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.

Oblation Update

c. 1437-1446 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

My updates here are sometimes tardy. This one is really late.

In the fall of 2010 in the midst of re-exploring Christianity from a contemplative perspective, I thought about how my growing interest (which culminated in actually attending services at a small parish of the Episcopal Church on Trinity Sunday in 2010) was connected to the lives and writings of monastics, or "religious" as their are also known. I checked online and yes, the Anglican Communion in general and the Episcopal Church in particular had such monastic communities.

I contacted a few in late summer and early fall of 2010 and then selected one to begin a dialogue with about being an oblate, which basically means being attached to a community without taking full vows. I spent some time trying out parts or whole recitations of the Daily Office while I put together my application and continued communicating with the community. By March 2011, as I wrote last year, I was submitting my application. Then there really wasn't much written about the whole thing after that. So what happened?

Well, I got through about 10 months (starting at the end of June/beginning of July 2011 and continuing to nearly the end of March 2012). Before I even started, I was not in love with many parts of the Bible, especially the Psalter (i.e. the Psalms), and Benedictine communities read and pray a lot of the Bible, especially the Psalter. And to be honest, my hang-ups with Christianity and spiritual deafness caused me to feel like quitting the community almost as soon as I had officially started my novitiate. I sent an email withdrawing from my one year period as a novice oblate by the end of July. But over the next month I resolved a particular roadblock, not really sure what it was now exactly, and kind of wished I had stuck with it. Or maybe I just hate making choices that possess such finality. I sent an inquiry was granted a chance to continue as a novice.

This pattern of really getting frustrated with Christianity, and wondering why I continued participating in it when in general I really didn't believe a lot of it or feel any deep connection it, but then getting some insight into a theological puzzle or something similar, continued. I wouldn't really come any closer to faith or believing after such pendulous swings, but I would find something to inspire or intrigue me just enough not to give up, and I figured I might as well keep trying. I mean, maybe it would work out, and maybe it wouldn't, but why quit again unless I was really sure. They wouldn't take me back again a second time, I was pretty sure of that.

By December of 2011, I had become more familiar with the Psalms and learned more about them, but it didn't seem to help. Around this time they became the focus of my Oblate study. That didn't really help much either--I eventually found that I could appreciate them for other people but not for me. Also by that time, my plunging headlong into regular study and reflection crystallized some of what I really don't like or am not comfortable with about Christianity. It seemed as if the more I actually got into the readings and church teachings, the less I liked them. (At least as often as not, and sometimes more.) And a friendly letter I had received a little before that from a fellow novice oblate made it even clearer how differently I viewed things from those who seemed to have faith and found solace in the passages I couldn't stand. How could I ever really belong, and did I actually want to?

When you cannot believe in the meaning of the practice which you are doing

"If our practice is only a means to attain enlightenment, there is actually no way to attain it! We lose the meaning of the way to the goal. But when we believe in our way firmly, we have already attained enlightenment. When you believe in your way, enlightenment is there. But when you cannot believe in the meaning of the practice which you are doing in this moment, you cannot do anything. You are just wandering around the goal with your monkey mind. You are always looking for something without knowing what you are doing. If you want to see something, you should open your eyes."

Shunryu Suzuki, Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind

Substitute "enlightenment" with "salvation" if you wish.

The meaning of the practice? That nirvana, that the kingdom of God, is already here. That it is within us, and that we are within it. That we are imperfectly perfect as we are. No formal theology, no deep philosophy, no dogmatic litmus tests, no reject of spiritual depth, no achievement syndrome.

English: The Valley of Moses in the Desert of Sinai (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

"When you cannot believe in the meaning of the practice which you are doing in this moment, you cannot do anything. You are just wandering around the goal with your monkey mind. You are always looking for something without knowing what you are doing."

When you cannot believe in the meaning of the practice which you are doing, you are just wandering around looking for something without knowing what you are doing.

We are lost in the desert, looking for the Promised Land.

What to do when you have no spiritual side?

The job search continues, and posts in various states of completion are still backlogged for the foreseeable future, but there is something to ponder in the meantime. What, if anything, can anyone do if they don't seem to have a spiritual side?

Now those who automatically dismiss any notion of a greater depth to reality than 20th century scientism will allow have nothing really to add. They would say there is no depth, no transcendence, no higher power, or anything of the kind. Got it.

But what about the rest of you?

As a personal hobby I have read and discussed primarily Buddhist and Christian history, philosophy, practice, and contemplative/mystical insights for nearly a decade, with seven of those years spent writing this blog on and off. I practiced a seated meditation and chanting service weekly in group format with a Chan group for 16 months, and after a couple of years in hiatus I tried being baptized, attending weekly Eucharistic services, and praying the Daily (aka Divine) Office for nearly two years. I also spent time regularly serving at a local soup kitchen.

Clearly then I am not someone who is openly hostile to the idea of spirituality or participation in religion. I think my interest has largely been a mixture of admiration for some Christian and Buddhist monks, intellectual curiosity, and social activism. But none of this has been connected in any way to a sense of the numinous, to the smallest spark of faith in something "more" to existence.

Some may classify part of my problem as a form of spiritual narcissism and materialism, wherein I am looking to "gain" something cool or special to enhance my ego. I might buy that. Others may say I am guilty of some kind of pride or cynicism. It's hard to be objective about that. One person I spoke to suggested that the spark of faith doesn't come from books, intellectual analysis, or going through the motions of liturgy and other forms of ritual.

I don't think most sacred traditions have an answer for someone like me because it wouldn't make sense to worry about someone who is faithless being interested in seeking something they have no reason to believe in. What about it? Have any suggestions for people in this situation? Thanks.

Discovering one's purpose (or not)

Image via Wikipedia

Taking a break from the usual fare here, I was thinking about some of the things people say about discovering one's purpose after I ran across something along those lines on the internet.

It's not a bad thing to ponder, but it isn't easy either. Would you agree?

I like the idea that life and existence has its own intrinsic meaning that isn't imposed by any kind of external will, but is rather revealed and shaped, co-created if you will, by our choices. In that sense, life itself is the purpose, with everything else being secondary.

That sounds good, and it suggests that it is how we live in terms of awareness and openness to ourselves and what we encounter that matters most. Yet on a more prosaic level, we can still ask what kind of form this should take. That's what people often mean when they talk about finding a direction or purpose in life.

The advice gets really poor after that. It's the kind of stuff you probably find in the self-help industry--it sounds like it ought to work but it falls flat. Let's look at some examples.

Assessment of My Re-Exploration of Christian Spirituality

Image via Wikipedia

Here is a brief assessment I composed recently to gauge where I am after a 18 months of re-exploring Christian spirituality (which doesn't count some previous reading on the topic):

1. 1. I don't "believe" in God the way that phrase is generally understood among Christians in the United States, and in fact my view would be closer to something recognizable somewhere between Buddhism and certain forms on Hinduism. Of course, there is no singular way to any and all people of any religious affiliation (even the irreligious) understand or relate to the concept of God, but there is a tendency in contemporary Christianity to see God as a super-person or super-mind who is a cosmic puppeteer. 

Despite the denials of some with regard to this image in favor of a less anthropomorphic or external God, that is, despite a rejection God as a deity, there is still that tendency to try to sneak that kind of theistic miracle-maker and throne-sitter, the "big-guy-in-the-sky", back into the picture. It seems like an awful lot of linguistic twisting and mental gymnastics to try to embrace and deny something at the same time.


2. I don't "believe" in Jesus the way that phrase is normally understood, wherein Jesus is a singular and sole manifestation of God in humanity or that his death or resurrection are going to "save" people from hell in some kind of divine transaction of cosmic justice. As with my thoughts on God, more details on this topic from a number of posts can be found listed here.

There are some rare views out there on Jesus that make more sense to me, but they are far from mainstream and they are heavily influenced by Eastern thought and spirituality. The question then becomes, to what extent do we remake God and the Gospels in our own image, either by emphasizing or ignoring certain parts of the teachings or practices of Christianity (selective perception and secondary elaboration) or by having a different interpretive lens through which we understand these things?

And who determines whether this is valid? How? When? At what point is the message no longer useful? Recognizable? At one point is it determined that this tradition is not a good fit and should be abdandoned?

Prayer from my childhood vs. prayers now

Image via WikipediaNow here is an odd thing. Or it seems odd to me. You can judge for yourself. (And if you are someone who has remained in a religion even though in some ways you've transcended it, there is a question for you at the end.)

When I've tried to use certain prayers and the like unknown to me in my youth but from the same general tradition, I find that I analyze them whether I want to or not:

"I don't agree with the premise or the wording."

"This is misguided or offensive."

"I can appreciate the meaning if I take into account the history, culture and..."

As you can see, this isn't exactly the most helpful response. Yet is appears to be consistent and unyielding.

But that's not the odd part.

Bullshit Buddhism, Counterfeit Christianity

Image via Wikipedia

When I first started seriously investigating Buddhism, circa 2004, I was immediately taken by many things. I read up on Ch'an, some Zen, all kinds of Pure Land, a bit of Tendai, and a huge chunk of Nichiren Buddhism. Basically the East Asian Mahayana forms were my focus, although I did look somewhat into other areas, including what is typically labeled under the umbrella of "Tibetan" Buddhism.

Well, the thing is, it clicked. Perfectly. It was nearly enough to overcome my secular aversion to any notion of rebirth--not quite-- but it felt like coming home. Or something similar to that. The simplicity, the directness and the fact that the Dharma Seals, all of the teachings, could be reduced to a proper appreciation of Shunyata. Nor did one need to dismiss other religions as false or inferior.

It was a bit like Unitarian Univeralism except that it did have specific teachings, history, practices and precepts that made it more than just a tent for various views and opinions united by the desire for liberal-leaning Western-style social justice. So it seemed that after having become dissatisfied with secular humanism and irreligious atheism, I had found a spiritual home. I would certainly be challenged in both group and individual practice, so the easy fit wouldn't be a cakewalk. Excellent, I thought to myself, and now I have a conduit to deepen my pursuit of truth and understanding and compassion. Sounds awesome, right?

Revisiting "You Have Permission to be Happy"

From an older post to this blog...

Friday, November 16, 2007

You have permission to be happy

I don't mean you can never experience sadness, anger, fear, etc, or that you are defective or inferior if you do. Nor am I referring to being pleased with yourself or not caring about anyone else. I mean that its OK to be OK. It's OK to experience a fluttery/calm abiding joy deep within. You don't need to earn it or deserve it (nor should you be proud or boastful about it) and it's always there even if you don't immediately recognize or accept it. It is beyond any "good" or "bad" actions, speech, or thoughts you create and any professed or rejected religious formalism (though these may help some of us to awaken to/accept this truth of our lives). Even when you are experiencing or considering other things, just remember that these thoughts and experiences are transitory, and they cannot "take away" this profound sublime affirmation of your existence (and indeed all of existence as experienced by all beings). No "if..." No "what about..." No "but when..." You have permission to be happy - now and always. 

I don't know why I didn't write more at the time, but I remember the inspiration for this entry. It was during the year I was living in Burlington, North Carolina on a one-year visiting assistant professor contract. The wife and I didn't bother getting home internet or cable TV, so we spent a lot of time hanging out at the Barnes and Noble reading, listening to music, having hot chocolates, etc. A fairly inexpensive but very relaxing and enjoyable way to spend some time. I had at least two books on Buddhism I was perusing, and something they were saying and other things I had heard or read before from mystic Christians, Buddhist masters, and others momentarily coalesced into an insight that I tried to capture in the above text. Just this sense that it really WAS possible to accept and tap into this causeless/limitless/invincible joy or happiness, one that didn't rely on circumstances or conditions and which was available anytime you wanted it. It gave me this very faint and feeble feeling of serenity, even when my dog later jumped on me chest out of nowhere. Didn't flinch, or have a sudden shock, or anything. Totally unperturbed. Didn't last very long, and nothing like it has ever surfaced again. But it was nice. Just happened to run across this post while looking around the archives here for another post in order to remind myself of where I had read something for a conversation on another part of the internet. I thought it might still be worth sharing. Blessings to you.

Religious Experience, Meaning and the (Lack of the) Substance of Faith

Image by Express Monorail via Flickr

The phenomena that have been corralled into the category of religious experience include many of those which would be referred to as mystical experiences. Religious experience can be thought of as the cornerstone of true spirituality and genuine religious practice. Ralph Hood, a researcher who has studied such phenomena, devised what is known as the M-scale as a way to survey the degree to which people have encountered such phenomena. If we go with the premise that religious experience is an essential part of spiritual growth, then failing to have or to recognize such experiences would be a major roadblock to those seeking the depth of being, that is, the depth of their own existence as part of the overall depth of existence itself, which many cultures have labeled the Divine or God. We might expect that those who score "low" on measures such as the M-scale also have trouble personally experiencing the core insights of religions or sensing any benefit from spiritual practices. I am not familiar with such literature and if such correlations have been found, but I know two things: firstly, I score very low such measures; secondly, I have trouble personally experiencing the core insights of religions or sensing any benefit from spiritual practices.

On an intellectual level I can "get" the major insights of religion, such as are outlined by a statement from the Snowmass Conference (click and scroll down). I find that these ideas, expressed through the lenses of different faith traditions, are deeply appealing. But like most of my knowledge about such large and complex topics, it is mostly second hand. That is to say, I haven't measured every fossil or living species, but I can see patterns in the data produced by hundreds of academics who have studied millions of specimens collectively. In the same way, if I take the collective experiences of those who have written about their own religious experiences and those of others, I can similarly see intriguing patterns. I also find that many of the moral insights that those of a more "mystic" orientation have affirmed are compatible with my own sensibilities. The same can be said of the humbling and empowering and motivating revelations they convey. So, you know, I like this stuff. I am even slightly moved emotionally on occasion by some if it (though rarely). But it is, as the common vernacular would have it, all in my head. To be clear, this means it is at a fairly superficial level of reflection and integration.  It's like the difference between learning about something in a textbook and going into the lab, or even better, into the field, and getting personal, direct experience with the subject matter. The real thing is always more expansive, complex and exciting than the best generalized models and standard definitions.

Does Jesus represent one of the 84,000 Dharma doors?

                                         Image via Wikipedia

I would guess that at least some long time visitors and friends for this site, as well as new visitors who look at some of the site's history, will notice that the theme was mostly Buddhist in nature and is less so over the past 12-18 months.  At least overtly Buddhist, as in bearing the trappings of (East) Asian culture. There are still posts that are "Buddhist" even by this standard, but there has been much more on general spirituality and religion, interfaith issues, and Christian themes.  Some of this is partially explained by the background page I created.

As I alluded to there and elsewhere, I am not trying to "put a yak's head on a cow's body".  I don't think Christianity are Buddhism are the same religion or that should be stitched together as one; they clearly have different perspectives, backgrounds, and methods. They come from different cultures and have developed around specific concerns.  That does not mean that they cannot both reflect touching or learning from the same ground of wisdom, or that they aren't sisters.  They can be unique and still have the same mother.  In fact, we can see examples of how they both approach similar concerns very differently, yet underneath may be lurking a common thread.  In fact, it is the fact that they each diverge widely in some ways while retaining some key fundamental similarities that makes them more compatible to me.  Rather than trying to cover the same ground, and hence being directly in conflict, there distinctiveness allows them to be complementary. This gives them quite a bit they can learn from each other, an interesting interconnection between East and West. In it much like the yin and yang combining in the classic Taoist symbol, as I am holding both traditions in a dynamic tension.

I have always found Buddhist sutras, poetry and prayers, particularly of the East Asian/Mahayana traditions, to be very inspiring and moving.  The affirmation they offer, the consistently peaceful and empowering imagery and message, on occasion provokes a faint but endearing sense approaching what I imagine the sacred is like.  But I sometimes get fatigued with some elements of Western Buddhism, which ever so lightly imply they or their tradition is better than those "religious people" (there are those deny Buddhism is a religion because of the baggage they associate with that term), especially those from Western/Abrahamic religions.  I admit to once being tempted to feel the same way, to feel bodhier than thou. And while I may not look down on Christianity as a whole anymore, I am still tempted to be less than charitable towards those who have been loosely labeled fundamentalists.

On the other hand, I've been drawn to several traditions in East Asian Buddhism (Chinese Pure Land, Shin, Chan, Zen, Nichiren Buddhism, etc), and have had a hard time consistently following one or finding groups to meet with. That of course can be seen as providing an opportunity to create new inroads and build something, but it also means much less support for someone who needs it.  There is also a kind of energy in Buddhism as it propagates out of Asia, a vitality and an enthusiasm that captures the imagination and the heart.  Ironically, in places like Japan, Buddhism is said to be slowly turning into a funeral religion. That is, people turn to it for major occasions in life; since those who practice it tend to be older, the most common occasion is, of course, the end of life. This trend is also seen in the Christian equivalent of East Asia for Buddhism. i.e. Europe (and by extension the United States). Old school and mainline Christian denominations have been on the decline for decades. Yet newer incarnations that have their roots in the first half of the 20th century such as Pentecostalism are making waves in the old territories, much like groups such as the Soka Gakkai have in Japan. And these Christian movements also have quite the vitality as they spread into places like Latin America and Africa.

Wrestling with traditional Christian scripture and prayers

So here's the thing.

There are many wonderful people who have come to such profound insight into the Divine, and through this to a solidarity with the core insights of other religions, by practicing with traditional Christian scriptures and prayers.  They have inspired me, and I mention them often: Fr. Thomas Merton, Fr. Thomas Keating, Fr. Richard Rohr, Fr. Bede Griffiths, Br. Wayne Teasdale, Br. David Steindl-Rast (to name a few).  So for reasons discussed elsewhere I joined a politically tolerant, theologically inspirational Episcopal parish with a strong anglo-catholic flavor ("high church liturgy"). The Anglicans, including the Episcopal Church, recommend their version of the Daily Office to both priests and laity alike, religious and secular.  So this sounds like a good idea.  Many in the Anglican tradition simply don't do any of the Daily Offices at all, let alone on a regular basis.  And when they do go to Mass, the reading from the Psalter (the Psalms) tends to be edited so that the harsh portions are left out.  So I will offer some background on my views as well as examples of why this practice hasn't been working out as well as I had initially hoped.

It should be recalled that I see no reason to defend the Bible as something it isn't but rather to appreciate it for what it is.  It is an attempt to record people's understanding of their encounter with the Divine Mystery.  This means appreciating things such as historical and cultural context in the use of language and thus not missing the point of why something was phrased a particular way rather than assuming it would have been said the exact same way if it were written today.  Otherwise much of the power of the texts is muted and we risk misunderstanding that can be profoundly damaging. The necessary process of maintaining the vitality of such texts and their commentaries produces a perpetual tension between between received wisdom through tradition and insights from ongoing revelation.  I don't have any need to deny that there is all manner of ugliness recorded in the Bible, often framed as the will of God, nor should anyone be surprised to find such things.  The human path to peace and wisdom is filled with wrong turns and dead ends because of our shortcomings and poor choices.  Our hearts, the deepest parts of our selves, are often hard, narrow, and crowded, which causes plenty of distortion in discerning who God is and what God wants.

Life review and the experiences of wonder and substance

OK, that wasn't the best title.  But it is based on an interesting occurrence. 

I was just starting to re-read a favorite book, and I was struck by something that the author's description evoked.  It didn't last long, and in a few minutes has already faded and receded mostly into a foggy remnant.  But it was a sudden brief collection of a few images from my life.  Not comprehensive, just the tiniest sampling.

It included the feeling I had when in the spring of 1992 I was in an hotel room in Barcelona, the kind I could have seen at the time as the kind of place an artist or musician might rent as an apartment for a while.  Nice and spacious but relaxed, a bit faded.  There was a sense of a new way of experiencing the world.  The same is true of when I was in Manhattan for the first time in 2003.  It was as if the texture of reality, the shade of the world, could be recolored -- a hint of a different way of living and seeing things like a window into a world of art and architecture and a basic disposition to life.  Something similar could be said of the six weeks I spent in the summer of 1995 as a volunteer at an archeological dig in the south of England.  But there was more to it than just memory.

How would we know God?

Following up on some thoughts that found expression in some recent posts (here and here), a question arises. People sometimes limit their thinking of God and hence their awareness of same, but what is your expectation? What vision of God would you really accept? What would you really believe? Are you trying to (dis)believe strictly in someone else's described experience of the Divine, and if so, why?

More on seeking (or moron seeking?): believe, accept, act

Here is a summary of the things that I have found repeatedly in my search for clues to spiritual seeking. I'm not preaching, I'm just sharing what I've read/heard:

Believe. This is more than mere intellectual assent to a set of empirically dubious or physically untestable historical propositions or elaborate yet limiting/potentially misleading depictions of the Divine. That alone is never enough and it mis-characterizes the point of these propositions and depictions*. However, one does need to believe in the sense of accepting the reality of something, in this case, of a Higher Power that orients, inspires, and sustains us. Otherwise what is one loving, prizing, holding dear, committing oneself to, or engaging with (to use some other meanings for "belief" cherished by authors like Karen Armstrong)? In other words, assume that everything is related to everything else or that the parts or the whole are pointless or dependent solely on what any individual makes of it. Adopting this orientation appears to be a necessary initial step.

Accept. Accept that this belief confirms your intrinsic worth independent of what you have done or failed to do. It also suggests this is true of all people and all phenomena. It bestows a dignity on you and every person that cannot be taken away, and thus compels one to see oneself and others as worthy of this dignity and of having a fundamental equality. This acceptance works both to humble and inspire, an antidote to arrogance and despair. This acceptance is often hard to handle, particularly when one lacks or refuses to embrace charity and forgiveness for themselves or others.

Act. In turn, such a perspective leads one to act as if the details of ones life matter. As if all lives matter. As if all things are precious. As if the sacred is found in all. Of course, this has consequences for morality and ethics, for social justice and charity, for taking care of ourselves. Plus, behavior and belief share a two-way causal relationship. Struggling to believe and working to accept the spiritual dimension of life involves action. Prayer, devotion, contemplation, service, etc are the core of such action. Without it, belief and acceptance will always be out of reach.



-------------------
*The point of such mysteries isn't to simply ask if they are historically true or demand certainty of such things based on second-hand knowledge. You can debate them if you like, and reject them if you wish. The question is - what do they tell you? When we can't know for sure based on our own senses or physical proof, when the details are ambiguous, what does your heart tell you?

Western Buddhists - stay or go home?

Tricycle's Blog recently quoted a sentiment I have run across several times, including a few times from this one individual...

Many Westerners attracted to Buddhist practice have abandoned their own spiritual traditions. They reject the churches and clergy of their own traditions because they feel constricted and uncomfortable with the attitudes and practices they have encountered there. They have suffered within their own tradition and so have sought another. They approach Buddhist practice with the hope of replacing their own tradition and may wish to break away from their own tradition forever.
According to Buddhist wisdom, such wishing is in vain. A person severed from her own culture and traditions is like a tree pulled out by the roots. Such a person will find it hard to be happy. Buddhist practice can offer effective means to heal, reconcile, and reunite with one’s blood and spiritual families, in order to discover the precious gems in one’s own traditions. Thanks to the practice, people will see that Buddhism and their own spiritual tradition have many things in common, and therefore it is not necessary to reject their own spiritual tradition. They will see that there are things that need to be transformed in Buddhism as well as in their own tradition.
–Thich Nhat Hanh, from Teachings on Love (Parallax Press)

I replied with the following...

If you aren’t ready or able to see the use of returning to your religion of ancestry, then do not. The advice doesn’t just say “Go back.” It says to be healed first, implying growing and dealing with the attachment, confusion or pain previously associated with that ancestral religion and to use the insights from Buddhist practice to find what may have been previously overlooked in your old faith. I would venture to suggest that such reconciliation, in part or total, would eventually be necessary an inevitable even if one stayed on the Buddhist path. Just because you can’t appreciate that being possible now doesn’t mean it cannot happen. No need to force or rush anything or to presume where your path will lead. It will be alright and guide you just where you needed to be. :^)

The thing is, I can see how my experience with Buddhism has impacted my view of Judaism and Christianity, opened my eyes to the contemplative and mystical dimensions of Christianity and neglected but traditional forms of exegesis. The ideas of apparent paradox, the importance of the tension between literal and figurative meanings, the value of ahistorical truth, etc, have been amazing on my appreciation of Christianity. I share the excitement and enthusiasm of people like Clark Strand in (re)discovering the wisdom and compassion of the Bible, even if I am not on his level of insight (see my review of his book on the subject). Books like Going Home: Jesus and the Buddha as Brothers as well as the work and writings of Christians like Br. Wayne Teasdale, Br. David Steindl-Rast, Fr. Thomas Merton, Fr. Thomas Keating, and those saints (official and unofficial) who inspired them along with authors like Marcus Borg, along with strong social justice movements for peace and the welfare of all (such as liberation theology) tell me such insights and views are not flukes nor are they extinct in Christianity. And my apophatic contemplative mysticism provided a viable theological foundation.

But I am not finding it easy to decide to go with Buddhism or to go with Christianity. It's hard to find Buddhist communities to practice with, and my cultural (if not karmic) affinities tend to be Western and therefore Judeo-Christian. But then, my ideal Christian community, which would be the size, scope, and liturgical/historical richness and community of the Roman Catholic Church mixed with the interfaith respect and progressive values of the Unitarian Universalist, does not exist, and the idea of just where I would fit is hard to say. On the other hand, many Buddhist communities would have no problem with a new member with Christian affinities. But I don't "know" the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas like I do the Hebrew prophets, Jesus and his parents/disciples, etc. Maybe it would help if a teacher were to say "They aren't equivalent, but this Bodhisattva is like Peter and this Enlightened Being is like John the Baptist and this historical figure is like Moses..." Because even if you try to take these alien figures seriously as part of the service, it needs to be sincere, not just politely going along.

So anyway, as I wrote recently, if you want to pitch your group or congregation, I am open to suggestions.

Mahayana Buddhist (or Mystical Christian) Available. All offers considered.

I am into (and you can readily search for scads of posts in which I elaborate on the following):

• the idea that salvation of the Bodhisattva (or any other kind of the spiritual variety) cannot be complete unless all are saved, and that the implication of stories abiut figures like Dharmakara becoming Amida suggest that we are all already resting in the wisdom and compassion of the Ultimate, of Becoming, or God, however you like to phrase it.

• following that line, things like grave offenses aren't unforgiveable or an excuse to exclude some from salvation - it simply means one who is in that kind of deluded state is not able to perceive the truth underlying liberation at that moment.

• the underlying nature of liberation is the appreciation that there is only Buddhanature and that all else is delusion, hence the teaching that "samsara is nirvana", implying in the contradiction that there is in truth only nirvana except for those deluded into believing in a separate, distinct, intrinsic existence of any phenomena from the source of all phenomena. In other parlance, we are all already saved and hell and suffering is something we inflict on ourselves and each other - so stop it already!

• focusing on transforming desire from selfish cravings that come from a sense of isolation/uncertain incompleteness into a positive motivation to improve the world and assist others born from a sense of unity/inherent wholeness, from the insecurity of a deluded being to the confidence of Bodhisattva. This is sometimes phrased as another seeming contradiction, "passions/desires are enlightenment".

• the claim that it can benefit people to pray for whatever they want. It may seem like a contradiction of the last statement about transforming desire, but it is actually a corollary, and perhaps a necessary one. A major obstacle to spiritual transformation is the fact that we find it hard to be honest. To really face up to what is in our hearts. So instead we put up a nice facade, even for ourselves, especially for ourselves, so we can try to think and say and so what we suppose we ought to think and say and do. But look at the Bible, especially the Psalms. Many of those prayers reveal selfishness, fear, anger, haughtiness, intolerance, impatience, etc. That is because true prayer involves pouring out your heart, not just making, stale, formal offerings.
  
  [The same is true for Buddhist prayer. If we aren't brutally honest about what is really in our heart, and if we don't pour it out, how can we then be filled with something else, something nobler? If we can't accept who we are, how can we become who we want to be? Of course, if we just pray or chant as if the object of our devotion was just a cosmic vending machine and hold something back, or fail to take in the examples of teachings of generosity and faith in our inherent wholeness/Buddhanature, then we will never experience transformation, but will remain at an infantile or juvenile phase of spiritual growth. Either we trust in the whole process or we simply become attached to some part of it, and not only do we fail to benefit but the would be cure becomes a poison. (Yes, it works both ways, poison to medicine, and vice versa.) Eventually our prayers come to more and more reflect our growing spiritual maturity and what is truly in our deepest heart of hearts as we excavate further and further with our practice into our true limitless compassion and wisdom at the root of our Being.]

• the idea you don't have to be explicitly Buddhist to appreciate or discover these ideas, nor use Buddhist terminology. In fact, getting too hung up on "Buddhism" can actually be very counterproductive. Many of these teachings are expressed in other sacred traditions, especially among those who practice what may be dubbed "contemplative/apophatic mysticism".

• the idea that focusing on these kinds of things as intellectual philosophy can lead one to a mistaken sense of accomplishment and a misleading arrogance, and that if you can't appreciate the more basic teachings at the more literal level, then you are missing out on necessary growth and expansion of nuanced perspective. It can lead to attachment to (presumptions about) emptiness, which is far worse than attachment to form. Far better to take the simple road and cultivate great faith than to be too clever to allow a true surrender of the lesser self ("ego") and an acceptance of that self (in its proper role) as as a part of a whole being/Buddha.

I guess that means that I am cleared to practice most major forms of Mahayana Buddhism, especially Nichiren Buddhism, Shin Buddhism, and whatever blend is present at the Buddhist Society of Compassionate Wisdom, which suggests that the five major pronouncements of Mahayana teachings include:

1. All sentient beings are buddhas.


2. Samsara is Nirvana.


3. One's passions are enlightenment.


4. We are an interrelated whole.


5. Everyday life is the Way.

I am also open to Christianity via my appreciation of Panentheism and my appreciation of Christ in that faith as the premier incarnation/avatar of the Divine in his role as the Cosmic Christ, with God (the Ultimate/Source of Becoming) seen as a father and in which Jesus represent form/the phenomenal world, linked by each giving utterly of each other through love (i.e. the Holy Spirit). The Gospels then are a revelation of God's solidarity with humanity in all things, including the worst suffering, and of course the death of the limited self to reborn to our greater nature, the example of the law of love through sacrifice, etc, etc, and many other similar signs and lessons in the life of Christ. It may sound complicated, but it isn't as far from many roots of contemporary and historical theology as some might suspect.

So yay. But I really wish I had a home base, if you will, to operate from. Anyone want to make any suggestions or offers? Oh where do I belong?

The me-show

I don't like depictions of "ego" or "the self" as enemy, because it just continues to reinforce a sense of duality that is at the heart of the (potential) problem anyway. That being said, I am still amazed at myself. I had an idea to do something REALLY nice for someone else. But then after all my planning and starting out to do it, I realized there was a problem and I wouldn't be able to do the nice thing after all. And I was upset. Upset that I wouldn't get that good feeling from seeing the reaction of the person who I supposedly was going to do the favor for. It will still about me. Just like those who burden the dying because the grievers are concerned about how losing the person will make them feel, how it will affect their lives. And then I sometimes look back on the virtuous decisions I've made over my life. No drinking, no drugs, no womanizing, no cheating/dishonest shortcuts, no physical violence/fighting, etc. I agree with most of these decisions all them time, and all of these decisions most of the time. Especially the substance issues and the violence. But I realize sometimes I did/didn't do things because of some sense of getting "credit" for my troubles. The idea that my choices will become more and more anonymous and only count of its own virtue sometimes causes a tinge of regret. And when that summons a sense of regret, I know again it was all about satisfying me, even when I was denying myself satisfaction. No wonder my spiritual journey has been so fruitless. Line up to throw stones and tomatoes here.

More on spiritual homelessness

I don't have the time or energy to find and link all of the posts I've made here about my spiritual/religious indecisiveness, but they aren't hard to find with a scan through my blog. (You can find some recent examples here here here here and here.) I was discussing it a few weeks ago and attempted a straight-forward summary. You might find some of it familiar, or if not, perhaps it will help you understand other people a little better. Well-meaning suggestions are permited but I find they often reflect what the suggester needs/wants rather than might make sense to me. But that's OK.

So why do I hesitate? A major element is my own fear of making a bad choice and a general issue with indecisiveness. But is that it?

I think it boils down to seeking authenticity. It's born of a kind of a desire for (frustratingly) radical honesty. It (the religion and spirituality being discussed) all sounds nice but it's based on other people's reported experiences. If they are accurate, then my theology is really comprehensive and astute. And I have good reasons to believe the accuracy of certain people on these issues. Again, it's the lack of personal verification that sucks. I just can't buy it - any of it - otherwise. I spent twenty years calling myself a Christian but sensing incongruity and hypocrisy, a decade more as an agnostic/atheist which ultimately was too sterile, and another five studying and even practicing Buddhism. I am not looking to join a club or to find a label to wear. I've had my share.

In any case, this reminds me of something I once read. Basically, a student asked (paraphrasing): People seek rebirth in the Pure Land so they can be sure to attain enlightenment, but if the Pure Land isn't a literal place and is instead symbolic, then why not just go straight for enlightenment? Why seek to literally be reborn in an imaginary/metaphorical place? Here is part of the reply...

In truth, all the pure and impure lands in the ten directions are like dreams and illusions; however, only when we have attained the “Illusion-like Samadhi” can we see them as illusory and false. If we have not yet reached that stage, we will still see them as real, we are still subject to their sway, we will still know sorrow and happiness, we still feel uncomfortable during the summer heat and are even bothered by such small things as mosquito and ant bites. Thus, how can we speak about things being illusory? We should realize that the Pure Land method is a wonderful expedient of the Buddha, borrowing an illusory realm of happiness to help being escape from an illusory realm of great suffering, full of obstructing conditions and dangers. Them, from that happy, peaceful, illusory realm, cultivation progresses easily and the ever-silent realm of the True Mind is swiftly attained...

One more point to bear in mind: if we speak about the Truth of Emptiness without having attained that stage (or at least reached a certain level of achievement in our practice) we certainly cannot convert others but will only end up in useless arguments and disputes. (pp. 152)

Of the two types of attachments, to existence and to emptiness, the latter is very dangerous. Both the Lankavatara and the Esoteric Adornment Sutra state:

"It is better to be attached to existence, though attachment may be as great as Mount Sumeru, than to be attached to emptiness, though attachment may be as small as a mustard seed.”


Attachment to “existence” leads to mindfulness of cause and effect, wariness of transgressions and fear of breaking the precepts, as well as to Buddha and sutra recitation and performance of good deeds. Although these actions are bound to forms and not free and liberated, they are all conducive to merits, virtues, and good roots. On the other hand, if we are attached to emptiness without having attained True Emptiness, but refuse to follow forms and cultivate merits and virtues, we will certainly sink into the cycle of birth and death. (pp.153-154)

-excerpted from the comments of Master Thich Thien Tam in Pure Land Buddhism: Dailogs with Ancient Masters (from the section "Doubts & Questions about Pure Land")

In other words, it is one thing to start a practice believing literally in the metaphors and symbols (represented here as attachment to "existence"), and after long practice, come to move beyond the dichotomy of literal/symbolic based on having realized the Truth being pointed to in the tradition (represented here as attaining True Emptiness). But to just start saying "Oh, these are all just clever systems pointing to X", without ever having developed any genuine sense or appreciation of X beyond a dry and abstract conceptual level, you will then be "too clever" to really do the practices with sincerity, especially those where you need to "buy into" the imagery or the story (this cleverness represented here as attachment to "emptiness"). Hence you are actually #$^@* out of luck and would have been better off just believing in the literal view.

Hitting a spiritual stumbling block - the delusion of isolation

Can you imagine anyone who has never felt abandoned? Yet if you believe in God, or in a psychic unity of sentient beings, or in the interdependent notions espoused by dependent co-origination (wherein the proper conditions cause previously latent phenomena to manifest themselves), how does that happen? You don't have to practice a sacred tradition to see the disconnect. Some people feel miserably isolated in a crowded room! Such a sense of separation - from everything and everyone - cannot physically be true, much less spiritually true. So, what gives? This is a difficult question because like many of the ones that give us the most grief, there is no simple one-size-fits-all answer. Yet there are some things we can try to do about it whether we fully understand it or not.

Some of us struggle to be honest about our desires - the disconnect between what we crave and what we wish we wanted. And part of that can come from not wanting to face the more common and base parts of our desires and our past and current failings to privately live up to the standards we may publicly cherish. Yet for some admitting the most embarrassing failings isn't as hard as to accept genuine affection, sincere compliments, and other expressions of kindness and charity. These things may make us uncomfortable. Perhaps this is because they are an invitation and a request for communion and fellowship. If we aren't comfortable with ourselves we are generally not comfortable around others, so opening ourselves to receive such generosity is a response to a call to be acknowledged and participate in a larger community. Even if it is only a community of two. The largest catapults and siege engines may not breach the walls of the hardened misanthrope, but a single act of true charity can plant a seed whose roots will one day overturn the foundation of the entire edifice.

There is no single way to combat problems such as persistent loneliness, spiritual apathy, or metaphysical cynicism. In severe and debilitating cases these issues need to be addressed by a trained professional. However, one step we can all take is to open ourselves to all of the prayers, well-wishes, positive thoughts, and good intentions that people have been making for us from before we were born to the moment we started reading this post. The millions and millions who sit or walk or bow for our well-being. Who have cared for us when we didn't even care for ourselves. Who have worked to leave the world a better place for us. We can be grateful, and if we are so moved, we can return the favor. When we do this we can realize or remember that we are not truly alone - we are not abandoned. There is a greater and more meaningful existence that awaits us beyond on our own boredom and dissatisfaction if we have the courage to accept the gifts we are being offered.