Non-engaged Buddhism?

Let me ask you something: What is non-engaged Buddhism?

This is a much more revealing question that "What is engaged Buddhism?", since it really requires you to think very carefully about what that term even means. For example, one can argue that developing compassion, loving-kindness, patient acceptance, and equanimity is a way to positively engage with your community and through that to positively impact the society in which you love. Or one can argue that such awareness can directly improve the well-being of others through a shared root consciousness. One could try to use various methods of cultivation of awareness and empathy, such as breathing exercises and visualization, as a way to address the negative stress afflicting many people. Do those count as engaged Buddhism?

One way of answering such a question is to connect engagement to social movements that aim to reshape some major aspect of society, such as abolishing the death penalty or supporting marriage equality. Many of these social movements blend into progressive political activism, which then leads to the question of what makes engaged Buddhism, well,  Buddhist, other than the people engaging happen to identify as Buddhists? By trying to argue that Buddhist principles, axioms about the nature of existence, or the ideals of Bodhisattvahood or Buddhahood support or require such activism?

It is sometimes suggested that traditional Asian Buddhism is all about escaping the physical world into a spiritual bliss of liberation from form, and so the Western emphasis is exclusive in caring about social concerns rather than personal enlightenment. Yet there is a strong history in some traditionally Buddhist countries in which it was believed that supporting the right form and practice of religion would cause the society to prosper. So maybe it is more of a matter of the nature of the relationship between Buddhism and social being and how this is mediated.

Here are two examples to help you consider and reflect on the matter. First, we have the Dr. Rev. Danny Fisher, coordinator of the Buddhist Chaplaincy Program at the University of the West. He regularly circulates petitions calling for social justice via social media. He takes his students to Skid Row, advertises ways to support Buddhist Global Relief through T-shirt sales, and endorses  the sale of badges supporting workers and children in traditionally Buddhist countries which simultaneously promote environmental activism. That is, when he isn't blogging for sites such Shambhala Sun and Buddhadharma or writing books.

Next we have Ittetsu Nemoto, a Japanese Zen Buddhist priest trained as a monk in the Rinzai tradition. According to a profile on his work that appeared in The New Yorker, after becoming the chief priest in at a rural temple, he decided he wanted to use his interest and experience in talking with people about their suffering to help those who felt suicidal. He has organized workshops and field trips for those who have seriously contemplated killing themselves, including practices and rituals in which participants can more readily face and discuss the prospect of death. This has helped many of those who have made the trip to visit him. According to the profile, he thinks one can gain great insight from suffering, and that life is a precious gift even when it is seems hard.

So do either, both, or neither qualify as engaged Buddhists? Are they Buddhists who happened to be engaged? And does it matter which it is? Share your thoughts in the ample space in the comment section.

Didn't I already know this?

Do you ever ask yourself, "Didn't I already know this?"

I'm going to be sharing a few things over the next week or two that I see when I look at the current terrain in the spiritual landscape, starting with my own  current outlook. The question I opened with is one that comes up from time to time and is good for taking stock of where you are.

To clarify what I mean by that question, I keep realizing every year how the recurring bits of wisdom teachings I have been exposed to keep eluding me. They do this in a sneaky way: by seeming to actually offer some really helpful or interesting new insight. And then they do it again. And each time, you kind of get the feeling that "Now I really get it!", only to later realize that there was some aspect of it that I still didn't realize applied to me or my life.

For example, even though there is contemplative/apophatic wisdom that promotes seeking in silence, not clinging to or rejecting thoughts, and so on. It's fairly impossible not to try to understand this or to think you've "got it!" by using discursive reasoning and abstract thought! It's one of those things that's so simple we have to make it complicated.

And of course there is the well-known opposite, trying to make your conscious mind a total blank. This goes hand in hand with misunderstanding warnings about fixating over how we conceptualize our experiences, concluding that all experiences (whether perceptions, imaginings, etc) are always misleading and dangerous. As if lack of any form or degree of awareness, some kind of total oblivion, is the only way to be "free" or "pure".

Think about it. You've got teachings saying that God, or Buddha, or the Tao, or whatever is in all things and beyond all things (simultaneously immanent and transcendent). That every though, feeling, and other kind of experience is a reflection or manifestation of what the spiritual seeker is trying to recognize. So there is no analysis needed to try to settle into appreciating that -- that now matter how boring, useless, or dreadful something may seem, it's part of the larger reality one is trying to connect with.

As I've tried to articulate with the following recurring image:

"It's one thing to imagine you have a fundamental connection to a sunset or a rainbow or a butterfly. It's nice to be the rainbow. But it's not nice to be the landfill. It's not nice to be fundamentally connected to rapists, to murderers, to peverts, to worst of humanity as well as the best. Yet Being cannot discriminate. That's where the idea of Jesus bearing the sins of the world comes into play. By accepting your true nature as a manifestation of Being you accept the whole thing. You have compassion for the whole thing."

But despite this there is still, even among those who claim to be inspired or to live by such wisdom teachings, this persistence in trying to create a pure/impure or enlightened/unenlightened duality when trying to realize whatever is hiding behind the name that a particular seeker has given to what they are seeking. As if collecting certain thoughts and behaviors and weeding out others will in and of itself summon the thing being sought, like rubbing a lamp to summon a genie.

Yet the deeper wisdom currents in various spiritual traditions suggest that what one is seeking cannot be define by or limited to a particular object, let alone any abstraction, which we can conjure through a particular set of efforts. Those efforts may help us to see more clearly what is already there, but that is a different understanding of them (and what is being seen) altogether.

Getting your bearings on the spiritual terrain

Landscape at Saint-Rémy (Enclosed Field with Peasant) early October 1889, Indianapolis Museum of Art, Indianapolis, Indiana (F641 ) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Atheism. Agnosticism. Spiritual but not religious-ism. Traditional religion. Reformed religion. Conservative religion.  Liberal religion. New religion. Agnostics who are spiritual but not religious. Religions that claim to be both traditional and liberal. Conservative religions that claim to be reformed. And in the midst of these and so many more options, chilly relations mix with loads of hot air, stirring up currents of thought and emotion that blow over the social landscape and portend more storms on the horizon. That herald further reshaping of how people understand the past and imagine the future.

What is the value of tradition and continuity? What are the risks of new revelations and interpretations? Is it necessary to find the right community with which to practice or the right guide to help you along the path? If so, how do you know which ones are right? How much do you have to study to really appreciate the real value or insights of a particular tradition or community? Is there a "genuine" core of experience and thought at the heart of such a tradition? Is it similar or even the same as the core of other traditions? Or is it better to go it alone when confronting the larger issues of living and of human existence? Is there value in such an examination of our lives, or is it just a waste of time? How can one go beyond just thinking or writing about such traditions, communities, and practices? How does one find and embrace authenticity? How does on really "get it"?

This past April marked the 8th anniversary since the beginning of this blog, my first attempt at blogging (I was hesitant to adopt the platform after seeing the much of the promise of message boards go really wrong). The above issues and questions, I think, reflect some of the stronger or more common underlying considerations for I've blogged about in my attempts to appreciate or understand what people (in post-Enlightment/Western or Western-influenced) societies mean by "spirituality" and "religion". In a way this is consistent with my larger life long interest in learning in general, and in understanding what we know/how we know it in particular.

One of things I've discovered is how many layers of misunderstanding and misuse there are for "spirituality" and "religion" along with related terms, concepts, attitudes, beliefs, rituals (and other practices), myths/narratives, and institutions. We take certain aspects of what we label as spirituality or religion, break them off, and use them to represent the whole range of what the spirituality and religion represent. (Check out this succinct summary of how I tend to see them -- I may need to write a book in order to develop and represent the larger vision of spirituality and religion that the summary and the contents of this blog suggest.)

Having familiarized myself largely with Christianity (beyond the contemporary evangelical fundamentalist perspective) and Buddhism, with smatterings of Taoism, Hinduism, and so on through many years of reading, discussion, debate, and even practice, I am of course in no real position to be telling anyone what to believe or why they ought to believe it. Nor am I any more of an expert than the many people who blog or write the books on the subject that occupy the space in the spirituality and religion section of your local bookstore. But those experiences and access to a blog give me as much of a chance to put my thoughts out there on the topic as anyone, even if there is less chance of those thoughts getting in front of people's eyeballs.

But you also learn from such efforts at trying to understand and describe your own concerns and confusion, as well as the times when you thought you were clever. And that insight can be of use to others who are exploring or who have become stuck while diving into the same issues. That's one reason I leave the blog up even if I haven't posted in nearly a year. And it's something that draws me back in, at whatever frequency, to get and share my bearings on my own journey and to listen to others sharing their own updates. I've been away for a while, which always helps with perspective.

Over the next week or two I'll be sharing a little of what the spiritual terrain looks to me at the moment if I take the time to stop to look around. I'd love it if you shared some of your own perspective as well. There's plenty of room in the comment area! ;o)

Creative academic type still looking for work

I Need You on the Job Every Day - NARA - 534704 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Wish I had the time for the things I want to share here, but I'm still looking for opportunities for gainful employment utilizing my skills and background. This has become a more and more challenging task for many people of all education levels, training, and skill sets. It's also true for those whose talents include the cultivation of the mind, exploration of ideas, teaching, and writing in an accessible way about complex topics that cross multiple disciplines.

It may be the case that those who are more educated as a group have better odds for employment than less educated people as a group, but when you break it down by type of degree, subject, where you went to school, the field in which you are seeking to work, your social networks and connections, and similar factors, the picture changes. The same is true for those in trades who do not have undergraduate or advanced degrees.

Nor does it reduce to what is beneficial to society, for surely people who have the drive and capacity to earn such degrees and who have talents of synthesis and insight beyond strict specialization have much to offer in a rapidly changing world that can seem confusing and threatening. Much of the current employment landscape has been shaped by powerful industries in an increasing unregulated set of markets chasing a goal of maximizing short term profits.

Many of the old patterns and rules of business are no longer reliable, nor is the public commitment to supporting higher education and other instruments for cultivating the values and ideas necessary for the welfare of society. This is happening at the same time as the losses of manufacturing jobs over the past few decades are being followed by budget cuts for public sector jobs related to education, public health and safety, and the growth and maintenance of infrastructure. In other words, the unemployment and underemployment epidemic isn't just affecting limited groups of types or work.

You can find out more about my own background and interests on this little page to see if there is a position or opportunity you know about that might be a good match for me. If you aren't sure if it would be a good fit, don't hesitate to ask. The same link is also available at the top of the blog. My sympathies go out to others who are under or unemployed and struggling to find their way. I wish you well. And for all who wish to help, thanks for your kindness and generosity.

What I like about the UUniverse

The U.S. guarantees freedom of religion and some churches in the U.S. take strong stances on political subjects. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Well, it just so happens that on this little blog that is hardly ever read, a link was made to one of my posts which had been written in response to the blog of a well-known UU minister. As a result at least a few hundred people read that post. So on the off chance anyone might see it, I decided to follow that post up with this post on why I bother visiting UU congregations, reading books about UUism, following UU bloggers, and sporadically giving critiques of aspects of UUworld*.

To summarize and add a little to what I wrote in the aforementioned blog post, UUism aspires to be non-sectarian and non-creedal in an effort to provide people who are uncertain of what they believe or who are hesitant to ascent to a particular statement of faith the comfort and freedom to explore their spirituality in a more open environment. This is in part a historical issue, as creeds have been used as litmus tests to divide those who were committed to the "right" views of a particular religious or politico-religious institution  from those who were heretics and outsiders. As a result, many UUs jokingly refer to their religion as being founded upon the heresies of Western religion, particularly Roman Catholic and Protestant forms of Christianity.

In addition, UUism has a strongly progressive/liberal bent to its culture which is reflected in its social justice programs. This is in opposition to the more conservative "fundamentalist" varieties of Abrahamic religions, especially North American forms of Protestantism. This, along with the very wide and open approach UUism espouses in spiritual seeking and study, appeals to people who have been wary of or who abandoned forms of religion which try to force a single, unquestionable set of beliefs and assertions about the ultimate questions of human existence. For many of these people, religion has been presented as a list of things which must be feared and obeyed upon pain of eternal torment. Often these things appeared to them as incongruous with their knowledge of the world, their sense of joy and compassion, and ultimately their ability to accept these things as true.

Thus, as mentioned, many who have been wounded by some forms of religion, or for some other reason have become jaded or cynical toward religion, are immediately put off by anything that sounds too religious, that sounds too specific or too sure of itself and its answers. For those who still desire some kind of spiritual connection, or some kind of healing beyond secular medicine, a religion which sounds in many ways like the opposite of the kind of religion they have either avoided or left sounds like just what they are looking for, and so it isn't uncommon to find such people attracted to UUism. While the UUA has a list of principles that are kind of like statements of faith, they aren't really (again, with the emphasis on not trying to impose beliefs on people). Thus, intentionally or unintentionally, UUism can give the appearance of being heavy on liberal politics through social justice, while its spirituality may come across as a far lighter (both in seriousness and tone) and less focused, with its religious elements in some cases seeming very superficial.

The end result is that one can on some level come away with the impression that in trying so hard to not be like what some fear, dread, or despise in other forms of religion, UUism is trying to replace it with a form of positive thinking spirituality (which I abbreviated as "pop" spirituality) and liberal activism. I outlined this overall impression and its contributing elements in my previous post emphasizing these qualities and using the more extreme examples of the same. In doing so, I stated that this should not be taken as a overall general impression of the UUA or UU congregations as a whole, and that there are many inviting, affirming, inspirational, and uplifting aspects to UUism as well. I noted that many people find a warm and comfortable place in UUworld in which to sort out their spiritual questions, and while many who want something more deeply spiritual or more firmly committed to a vision of something greater (God, Spirit Tao, Dharmakaya, etc.) may eventually move on, there are those who are raised within or choose to remain in UUworld as their religious home.

So, while it's all well and good to say that there are things I really like and respect about UUism, just what are some of these positive qualities of UUism that I find appealing or worthwhile?

The Trinity and Buddhism? Social Trinitarianism and Dependent Co-Arising

Andrei Rublev's Trinity, representing the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in a similar manner. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Yeah, well, it may sound strange, but it's still a provocative way of approaching the topic of Buddhist-Christian dialogue. Brian McLaren gives his formulation of a particular view of the doctrine of the Trinity, a view known as Social Trinitarianism, in a recent article for Tikkun magazine. He uses this view as a basis for understanding our fundamental interconnected with all things, including each other and the source from and of which all things spring and to which they return, which sounds like part of the description of God frequently used on this blog (source, substance, and sustainer of existence) which kind of sprang out of reflections the Tao, Tathata, and Dharmakaya.

Here is a sample of what McLaren wrote:

At the heart of Social Trinitarianism is the concept of perichoresis, which images God as a dynamic unity-in-community of self-giving persons-in-relationship. The Father, Son, and Spirit in this view are not three independent units (or monads) eternally bound together in a larger unity. Nor is God one independent unit with three identical parts. Rather, each person exists in dynamic social relationship with the others, and God is the relational unity in which they relate.

Similarly, the being of one person of the Trinity is not independent of the being of the others, so that one could be subtracted and the other two would stand. Nor does the being of one person stand over against the being of the others so the Father could be defined as “not the Son or the Spirit” or the Spirit as “not the Father or the Son,” and so on. Rather, the very idea of person — whether applied to human beings or to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit — is redefined in Social Trinitarianism as “being in relationship.” A person’s relationships with the others, in other words, aren’t an accessory to the person who exists apart from them. Those relationships are what and who that person is, and that person cannot be said to exist apart from those relationships. Being, then, for God as for us, means interbeing, being in relationship, so the three persons of the Holy Trinity are not merely one with each other: they are one in each other. 

...

Seeking more than humanist religion or spiritual atheism

English: Happy human Humanist logo (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This post is composed of an attempt to reply to this comment from a thoughtful reader responding to my recent critique of the UUA. After putting my own comment(s) up in response, it seemed clear it would work better as a new stand-alone essay. I have previously written about secularism and humanism (including a follow-up) and why I am not anti-religious,  but this seemed like a good opportunity to update and expand on such themes given that he generously offered a link to one of his sermons about atheist spirituality and morality.

Over a decade ago I am certain I sounded very much like him as I was transitioning from an anti-religious atheist to a slightly more open-minded non-theist. Things have changed a bit since then, but I can appreciate where he is coming from. (All subsequent links are to things written on this blog but in no particular order, and my original comments upon which this post is based have been edited slightly for clarity.)

Here is my response:

Hello Michael and thank you for your reply and the link about your thoughts on morality and spiritual atheism. It is true that if one has certain beliefs about God or religion, then shedding the outer shell of those beliefs can seem like a major release and give a sense of liberation.

Breaking out of one paradigm and worldview involves adopting another, but often at a deeper level things are still framed in the (ontological) categories of the old assumptions. Atheism is predicated on the assumptions of particular forms of religious theism, and thus sets itself in opposition to that which is seen as crucial to religion, sometimes in an aggressively dismissive or derisive way. When embracing atheism some people come to see mocking the view of others on ultimate questions as acceptable and humorous by claiming whole belief systems are unworthy of respect because of the claims or actions of some of its adherents.

From the perspective of psychology and the sociology of deviance, this can be seen at least partly as a defense mechanism against perceived rejection or hostility. Shouting matches posing as debates erupt over conceptions of perspectives such as materialism and supernaturalism. Exploring topics of spirituality and religion can become an exercise in provoking a reactive volatility to particular ideas or an outbreak of a semantic allergy toward certain words that hinder any real dialogue or insight. Little progress is made in such circumstances.

This environment hinders thoughtful and extended reflection on important questions: Is there meaning to existence? Can there be such meaning without God? Is God an inferior or superior hypothesis to be accepted or rejected as such? Does it make sense to believe in God? Why is there something rather than nothing? Is God a person or just a vague cosmic force? Should we rely on God or the self? Is some outside force going to save us?