FAQ

Here is the FAQ--Fully Anticipated Questions:


Why did you start this blog?

See the About section for a more complete response. This is a personal blog. I am mostly writing to remind myself of ideas and experiences I have come across, not to tell anyone else what to do or believe, but I share it with visitors and encourage interaction and feedback. Hence it is a shared personal experience.


What is the goal or purpose of this blog?

Image by Fergal of Claddagh via FlickrThere used to be something about this in the old About section. To summarize, the purpose is an outlet for my interest in writing combined with my hobby of studying spirituality. It shares my own experiences with religion and spirituality and invites others to do the same. And it hopefully provides some inspiration or solace for those who realize that you don't always have to be rigid or intolerant on issues related to religion and spirituality, what I once called the beleaguered middle who, while being labeled as atheist, agnostic, Buddhist, Hindu, Jew, Christian, Muslim, etc, feel that they can still learn something important from others and who are comfortable enough with their approach to life that they can move beyond fixed boundaries of belief or non-belief with an open mind and heart.


Does this blog allow or encourage people who disagree with what is posted?

Of course. As I am the first to find that after a time I disagree with a lot of what I write, I can't very well hold it against others now can I? I may even put up something I already know I will disagree with at some point down the line.

Can readers assume that the views expressed on this site match the beliefs of the person writing about them?

No. It may have made sense at the time, or may have been a logical or sensible outcome given a set of starting assumptions that were hypothetical or which are no longer accepted.

So looking around I am confused, is the (primary) author of this blog an atheist, a Christian or a Buddhist?

Yes. And no. All and none. Whatever you like. Or maybe it would be better to say, whichever you like the least or with which you are the most uncomfortable.


Seriously, which is it?

Image by anitakhart via Flickr

Well, all of those labels capture important aspects of my own personal intellectual and creative exploration of life, the universe and everything. I have been referred to by others as a Kosmopolite, someone who is comfortable as a world citizen, a universal citizen. I outgrew fundamentalist religion and its view of God (atheism), I have performed the ceremony to take refuge in the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha (Buddhism), and I have been baptized (Christianity). I like to let the theists think I am an atheist, the Buddhists think I am a Christian, and so forth.


So, what does that mean? If you were to fill out a form, which label would you choose? Are you some kind of hybrid?

The Dalai Lama has rightly compared some types of religious hybridization to putting a yak's head on a goat's body, but syncretism (a milder form of interplay) has always been the rule in religion. Christianity has been formed from Messianic and Hellensitic Judaism as well as Roman and Germanic culture. Tibetan Buddhism blended Theravada Buddhism, Mahayana Buddhism and the older Bon faith of the Himalayas. Chinese Buddhism was heavily influence by Taoism and Confucianism and interaction with Tibetan Buddhism, and Japanese Buddhism has roots in Chinese Buddhism (by way of Korea) and was heavily influenced by the native beliefs and practices of Shinto. Those examples are very abbreviated, but the point stands. There simply is no such thing as a pure breed religion any more than there is a fixity of biological species. Religions are not now and have never been monolithic, static institutions which march unchanging through time.

I think there are new forms of syncretism happening now in the United States that are affecting both Christianity and Buddhism. I have often felt as if I were in the middle of it--not in a pivotal or influential way, more like an ant riding a leaf in a stream. As to whether I am a Buddhist-like Christian or a Christian-like Buddhist, etc, I would say neither. My vows make me firmly a Christian and a Buddhist. Both are distinct. If that seems like a contradiction, think of the Yin and Yang swirling symbol of Taoism. Yin is not Yang and Yang is not Yin. They actually have many oppositional qualities, very binary (introverted/extroverted, hot/cool, etc). Yet they compliment each other. And in the heart of Yin we see there is something of Yang, and in the heart of Yang we see something of Yin. These attract one to the other, which is what makes the whole thing go round and round in balance, in harmony.

That really didn't answer the last question, did it? What do you really believe?


Well, I don't have a compelling "felt" sense that there is some hidden meaning or purpose to the universe or what happens within it, nor do I have any overwhelming feeling of awe toward the mystery beyond our perceptions, our cosmologies, and our personally generated cognitive maps of or experiences of reality. But neither do I dismiss those whose practice or natural disposition had led them to such perceptions. Note that I didn't necessarily tie these senses and perceptions to a particular form of deification, theology, or philosophy of this deepest reality and transcendent mystery. One could technically consider themselves agnostic or even weakly atheistic as well as completely irreligious and still identify with such expanded awareness, sense of purpose, and experience of wonder. This kind of outlook, whether tied to a particular religion or not, is what I would refer to as spirituality. Hence I am more or less a non-spiritual fan of spirituality.

Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism are one, a litang style painting portraying three men laughing by a river stream, 12th century, Song Dynasty. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

On the other hand, intellectually the idea that the universe is much larger and far more amazing than our human minds can start to grasp makes perfect sense. I don't arbitrarily dismiss the idea of some fundamental awareness or luminosity at the core of all things. Moreover, as species we have a need to organize the thoughts and feelings and intentions related to our fundamental orientation to existence ("God", "Spirit", "Tao", etc.), and we are natural story tellers. The stories in which we participate, through reading, ritual, art, and so forth, focus and channel these thoughts, feelings, and intentions and help us tap into our spirituality, and are the soil from which religions spring. Any particular religion can only really make sense from within, by adopting its way of seeing the world. It will not and cannot make sense from external objective analysis, from an etic perspective.

That said, I think that religions, like any social institution that becomes large enough and powerful enough, can become corrupted and can be used to manipulate and abuse others, especially when they become connected to political structures. Yet they are not inherently bad or delusional. People will always have a spiritual impulse and a religious channeling of that impulse, so it makes more sense to me to properly guide and honor the better aspects of individual religions than to denigrate and attack religion as a whole. I also think that in "modern" and especially western societies, the ability to appreciate the poetic and liberating aspects of religion have been undermined by a form of pseudo-rational literalism and flat thinking pitted against the limited option of "symbolic only" interpretation. While this is often seen as a plague infecting fundamentalist religionists and shallow atheists, it is just as problematic in a more subtle form among those doing formal theology.

Tenzin Gyatso (14th Dalai Lama) 2008, 2005 & 2004 (Finalist in 2009) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Certain aspects of theology as it has come to be understood is undermining the better aspects or religion by trying to standardize religion according to logic and reason. Yet poetry and the creative expression of new possibilities is often messy, idiosyncratic, and (seemingly) erratic. Even irrational. It comes from lived experience and intuition, the same well from which spirituality springs. It is often local or regional in expression and frequently individual in nature. This isn't to decry any and all aspects of theology, but to critique the influence of the perception of theology and the goals of some of its more well-known variations.

Ironically, then, I recognize and accept the reality of the spiritual experience and the value of religion on intellectual grounds, but it is like a deaf person writing about the nature of music or a blind person pondering color theory in painting. This does call into serious question the sincerity and validity of my participation in ceremonies such as taking refuge in the triple gem and baptism. Still I do believe in humility (valuing and having consideration of others as myself), confidence (not being threatened by the success of others or my own failures), personal growth (mental, emotional, physical, social, etc), compassion (a deep empathy with and concern for the welfare of others), justice (an active affirmation of my compassion), and environmental protection. Maybe not for the same reasons or in the same way as others, but I value these things nonetheless.


All of which is why I feel more comfortable with many labels rather than a single exclusive label that implies beliefs and experiences that I do not necessarily share. I am and am not a Buddhist, a Christian, and an atheist. It's just that simple.