Framing the relative and absolute in spirituality

How do we describe our relative and absolute nature in spiritual/religious terms?

Ray of Dharmakara's Prayer was kind enough to share some teachings presented by David Brazier, the founder of Amida Shu, and it has inspired this writing. With regard to the opening question, I have written about this particular theme ad nauseum (really, just search this site for terms like "Other-power"), but not everyone reads the entire archive and sometimes when we say things 101 times it's the way we phrase it that 101st time that someone else may finally figure out "Oooooh, so that's what he's been trying to say." So either way, this may do some good in some way.

One of the things I've written about a number of times is the idea that there is a perception of faith versus works or Other-power versus self-power which runs through seemingly (literally??) every sacred tradition. The way this is approached depends on the needs of the individual. Some schools emphasize one or the other to some degree. In Pure Land Buddhism, for example, there is the notion of self-power, or efforts we make, and Other-power, that which encompasses all. The idea of the more "through faith" schools in various traditions is that we are too limited to do all that is needed to fully grasp THE TRUTH and then successfully engage it. We don't have the intellectual, emotional, or ethical capacity to reach such PERFECTION. So we rely on Grace. In Christianity this comes through Christ. In Pure Land Buddhism this comes through Amida.

I am not equating those two religions, just highlighting some common thematic structure. In any case, in order to get to THE TRUTH and PERFECTION we are to rely on faith in either Christ or Amida (or for some of you that which such figures represents, wink wink). But no way does self-power, or works, get you there. And what is there? Our absolute nature - the unborn/undying Source of which we all ARE, the I AM to go Old Testament for a moment. On the other hand other sects or schools within these and other religions seem to focus on works or self-power - what we are doing to purify our lives, to effect a transformation. Meditating, praying, practicing charity, compassion, and all around goodwill.

But are these paths as different as they seem?

I suppose for some they are. But not to me. That doesn't make me right, just not satisfied with the either/or nature of the proposition. It is, in fact, true that the limited being or self, and its reifying core, the ego, cannot enlarge itself enough in time and space to fully realize and actualize the totality of existence. None of us can be omnipotent, omnipresent, etc. We are limited in perception, reasoning, memory, lifespan - and that's just for starters. But let look at Zen as an example of a supposed self-power school. You meditate and meditate and increase your focus and awareness and then BAM, mystical insight and magical powers. That is how some may sum up Zen (even perhaps some practitioners if we pare down the chaff of their language and refine the ore of their expectations).

Yet what about that? Zen employs methods involving directly perceiving the emptiness which then gives rise to the Great Doubt, which in turn may lead to the start of an awakening involving the teaching known as "no self". This is the teaching that we have no separate, distinct, or permanent existence apart from everything else which is formed through dependent co-arising. So while it may appear to be (and even be practiced as) as "self-power" school of Buddhism, isn't it interesting that the intended result, if that term is appropriate, is negation of the self, which then implies a profound awareness of / union with Other, often phrased as Buddha-nature. Similarly many Christian groups which emphasize various intense spiritual practices also emphasize total submission and surrender to God and giving oneself over to their Christ-nature.

I think personally one factor influencing the rise of many of the "faith-only" schools is that the intent of the practice-intensive schools was often lost, and instead of going beyond the self to the ultimate self-fulfillment/actualization of recognizing completeness within Other, they became a means to indulge the ego. A competitive game of spiritual one-upsmanship and pious self-satisfaction. Holier than thou. Bodhier than thou. Another factor, which would go hand-in-hand with the first, is the loss of a living tradition mediated by ritual and received wisdom towards a legalistic tradition which idolized ritual and turned received wisdom into unchallengeable dogma.

And all of this produces the chicken-and-the-egg dilemma of theology and spiritual philosophy - do ritual and good works help you to recognize/invoke the Other or does recognizing the Other inspire you to perform rituals and do good works? The answer is, in my humble opinion, yes, both. They are complimentary, not oppositional. It is true that the ego on its own cannot become the Buddha, but we can recognize the Buddha-nature present in all things, even the ego. A supplicant cannot hope to become God but can recognize the Divine nature of all things, including herself. That is also why in Zen there is this sense that everything would be so clear if only we would just let it be so. The challenge isn't to better ourselves, but to free ourselves, to free ourselves from the habituated ways of thinking and acting that have reinforced the fundamental delusion of seeing phenomena as having intrinsic existence.

Hence even in the "faith-only" schools one is not simply to say "I have faith so there is no work to be done." Rather, there is no amount of work that could turn a foolish being into an enlightened one, a sinner into a saint. As the Apostle Paul asked at the beginning of Romans chapter six - "What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase?"

Heaven forbid!

Peace to you and your bridge between your relative and absolute nature, the object/figure of devotion which reminds you of the fundamental unity of both. From sand mandalas in the Himalyas to crucifixes to depiction of the Ceremony in the Air from the Lotus Sutra.