dangerous. Dangerous because it obscures differences that can fuel conflict.

Perhaps what I'm going to write here is something covered already in God Is Not One, but is that such a bad thing? Again, I am not writing in response to Prothero but to the conversations online his book has inspired.

First up, yes, there are difference in the narratives of different religions, and different versions, interpretations, and emphases on the dominant narrative within an individual narrative. Yes, such narratives include variation and ambiguity that allows for rituals and texts to be used for different purposes or to come to different conclusions about existential mysteries and daily life. Yes, glossing over these differences is problematic when they are important to particular practitioners or groups of practitioners. So no argument from me here on that score.

Second, there is more to religious commonalities and distinctions than this. Which is where I may disagree with both those who insist that God is one and those who insist God is not.

Let's proceed.

More Religious Distinctions

I would suggest that we keep in mind that religion tends to refer to a mythical narrative (myth here referring to key stories that tell us about existential truths of the human condition) and its associated practices and institutions that arise in societies with intensive agriculture and at least the early vestiges of state level societies (or civilizations as they are classically known in archeology). That is, after subsistence strategies and settlement patterns allowed for individuals to become full time specialists in service to society through its rulers, therefore allowing for a formal priesthood rather than the shamanic diviners and healers common to small-scale societies.

What, then, do we call the mythical narratives and its practices and social institutions in small-scale societies or those transitioning to the larger, more complex form of social organization and stratification of civilizations? It is often just lumped in as "religion" as well, but if we are going to take a more nuanced approach to the topic we should also recognize such differences as well in how "religion" is structured, perceived, and practiced according to the size and complexity of a particular community.

There are differences between a religion of a larger society or state and that of a cluster of small clans. The unseen forces shaping, guiding, or controlling the world take on different forms and significance. The social function and organization of the tradition can be vary. And that's just to start.

The point isn't to add another layer of distinction to deal with, but to highlight that people in different societies, cultural communities, and so on may understand what people in postmodern industrial societies label as religion. For example, the idea of segregating such aspects of worldview and social life into its own sphere called "religion" separate from other aspects of human existence isn't the norm everywhere. It's just part of the fabric of reality.

Nor can we ignore the fact that people in larger societies often impose their own assumptions about religion as they have experienced as generalities true of all religion: that it involves personified divine beings, that it involves an afterlife, and so on. Attempts to over-generalize are highly problematic. My own broad framework, about a mythical narrative and its associated practices and social institutions, isn't a bad start but it defies expectations about all the other bits people take for granted as being necessary for religion. Even adding in unseen or cryptic forces that shape, guide, or control the world still leaves thing very vague. But not so vague as to be without usefulness, as it lets us appreciate that anything directly and intimately tied to such elements of cultural tradition are assumed to be make up the "religion" of a particular community.

When people in the post-modern world talk about religious unity or universality, they refer to common ethical standards or imply that the forces at work behind the scenes are in fact the same. By using one or both of these assertions, there is an assumption is that these are what really matter the most about religion. This highlights a crucial point -- not only does ecological, social, political, economic, and cultural environment interact to shape what we are loosely referring to here as religion, but also how individuals see the point and value of religion. This gives us another way to think about religious similarity and difference.

Categories of Religious Perception and Participation

While this perspective could be filled with a number of categories, I will use four here. One is the spiritual category. By spirituality I am referring to the impulse for seeking meaning and therefore purpose, typically through the pursuit of self-transcendence by incorporating oneself into some larger structure or system offering such meaning. This does not necessarily involve following a religious tradition or believing in what are called spirits. Rather, spirits reflect a set of beliefs deriving from this impulse. Religious people in the spiritual category often seek out hidden mysteries, esoteric knowledge, and are driven by curiosity, a sense that there is "something more" to existence, or a longing for something greater to life. Rituals and other practices allow one to be a seeker.

Then there is the kinship category, which we could also call the social identification and affiliation category. Here, the quest for a sense of meaning or purpose is sought out by relationships and placing oneself within a lineage that identifies with some mythic founder. Mythic here doesn't mean "not based on a real historic person", but that the person is a key figure in the religious narrative and is often described in exaggerated and symbolic imagery. This category emphasizes belonging (and not belonging) to the religious community and this is useful in signalling not only your beliefs but your allegiance and family history. Rituals and other practices distinguish you as a member of a particular tradition.

Next up is the political category. All of these categories overlap, and there is certainly overlap with the kinship category, but here the focus is on social influence. That is, on power. On how relationships reflect relative power to others and the source of authority for that power (sanction of divine beings, possession of magical powers, etc) and how it plays out in the community. This can be coercive or persuasive power, enforced by societies governing institutions, by acceptance of the religious tradition's authority in determining leaders, or by individual charisma. Rituals and other practices demonstrate and validate power relationships within the community.

Lastly is the magical category. The main attraction here is the ability to influence or control the hidden forces of the universe. This might be for material desires or social ambitions. It might also be used to placate or please the cryptic powers. The existence of those forces and their ability to be influenced by human activity and in turn alter something about reality is crucial. Rituals and other practices allow one to influence hidden forces to achieve a desired outcome.

Now, again, these categories are not mutually exclusive and any particular religious belief and behavior will involve more than one of them, but the goal here isn't to see how a belief in being saved from hell, for example, puts together elements from different categories of religious experience and perception. Instead, it is to suggest that the emphasis for any particular religion or a specific school or sect within that religion can focus more on some of these categories and less on others. Also, individuals within a religion may focus more on one or two of these categories over the others.

So, if you or your sect focuses on the kinship and political categories, the importance of the differences in tradition, distinctive beliefs and practices, and so on that set you and your community apart will be emphasized. The idea of all religions being more or less the same becomes foolish and insulting.

If the focus is on the spiritual and religious categories, especially the former, the relaxed attitudes about distinguishing groups and focusing on power relationships and authority (both of the community and within it) allows for a more universalizing attitude. It's more plausible that there the same forces are at work behind all religions which are then filtered through individual cultural communities.

In other words, there can be Buddhists, Christians, Muslims, and Wiccans who all stress the importance of the differences between their religions and focus on those details, and there can be members of those religions who see each other as kindred spirits on different paths to the same goal. Neither attitude can be said to be more or less genuine or authentic in terms of being religious.

While it may be true that differences are sometimes ignored or glossed over, the important thing is to appreciate to whom this matters and why.

God (and religions) are and are not one. So there.

The star fish will always be with you.

2013-09-28T10:14:00.003-04:00

[Pixabay]

The title might throw you off, but the topic is about charity, compassion, and religious outreach.

OK, so here's how we get from A to Z.

I was thinking recently about how some religious organizations and groups plan and organize their efforts to connect or engage with the community. The fact is that I tend to be either uninterested or skeptical about such efforts, so I wondered why that should be so and what advice I would offer. Not that my opinion should carry more weight than anyone else's, but to see if I could come up with something other than a complaint.

To be clear, I wasn't thinking of any particular effort, like a bake sale or raffle, just the general idea. And one of the things that occurred to me is the way that people sometimes have a tendency to treat other people as objects to validate their view of the world or as means to an end. In short then, interaction in such situations isn't about the individual as a person, a whole person, but some value attached to that person from the perspective of another party.

To stick with the religious example, from an institutional point of view, it may seem desirable to have more members. There are many reasons for this, but that desire there and we know it. From the perspective of validating one's worldview, there may also be a desire for people to join or convert to your religion or a specific form of that religion. These things may be rationalized as being "good for" the individuals converting and becoming members, yet the tell is in how people are being treated.

For example, how concerned is the institution or organization interested in the overall well-being of the individual versus their loyalty or commitment of the individual to the institution and its rules and requirements? How much pressure is there to conform to the institution's view of the world and its emphasis on how to live regardless of the effect this has on the individual's mental or emotional heath Or social development and fulfillment. Regardless of the individual's doubts, objections, or concerns?

This is a more extreme example, but subtler forms also exist for many institutions, social movements, and self-conscious social categories. My thoughts lead me to consider what effect these subtler forms of objectification/reduction of individuals have and what a different approach might look like.

This caused my thinking to take a bit of a "spiritual" turn.

The banality of not quite evil

Getting back to the original example of religious organizations and their various forms of outreach and engagement, let's turn out attention to marketing and branding.

Basically, if you are trying to motivate people to adopt something, you have to try to sell it somehow. If you treat affiliation or membership with a religious institution, or some claimed benefit of said affiliation, as a product, your concern will be with how to advertise your product, how to market it to target groups, and how to distinguish your brand.

In societies such as the United States, advertising, marketing, and branding are in the air people breath. Everything is a product that belongs to some individual or group. Every choice is about a cost-benefit analysis and who stands to profit from how you spend your time, how you perceive your identity, and so on. Even if you are oblivious to it, the forces seeking status through power and wealth are tracking and targeting you everyday. This process has been accelerating for decades.

Part of the campaign to gain trust, win influence, and control the strongly encouraged consumer impulse has been to make the intrusions and manipulations practically invisible or just a normal part of the social background. Emphasize style over substance, obscuring the fine print. Who you are, what you stand for, how you live -- presented as consumer options.

The same is true of religious institutions. The decline in Christian affiliation and institutional membership in the US, for example, has been met with the same kind of thinking. Choose Denomination X, the choice of a new generation. Choose Denomination Y, the real and authentic tradition. Choose Denomination Z, and be part of our exclusive membership.

This also happens on the local congregational level. Many congregations struggle to have an adequate membership --they are too old, too poor, too few -- to maintain a baseline of activity according to their established routine. While members may feel that they have something to offer, such as accepting or exploring the truth claims of their religious tradition, they also have good reason to be concerned about simply increasing the number of people contributing in some way to their activities (including financial support).

And if they say, "We need more members", or perhaps some demographic, "We need more young people", "We need more minorities", this line of thinking makes those people a target group to be marketed to. This isn't to say it isn't appropriate to ask, "Why don't we draw more (young, diverse) people?", but again, the temptation to go into marketing mode remains strong with such deliberations.

If we add in the skepticism, cynicism, and credulity of the absurd to those increasingly raised and continually bathed in a consumer culture, along with familiarity with tired church tropes and ploys to get people in the door or associate the congregation with some sponsored function or donation, there will naturally arise in the minds of those hearing about some church function or outreach the suspicion that they really just want to advertise themselves or make you feel some obligation to listen to a pitch about their faith.

When you see congregations adding cafes and snack shops to their buildings and trying to incorporate multimedia light and music shows, such suspicions are further raised. That isn't to say such things must be viewed skeptically or that they can have no value. Such actions needn't only be seen as ways to draw larger crowds, but when it is combined with programs for driving up tallies in "soul winning" campaigns the move toward cynicism regarding the congregation's motives becomes irresistible.

Cultivating presence and awareness (of presence)

At this point, I started thinking about alternatives. Now, I've kind of fleshed out my thinking a bit since it's always longer in speech and text than the idea in your head, so bear with me.

I started thinking about presence. Being really present wherever you are, including be present to others. And being aware, especially aware of the presence of others.

The first image that came to mind was the current Dalai Lama, along with the accounts of being in his presence. How the atmosphere around him changes, how easy and simple and peaceful things start to seem, and how there is a sense of tremendous energy and even power, but that it's not grasping or controlling, but rather humble and open.

You can always wonder how exaggerated these kinds of accounts are, and whether the Dalai Lama himself would be embarrassed or pleasantly dismissive of such claims. You can also suggest that the effect was generated by the expectations of the people giving such reports. But this was the example that first came to mind, and I've heard other examples of powerful presences as well, and not always so benign. Hitler was rumored to have an extraordinary effect on those in his proximity as well.

So whether you think this is a spiritual presence, an extension of consciousness not currently understood, or an extension of the social presence of the individual (as humans always perceive a social dimension to everything they encounter), let's take the idea seriously.

I came up with the notion that people are always developing such a presence, every minute of every day, by what they think, say, and do. By what they focus on. By what they feel. By how the react. By whether they are really paying attention or on automatic pilot. There are many degrees on the spectrum of that last one.

So if that's true, if you are mostly running on habit, if you are heavily floating in distraction, and if you are largely concerned with your own personal desires and how the things you encounter affect you getting the things (material possessions, feelings and sensations, self image, etc) that you want, then that is the presence you will develop. Kind of fake, shallow presence that is largely turned inward but which suddenly become grasping and manipulative toward things which get your attention.

And we could look at being shy, self-doubting, fearful, and the personal presence this cultivates. Or being more awake, more actively engaged, more genuinely concerned about the welfare of others. Or whatever combination we like.

But there is also our ability to really be able to gauge or read someone's presence. It requires experience, which means paying attention to others, as actual whole people, and not just seeing them as collections of things you do or don't want from them. I suspect most of us are better versed in the latter way of seeing people, even though we may not recognize it or want to admit it.

If we can't really see people, then they may be able to successfully mask their presence, who they have cultivated themselves to be. Maybe that's why some folks get gut feelings or "vibes" about people. Their subconscious, at least, is picking up some kind of signal even if they aren't practiced in detecting and understanding such insights.

This then lead to thinking again about seeing people as means to an end, even if you think that the means or the end will be good for them. It occurred to me that the issues of presence and awareness are tied into whether we see and treat others as whole persons, not just as sources of validation, labor, wealth, pleasure, and so on (or as sources of the opposite of such things). To really, truly see them as fully complex and genuine individuals.

This view seemed to me to be at odds with the manipulations of advertising, marketing, and branding. This isn't to suggest those things are inherently bad or destructive, but when that's how we learn to see others on a regular basis, as collections of things we want/don't want, like/don't like, need/don't need, etc, that is really problematic. Especially for major religions and spiritual traditions that affirm the value and dignity of each person.

So then I begin thinking that maybe this is something else that kind of bugs me about how some religious institutions and local congregations conceptualize and carry out some of there forms of outreach and community engagement.

To continue to use the Christian example, although I could certainly use others, it made me think of the imperative of Jesus to love God by loving others. The Christian tradition, following its Jewish roots, teaches its followers to see Christ (hence God) in others. Various acts of mercy and charity and the attitudes that inspire them are emphasized.

In a way, though, they can be reduced to cultivating a real presence, within yourself and towards others. An intentional presence grounded in learning to appreciate others, to see them and therefore treat them as someone you cherish. Assuming that you cherish yourself, then loving others as yourself works, but if you don't, it doesn't work. Of course, self-cherishing from a grasping or needy place can become very bad from a religious perspective, a very ego-centric myopia in which everything is about you, and how wonderful or terrible you are.

But still, if you can't find something in yourself, you can't find it in others, so if you do really cherish another, you can't totally despise yourself. And cherish here doesn't mean being possessive or controlling. Again, it's the kind of presence where you can just sit have your heart swell in the presence of the one cherished. You don't want to monopolize the person, or try to force them to be what you want or need them to be. You might be tempted, but you know that would be like plucking and pressing a flower. It would just leave you with a faded memory rather than a living, growing thing.

Now, if we wrap this back into everything else discussed above, then we can think of community outreach and engagement in a different way. If you really admire, are deeply moved by, or feel strongly comforted yet free to be yourself in someone else's presence, it is likely you will want to be in their presence or to emulate them. Perhaps you will wonder how they came to have such presence, insight, and so on. If you really felt like you were being engaged in someone's presence, without grasping or manipulation, how much different that would feel than when you aren't really or fully seen, only appreciated for what labels or values have been attached to your social identity.

Whatever a religion and its adherents and institutions want to convey to others, it seems like the more aware, present, and generously humble person can do more to share it. And, it seems, that such a compassionate presence is at the core of what they are supposed to be sharing anyway, offering a kind of energy and reassurance that can have strong restorative and rejuvenating effects on those who encounter it.

Imagine meeting someone who wasn't trying to get something from you, either explicitly or implicitly, whose most immediate expectations of you are centered on your inherent value just as you are rather than what you might be able to give them in return. I would be much more likely to give such a person and what they had to say the benefit of the doubt. This is what I think of when I heard people use the expression attributed to St. Francis of Assisi: "Preach the Gospel at all times; when necessary use words."

Selfish charity

This may sound idealistic so far, but it was part of my train of thought (along with subsequent elaborations, clarifications, and musings).

It may also sound like it doesn't have anything to say about topics like social justice. And there is a large debate over whether social justice should be a main focus of religion alongside of personal transformation/awakening/salvation or whether social justice is an expression of such transformation.

If you have been cultivating awareness and a presence that cherishes others, it is natural to assume that this will lead to actions born of such sincere caring. Whether those actions are considered social justice in terms of trying to fix longstanding structural problems in society such as unfair discrimination, poverty, and so on is not certain.

The emphasis may instead be more immediate, on those the person sees and interacts with on a regular basis, especially those who society and tradition as well as personal history suggest one is most responsible for -- family, close friends, etc.

And really, to have genuine sustained efforts even at larger issues of social justice, it matters if one is motivated by such close personal contact rather than generic abstractions.

This raises the issue of the scope and focus of religious institutions and movements. There is a tendency to have a goal of eliminating something undesirable, such as various causes or indications of suffering. Poverty is an already named example.

It can be hard, though, to keep working when it seems like you are bailing out a leaking boat with a spoon. And this can lead to a conflict between wanting to mostly or completely eliminate a problem and wanting to do it rather quickly. I am not sure how much of this is a matter of contemporary culture in some societies, especially in the West.

But if you can't fix it, then what's the point of chipping away at the edges of a problem?

So my thinking then went something like this: Being really present and aware, cultivating a truly expanded and compassionate focus and presence, is hard. Cherishing others in a non-selfish way, really appreciating them as actual whole persons, is extraordinarily hard. I mean, think about it. Really try to picture how you would be able to feel that way about a stranger, a mild acquaintance, or someone you can't stand.

So that is hard. Both being present and having an expanded presence rooted in equanimity and compassion. And working to alleviate the causes and effects of sources of suffering when it seems like both are endless. That's also very hard.

And as I was thinking, I got the sense that the two things, compassionate presence and minimizing the sourcing of suffering and their effects are related. But that's really just doubling the difficulty, at least, if they are linked. Joining together two things that are already hard on their own.

So it's easier just to wear a ribbon, post a meme on social media, give a donation to a religious organization or charity, volunteer so many hours helping others, and doing various other good deeds without really working on what kind of presence we are cultivating. It goes back to an economic transaction. And so in the face of the cynicism and despair of problems that never seem to end, you can earn enough credit to feel OK about yourself.

This doesn't apply to everyone, but if you are still largely self-concerned and worried about your social image and your moral capital, then it kind of makes sense that a lot of the charitable acts aren't really done for others at all. They are done for you.

And religions tend to teach that there are no "treasures in heaven", "virtue", or "merit" for actions with such motives.

It matters to this one

This then lead (much faster of course, since it was a cascade of mental energy that didn't need to form complete words and concepts every step of the way) to thoughts about a couple of parables [1].

One is the story of a girl on a beach after a storm. The waves have stranded hundreds of star fish on the beach, and as she walks along the beach, she picks them up one at a time and throws them back into the ocean. A man is watching her, and eventually he asks why she is bothering. There is no way she can save them all. Why does it matter?

This gets back to that question of why we try to oppose the causes of suffering or to alleviate the suffering itself if they seem endless. If you've heard this parable, you know the girl's answer. She picks up a star fish, holds it out to the man, and says, "It matters to this one."

OK, well, the other story comes from the Christian Gospels. There is a line about the fact that the poor will always be with you. Now in context, the issue is why a woman "wasted" something of value on Jesus rather than selling the item and giving the money to the poor. The answer Jesus gives seems by some interpretations to be rather self-important: "The poor will always be with you, but I won't always be around."

I don't claim that the meaning that came to me as I was thinking is traditional or orthodox, so take it as you will. Given the lines along which I was thinking, it occurred to me that this is related to the kind of thinking present in our star fish parable. And both are related to cultivating compassionate presence, starting with those nearest to us. There is the abstract notion of "the poor", at which we can throw money and time to make ourselves look or feel better, and then there are the people right in front of us who we are failing to appreciate and cherish. (Of course, "the poor" in this account can represent any individual or group who is suffering or in need.)

It's like the stories about people who are great philanthropists in terms of donations and giving speeches but who have selfish and intolerant presences, who like humanity in the abstract but have problems with real, individual, face-to-face people.

And of course, the person who is complaining about a lack of charity in these stories is Judas Iscariot.

Anyway, so Mary Magdalene then is "wasting" this precious gift honoring and cherishing Jesus. Now, in what I think is the smaller minded view, she does this because Jesus is super-special and way more important than the poor, being the anointed of God, the Messiah and all. But that makes no sense in the larger context of any of the Gospels. My view is better. Right?

So yeah, you can run away from the big, scary, too hard to deal with ocean of suffering and its causes, you can just make things like poverty an abstraction and make yourself feel better by charitable transactions, scolding others to hide your own lack of real charity or your sense of helplessness and inadequacy, like Judas. Or like Mary, you can start developing that compassionate presence and cherishing with those closest to you. [2]

To keep our imagery consistent, you can think of it like sheep. Who are your sheep? Who are you to cherish and look after? If you only have the presence to care for and feed one or two sheep, better to do that and do it well than try to manage a large flock with impatience or indifference. And in learning to truly tend a few, you may learn to extend that presence. You are better able to understand other shepherds and their sheep further away. And even to accept the care of those who see you as their own charge.

Moreover, you may inspire others. Remember that reflection above on inspiring others with your presence? Maybe you inspire others to take care of their sheep too.

You know, I think the star fish parable also has problems. This occurred to me as well. The normal telling leaves out the proper ending.

Because after the girl explains herself, the man who had been watching her picks up a star fish and throws it back in the ocean. And then another. And then another. And other people walking along the beach see them, and some of them begin to throw star fish back into the water as well. [3]

The "poor" will always be with you.

The starfish will always be with you.

Will you truly be with them?

Notes

1. Some will object to the second example being called a parable, but go with it.

2. No, this doesn't describe me at all.

3. To switch traditions for a moment, this can be helpful for Buddhists wrestling with how to understand the Bodhisattva vow to deliver all sentient beings from suffering, which, even after innumerable lifetimes, would seem to be a futile effort. The essay as whole also may suggest something about Buddhist spiritual cultivation and what some call "engaged" Buddhism.

What is the value of human life?

2013-09-14T22:14:00.002-04:00

[Pixabay]

Do you accept the idea of equality regarding individual humans? If so, why?

There is no trick or gimmick here. Just a question. Upon what basis do you accept the idea of human equality?

I will elaborate.

"Everyone is born equal."

Are they? In what way? Some are more gifted physically. Others may have talents for being social or engaging in activities requiring physical strength or grace. I could go on, but we know this is true.

Beyond just biology, the social position one occupies, the "luck" they have in particular situations, and so on, definitely give some people more of advantage to live a happy and successful life.

Of course, happy and successful can be relative, as some people can feel they are content and enjoy life even if they are living in relative poverty or suffer from severe limitations from participating in the events that their peers find rewarding.

Yet that simple suggests that contentment and happiness as well as notions of success or a "good life" are highly subjective. Just because you can learn to be satisfied or content with your options doesn't make you equal to others. And who says everyone can reach a stable point where they can acquire such acceptance and contentment?

We could try to make equality connected to consciousness, but this too is problematic as people with different mental capacities have differing levels and experiences of consciousness. This isn't to say that these differences are good or bad, but they don't support some baseline of equality.

The concept of human equality is an ideal, but outside of some religious context or axiomatic assertion, what is there that supports such an assertion?

That question leads to a related claim...

"Every human life has (the same) value."

They do? And what is the basis of this value? What objective basis is there for such value? And if there is only a subjective basis, what is the argument that supports it?

Again, no tricks or clever turnabouts or twists.

You can say that assuming that everyone has value can be beneficial, either rooted as an evolutionary imperative or the result of social logic. Perhaps some combination of both.

After all, by attributing value to everyone, you gain value yourself as do your relatives and friends. By assigning value to all, you are better able to capture the utilize the potential available in your community or society. These and similar arguments are very solid.

Except that these and similar arguments are concerned with why we should think or feel that all people have value, not with the underlying assumption itself.

This is where you might be tempted to fold back to the first claim, that everyone is equal, perhaps saying that everyone has the same potential for something you think justifies their value, but again, that equality is not absolute and the justification of value is almost certainly still subjective. Is there something all humans have the potential to do or be that you can argue gives them equal value? And value according to who?

Moreover, what if they have lost that potential for some reason, such as being too old? Do they still have that same value then?

Again, except for a prior proclamations such as those found in religion, what is the basis for such claims of value? Human history doesn't support it, given how we have and still treat one another. Slavery and genocide anyone?

Not a dig at the irreliguous and aspiritual

This isn't some attempt to say that people who reject overt spirituality or religion have no real claim to statements about equality or the value of human life. It really isn't. But humans seem to find value in incorporating themselves into systems of meaning which give them a sense of continuity and transcendence beyond their limited, finite, individual existence.

These systems of meaning can be formal or informal, and can range from family/procreation to belief and participation in a religious worldview.

But what of those who don't make what is considered to be a sufficiently adequate or meaningful contribution to existence or who fail to be a part of some larger system of meaning? What, if anything, is the point or worth of their existence?

I get the impression many people take the ideas of human equality and value lightly, not in the sense that they aren't outraged by perceived callousness or injustice, but in not really appreciating or exploring the basis of their convictions.

So, are all humans equal? Do they all have (equal) value? And if you believe so, what evidence can you provide to support that belief?

Through the eyes to the listening heart

2013-09-06T08:53:00.001-04:00

[Pixabay]

Less theology, ideology, and doctrine?

I ran across this book while reading the introduction to a book on Shinto. It's from Joseph Campbell's book Myths to Live By regarding a Western man asking about Shinto. It would seem to have something to say about how people in the Western cultural traditions treat religion (including the more recently imported, the exotic, and the popular varieties):

"You know," he said, "I've now been to a good many ceremonies and have seen quite a number of shrines, but I don't get the ideology; I don't get the theology."

The Japanese (you may know) do not like to disappoint visitors, and this gentleman, polite, apparently respecting the foreign scholar's profound question, paused as though in deep thought, and then, biting his lips, slowly shook his head. "I don't think we have ideology," he said. "We don't have theology. We dance."

That, for me, was the lesson of the congress. What it told me was that in Japan, in the native Shinto religion of the land, where the rites are extremely stately, musical, and imposing, no attempt had been made to reduce their "affect images" to words. They have been left to speak for themselves -- as rites, as works of art -- through the eyes to the listening heart. And that, I would say, is what we, in our own religious rites, had best be doing too. Ask an artist what his picture "means", and you will not soon ask such questions again. Significant images render insights beyond speech, beyond the kinds of meaning speech defines.

Is there room for prayer in modern Buddhism?

2013-08-19T11:46:00.000-04:00

[Pixabay]

Why such discomfort with the word "prayer" and activities that would fall under it's domain?

This question comes from a re-post on the Dangerous Harvests blog, and for context it is referring to contemporary (convert) Buddhists in post-enlightenment, post-modern societies whose cultural history doesn't have ancient connections to Buddhism. That would include the societies of nation-states such as the from the Americans, Europe, and so on. More directly it implies the more economically powerful or "developed" nations such as the United States of America.

I read the post last night and composed a comment in response. It had to be divided into two longer comments given the character limit imposed by Blogger. I think the reply was very concise but also very dense, so I decided to sleep on it. I still like the tight and compact form I originally composed, but upon reflection it seemed that there was still a little more that could be said to help clarify what I was getting at, so rather than submitting a three-comment-long response I decided my reaction would work just as well as a full length post here.

What follows is an expansion of and elaboration on the original comment(s), and it's still pretty tightly packed even with some additional exposition and examples added in. My response is based on roughly ten years of observing convert Buddhists online and in print as well as privately studying various forms of Buddhism, and I don't claim any special titles or expertise in the matter. Nonetheless I hope it may help answer the question that was posed. It also provides another angle to my recent exposition on prayer and provides a kind of follow up to some thoughts on contemporary convert Buddhists and God.

-------------

Well, your own post suggests a large part of the problem, both in something you identify and in the way you try to parse things. This get's a little long so I had to break it into two comments. [Or transfer it to this post instead.]

Buddhism has historically accepted that what modern post-enlightenment folks think of as the material or physical world is only one facet or angle of a larger reality. Focusing on it exclusively as the only reality was considered to be an error refuted by the Buddha.

Thus, when people from such modern societies speak of spiritual beings or places like the Buddha-fields, including Amitabha's Pure Land, there is often an automatic dichotomy set up between symbolizing something and referring to something "real" (i.e. a being or place technically defined as spiritual or supernatural, but that in a way that still treats it as a physical entity that occupies some other dimension with different laws of existence).

In all major religions, there are different ways of understanding such beings and places dependent upon the perspective of the practitioner or seeker. The religious perspective isn't a monolothic point of view nor does it necessarily conform to the stereotypes imposed upon it, despite the best efforts of some adherents to suggest and reinforce the basis for such stereotypes.

Take the idea of some super-being hovering over things. For those too cool for "backward" or "outdated" views of religion this perspective is contrasted in an either/or fashion with an archetype representing some inner quality (read as "ideas and feelings generated and sustained solely by the brain in conjunction with its social activity") that is conceivably (and typically implied in this case to be) compatible with a strictly materialist view.

A cleaner, safer, hipper Buddhism

In other words, religious ideas and imagery are deflated and compressed to fit within a primarily or exclusively materialist paradigm in which there *may* be thing which exceed our current level of understanding but which must ultimately be resolved through what is taken to be the highest, most advanced, and greatest system of beliefs, attitudes, and methods ever devised by humans for knowing about the world. That is, ontological materialism and (cultural) scientism. The idea of transcending such a system is taken to be a tiresome fantasy for the hopelessly gullible or desperate.

Some folks may not like how that sounds or might be unable recognize it in their own thinking yet some element of it can still be present at a subconscious level, influencing the emotional aspect of their response to particular ideas (it's too long to go into here but view is that humans acquire, frame, and share information in a deeply social context and thus like it or not emotional responses are foundational to our knowledge and what we do or don't accept). Religious ideas and related actions, such as practices such as rituals, including prayer, are associated with ignorance, gullibility, outdated views, and so on (even though this has to do with how religion is incorporated into and used in society rather than something inherent to religion itself), so being associated with these ideas and practices is to be associated with the wrong kind of people, the wrong part of the social landscape, and everything that is perceived to be part of that neighborhood.

One solution to this is to sanitize some ideas and practices by extracting them from that shameful, embarrassing context. To strip away most of what would contradict the aforementioned preferred system of knowing and framing existence and reshape what's left into something more comfortable. More acceptable.

Meditation practices that increases compassionate response, reduces psycho-social stress, and can be detected as having an empirical association the brain? In. Prayer to something greater than our individual selves? Out.

The idea of rebirth as a form of physical recycling and social transmigration (i.e. "how our lives affect others")? In. Consciousness transcending the brain or individual and the potential for other forms of existence or experience beyond what is considered to be the limits of the material realm? Out.

A different outlook

The idea of (a) Presence in true silence is found in writings about mystical and contemplative experiences around the world/through time, along with intermediate presences that exist between the individual and this greater Presence. (The capitalization suggests something that, when experienced, appears to precede, supersede, and subsume all other examples associated with the term. Theological examples include "God" and "Being".)

For those who take mystical experiences and contemplative encounters seriously, the most authentic form of prayer is experiencing such Presence. Other forms may be involved in assisting with this goal, and as such are intended to link what we might call mind, heart, and body (including action) together in an intentional and conscious way in order to become a more receptive participant with or conduit for such presence.

Still other forms of prayer are forms of social identification or control, emotional triggers, psychological support, a form of catharsis, or a form of magic that attempt to know the unknowable or give a sense of control or acceptance to that which is beyond our control. The wording of prayer may allude to some Presence but this may exist only in the imagination or assumption of the practitioner as a collection of beliefs and experiences that do not constitute a genuine encounter (assuming there is such thing).

Also common is the fluidity between those felt intermediate presences, manifesting as natural things (i.e. shooting stars, animals, breezes, people), or states of mind/heart, or ones own hopes, fears, and temptations, and so on. These may be depicted as lesser gods and deities, greater spirits, angels and demons, kami -- even the timeless Bodhisattvas such as Kuan Yin. In a sense they can be thought of as caretakers, guides, and gatekeepers that may provoke people to be seekers or act as tests of a seeker's resolve, insight, and maturity.

The upshot is that if one isn't committed to a strictly materialist view as that has been defined and solidified in the 19th and 20th centuries, spiritual language is uncaged and untamed. The Buddha really is looking out for you *and* this represents a Buddha-nature flowing through all beings. The Pure Land is a place or state of existence beyond the experience of a limited material existence which is accessible by the power of faith, far beyond physical death, *and* is a perspective on the nature of reality that can be accessed while we are still living as said mortal beings. These and other spiritual individuals and places would not be limited to being just these two sides of the aforementioned dichotomy either.

The premise is that what we might, through identifying with our physical bodies and (localized, individual) minds, experience of reality would be limited, and any experience of something greater could appear or be interpreted as different layers or levels of existence. That which is encountered in such (a) "beyond" would have to be understood in frames that our evolutionary history permits and that we have learned to use to divide up our world, reducing them to what we would conceive of as people and places.

These presences would be appear to be both within and without, as distinct and as one, etc, fluid and dynamic. They would seem real and imaginary, here and there but neither here nor there. Persons, non-persons, both, neither, and beyond any such categorization, like a cut gem stone being turned in the light.

Of course, it's also possible that "that which is beyond" our typical conditioned and familiar consciousness and psycho-social constructions would mold itself/themselves into our constructs as well. It could also be both, a chicken and the egg in which we are they and they are us and we are they. Fun, eh?

Naturally, a materialist can rightfully and logically argue that whatever we are translating into such familiar frames is just a product of ignorance, over-active imaginations or agency detecting mechanisms in the brain, wishful thinking, etc. This is likely true in many cases. Also, wherever these images come from, including perhaps the needs of highly social beings collectively living in a landscape of shared stories, many just accept the identity and characterization these images because of their socialization and interpret them as strictly literal (or figurative) for similar reasons.

The object of prayer

In daily life there is no need for most people to go into such an academic treatment as this. Whether they pray for petition, inspiration, invocation, something else, or some combination thereof, and whether they do so out of psychological need, habit, as part of a belief system of varying levels of depth and nuance, or because they have directly perceived or intuited some experience of a larger/deeper reality, it is a part of how they relate to their world.

Many convert Buddhists in the Western world operate out a historically and socially derived mindset that, for better or worse, tries to pin everything down analytically, conceptually, logically, and verbally, into black and white distinctions. Within a subset of that mindset, other ways of knowing and potential aspects of reality outside of a defined view are suspect. For some, this is particularly true of religion, and especially anything that is associated with Abrahamic religion. (For other people it may be true of those who don't share their narrow metaphysics defined by a form of religious fundamentalism, to give a different example.)

Prayer, in it's unqualified, unapologetic forms, honors and reaches out in these others ways of knowing and being to that which is seen as well as unseen, the understood and the mysterious. It colors outside the lines, within the wrong lines, and sometimes uses colors we can't even grasp -- some that aren't even colors.

This brings up the question of the object of payer and takes us back to the issue of Buddhist prayer originally raised in a direct way.

Is the Buddha or Buddha-nature simply another word for the innate human potential in a strictly materialist framework, like tapping into the full depth of the human brain as well as our social connections? Is it the expression of Nietzsche's Übermensch? Is it the ultimate ideal of secular humanism dressed in a monk's saffron robes?

If so, then Buddhist prayer becomes a safe and acceptable phrase (and activity) for those strongly attached or firmly committed to the materialist paradigm. his is not a criticism, but another piece of the answer to the question being explored. In this view religious imagery is the expression of human imagination mixed with longing and a need for explanation and control, a response to the existential dilemma of self-aware beings cognizant of their own mortality, and it is only this. There is nothing more to be found other than the products of our evolved human nature as creative social beings, and at best religious imagery records and reveals this nature.

If not, then we are back to the possibilities already raised (and of course others not described). To the shifting nature of Presence and its attendants, to the calm space in the center of the paradoxes, or perhaps caught in the sparks of a paradox which have fallen into the either/or mold of the analytical aspect of the human mind, and there cast as idol that is limited to a single nature and meaning. In this view there is something greater, and we are of this, but we are not the sum of this. It's fullness may exist within each of us, but it is not limited to any of us or our current state and our potential far exceeds our current conventional notions about life.

My goal here isn't to say which view is superior. But this seems to be where the wrangling over materialist Buddhism (sometimes labeled as secular Buddhism) and issues such as prayer comes to a head. If a Buddhist says she is prayer to herself and to her Buddha-nature, is it to that fullness of something greater within (and without, and beyond, etc) or only to her potential as a finite human being as define by contemporary bio-medicine and secular culture?

This is why there is such consternation about things like prayer among many contemporary Buddhists, especially those raised in places like the US.