Showing posts with label Clark Strand. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Clark Strand. Show all posts

Saturday, June 29, 2013

To pray or not to pray

What is prayer and who is it for? Does it matter?

[Pixabay]
I sometimes discuss issues of religion or spirituality on social media with Clark Strand, former senior editor at Tricycle magazine and author of books on Buddhism and how to access underappreciated or misunderstood elements of religious tradition.

While working on a new book, Clark has been posting quite a bit over the past year or so about prayer with an emphasis on the rosary.

Recently he posted that "everything prays" and that "the purpose of life... is life".

I replied that I used to say (here on this blog, actually, in 2006 and again in 2008) that we need to replace "of" with "is" in "the meaning of life."

I also thought that his sentiments resonated with the idea that everything we do is a prayer, so the question becomes not "Should I pray?" but "What am I praying for?"

This raises the question of what we mean when we use the term prayer, and this actually gets back to something I recently wrote about spirituality.

So what is prayer and who it for, anyway?

Sunday, June 7, 2009

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.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, May 29, 2009

Book Review: How to Believe in God (Whether You Believe in Religion or Not) by Clark Strand

I got the book through Amazon pre-order as soon as it came out then took a month to slowly absorb it rather than my usual 100-200 page a day (or more when I'm off from work) devouring of new books. I have already recommended it over a dozen times, mostly on discussion forums. I would (and have) describe(d) it as a Western Buddhist's (re)discovery of the wisdom of the Bible and Judeo-Christianity.

I am skeptical of Strand's statements in the preface playing down religion because without such tradition, the very insights he found by talking to so many people of different faiths would have been much harder to access. But I suppose that will help those who are hostile to or cynical about religion give the rest of his book a chance. He comes to many of the same conclusion lots of Buddhist converts from Western religions do when we come back to re-examine our heritage, such as the realization of a common Wisdom (confirming an all embracing ineffable Presence and our essential wholeness) that runs through the Old and New Testament in spite of the fundamenalist evangelical form of Biblical exegesis we had previously been blinded by.

Some chapters may require one to be familiar with Buddhism in general, and movements like Nichiren and Shin Buddhism in particular, to fully appreciate, but anyone can get the basic thrust of most chapters. Some are clear about the message Strand has received from a particular passage, and others, such as the one about dancing before the Ark of the Covenant, are more opaque and require a deeper insight on the part of the reader to appreciate. My favorites were the one about evil not having a way and the lesson of Jonah (the peril of having a "Nineveh-moment"). But some may be disappointed that the book does not include references or citations to other works.

A definite recommendation for the religiously progressive or those curious about why a Buddhist might find such inspiration from the Bible. Those who are allergic to "religion" in general and "God" or "Christianity" in particular should avoid this one, because it might wedge a crack in their comfortable prejudices.

To learn more or get this stuff straight from the worst horses's mouth*, try his blog over at Whole Earth God.


(*bad Buddhist pun)

Sunday, December 23, 2007

Book Review: Manifesting God

Manifesting God is the name of a very short, direct, and affective (that's not a typo) book written by Thomas Keating. I have promoted interspiritual, interreligious, or interfaith issues before and I was particularly moved by the writings of the late Brother Wayne Teasdale, who saw the contemplative dimension that is common to all religious traditions and spiritual paths as essential for one's personal fulfilment as well as the transformation of the human community to a more compassionate and mature state. Keating and his revival of Centering Prayer are frequently featured of such interspiritual dialogue. So when I saw slim, diminutive summary book on the topic by Keating himself dated to 2005, I decided to read it and see what the fuss was about.

I am not going to quote from the book here, but let me just that if you are a Buddhist, especially a Western-culture-raised Buddhist, regardless of whether you into Tibetan Buddhism, Chan/Zen/etc, traditional or Japanese Pure Land, or the many other varieties or combinations, I suspect you will frequently feel as if you are reading a book on Buddhism. That's right - whether you identify more with sitting silently while being open and nonjudgmental toward Ultimate Reality/reality-as-it-is or whether you identify more with the idea of faith in our True Nature (i.e. expressed as True Mind, a vision of a particular Buddha, as an ineffable Presence, etc) as the bedrock for all other practice, you will read passages that will resonate with what you have seen, read, heard, and/or experienced as a Buddhist practitioner.

I am not suggesting that what Keating is offering is simply Buddhism-lite dressed up a Christianity. However, as many have noted before while particular rites, rituals, prayers, and paraphernalia are important to beginning and sustaining a spiritual or religious path, it may be that where many of them lead is not so different (or in the end even identical). Naturally, similar traps crop up in all faiths leading at times to exclusion, fear, and hatred. That is because while religions express a shared understanding of who we are and how to live a meaningful life, they don't always come up with the same answers, even within themselves. Hence the familiar fallacy of what it means to be a "true" Christian, or Buddhist, or Muslim. This makes the commonality of the insights and resulting qualities of so many dedicated seekers quite fascinating.

Rather than call for a amalgamation of all religions into a theological gumbo, many contemplative masters and respected spiritual and religious leaders often point instead to the idea that there is a path in each system that works as to get people past the superficial (where much of the disagreements and disputes arise)to the more profound realization of their faith (where there is more commonality and less friction). To paraphrase Teasdale, religious systems are now open and interconnected with one another, able to borrow and learn from each other without completely absorbing or nullifying the others. If I recall correctly even the current Dalai Lama has suggested as much, encouraging people raised in Christianity to seek realization in that more familiar cultural paradigm of spirituality. Of course, that doesn't mean there aren't those who identify with more than one faith, but many I have heard of or know tend to see them as multiple incarnations or distinct expressions of human understanding. That is, I get the feeling they can identify with multiple religions without having to try to explicitly include all of their practices and symbols.

I bring this latter point up simply to remind readers of the complexity of and hence the potential for misunderstanding when discussing interspiritual topics. I have noted a defensive tendency at times(playfully addressed in a post titled "Don't taint my Buddhism with comparisons to Christianity"). Nor am I excluding myself from being more inclined to be argumentative first and respectful second. As for the book, Manifesting God is intriguing to me because yes, it does talk about God and Jesus and it includes quotes from the Bible (for more on my thoughts on these issues in general look here), but it also speaks to topics I have wrestled with in Buddhism.

Perhaps this is in part because so much of my spiritual cultural heritage was founded from such a different perspective than Asian spirituality. While some folks rush to exorcise God and any notion resembling God from their lives and their practice when embracing paths such as Buddhism, it is possible that at times that lacuna means that we have more difficulty processing certain images or messages. That is, even if one does not believe in the God of their childhood or church-going days, it is difficult to "get" some spiritual concepts without a reference that at least vaguely resembles that term because it occupies a unique linguistic and ontological space in our culture and society.

Here is a small sampling of what Buddhists might recognize in the book. The practice of getting past our assumptions, letting go of our false selves, and therefore not clinging to expectations (whether these expectations and judgements are about our formal practice or our lived experience). The idea of being an interdependent aspect of the greater whole of Ultimate Reality. The idea of challenging the view of the embodiment of Ultimate Reality as a transcendent, aloof, and judgemental ruler who only favors the (religiously) observant, the successful, and the upstanding with the view of an immanent Presence that is all-inclusive and is found in the broken, the vile, and the discarded as well as the pretty and the pleasing. (The transcendent aspect is not discarded but is taken from being aloof or inaccessible and recast as simply being ineffable.)

Additionally, Keating talks specifically about pre-conceptions of God (Ultimate Reality) that are commonly passed on to children and which can hinder their interest in or experience of the Divine. While I am not listing and discussing them here, I do believe that for many people raised with such notions these same hang-ups may manifest in subtle and not so subtle ways in their practice of Buddhism as well. Therefore even for those are not particularly interested in interfaith dialogue or Christianity per se, I do wonder to what degree reading this little book may be beneficial to other Buddhists with a Western/Christianized background. So I put the question out there and you can decide what, if anything, you will do with it. Those who practice and path involves both contemplation and faith as co-equal or even unequal elements (including the Zen folks, the Shin folks, etc) I anticipate it will be most useful. For those totally turned off by the association of Buddhism with or even the mere mentioning of Christianity, Jesus, God, etc I anticipate it will be even more useful.



PS- I am aware that Clark Strand, a name that produces strong reactions in English-speaking Buddhist circles, is supposed to have a new book out in the next several months How to Believe in God (Whether You Believe in Religion or Not). I have no idea what he plans to say in that book, but I am wondering if it will be along the lines of what I am discussing here? And if so, I wonder what kind of reaction it will generate?
Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, June 25, 2007

Christian, Atheist, Buddhist

We take who we are forward with us. Yes, we are certainly reborn every moment, and if we are open to that, really aware of it, then a wonderful breakthrough, or liberation, can occur. Yet we take our experiences with us. We are composed of transient phenomena to be sure, or at least if we accept the core teachings of Buddhism. But we are also like mosaics. Just like the works of an artist are sometimes tied to different times in the artist's creative life ("this is from his crayon period", "these is from her yellow years"), our collective works of living are also a part of us. Even if we no longer feel the same way or have the same beliefs as we did in various times of our lives, they still contributed to how we learned to relate to the world.

I pondered this months ago when reading something by Clark Strand about an interesting occurrence among some Western Buddhists with whom he had interacted. His point, as I understood it, was that many people in the West who come to Buddhism aren't comfortable with what they were raised to believe in as part of the Christian faith. To put this in my own terms, this includes ideas about God as a big Creator bully who is also the heart of love, or the inconsistencies of various practices and doctrines, or whatever - these had turned people off from religion (even though, I might interject, there are more mature and sophisticated Christian beliefs out there). So hey, here is Buddhism which doesn't even need to be called a religion if we don't want, and it doesn't spell out obedience to the whims of a seemingly bipolar Supreme Being, and we don't have to accept the supernatural sounding elements, so it's still a connection to Something greater than ourselves and a commitment to the spiritual values of wisdom and compassion, but without all the stuff that a lot of people have hang-ups over.

So, continuing what I took away from what Clark had written, he points out that like it or not, much of the Western culture is extremely Christianized. Not just the obvious stuff like the holiday or obviously religious writings or musical compositions or pieces of artwork, but in a myriad of subtle ways. In effect, we are so immersed in Christian symbolism, we don't typically notice most of it because we take it for granted. His example is talking to a young woman, as I recall, about her practice and her spirituality and he was using certain Christian terms and concepts to relate a particular insight. She wasn't able to get past the association of these terms and concepts with something she had rejected, even though as Strand put it, she was using other Christianity-derived concepts and references in her argument to prove she didn't see the world in such perspective.

Which brings us back to the idea that we take our experiences with us. Even if we weren't practicing Christians, if we were raised in the West we have a heavy Christian element in our cultural foundation. It's just there. And besides, to totally erase any appreciation of Christian imagery, even if we are not Christians, is to fail to appreciate so much of our history as expressed in these terms.

I spent many years as a Christian, so, for me, it's more than just a passive cultural influence and set of popular references. I actively attempted to grasp matters both spiritual and otherwise through the prism of (a rather limited form of) Christian theology. So, like it or not, there are certain things - prayers, songs, images, etc - which are going to provoke a response. And I don't just mean a memory or an old association between how I felt at age whatever and some sight or smell which triggers a kind of flashback. I mean that, for example, in trying to appreciate the Bodhisattva ideal, I do so with a grounding in the Gospel.

I can read the story of Ksitigharba, for example, who vows to save all those lost and suffering in the Hell realms, but I acknowledge that when I attempt to deeply meditate on such unwavering sacrifice and devotion to the salvation of the worst offenders and "least deserving", this is connected to my early appreciation of such sacrifice by Christ on the Cross. Yet that doesn't mean I believe in a historically literal crucifixion and bodily resurrection.

So, I acknowledge that while I don't hold to many of the beliefs I once did, especially the literal/historical elements of significant portions of the Bible, I still acknowledge there is a greater truth found in that collection of books which I could not fully appreciate when I was a "believer". In fact, it took a stroll through atheism and then Buddhism to finally come to appreciate just how much wisdom is actually contained in the Bible!

Speaking of my atheism, what I took from it was not really atheism as many people appreciate it. I suppose it was a logical step when I began to question theism as it is often presented. But in keeping an open mind I realized after a while I had reached an impasse. Skepticism for the sake of skepticism didn't lead me to new insights. It was too safe to sit away from the spiritual journey and snipe at the obvious shortcomings of many traveling various religious paths. Yes, I had stripped my beliefs down, ground them down, grinding my assumptions about everything spiritual and religious to dust. But having torn down the old edifice, that left a question - now that I had a kind of fresh start, what was next? If I followed the principles of inquiry and honesty that had led me this far, where would they take me next? Yes, it would be leaving the what had the appearance of an "objective" safe haven, but so what? Some truths cannot be found in debating philosophy or in a science lab - they are the domain of deeply personal experience.

But I was shy, so to speak, and still somewhat cynical with regard to religion, and so as I described above for someone in this position, Buddhism seemed like a good bet. And I found had to keep re-evaluating how I used certain terms and concepts, finding they meant more than the classic theist-atheist debate would allow. I began and continue to explore these deeper subtleties of spirituality and religion, and with this exploration a treasure trove of challenges and insights I had neglected both as an conservative Protestant evangelical Christian and as an avowed "non-believer".

That is why I have referred to my current position with regard to the traditional theist-atheist debate as post-theist: that is, I am not limited by the rigid definitions of that dichotomy. If there is something worthwhile associated with more secular thought, great. If there is something worthwhile from a point of view based on the premise of a Higher Power, awesome. Nor am I the first to make this journey. It happens all the time. There are many works of theology and philosophy which hint at or directly tackle ideas that both draw on and transcend such categories.

As for the labels themselves, I don't use Christian just because I don't think 99% of Christians would approve of what would be my form of Christianity, were I to declare myself one of their fold. Similarly, I don't think that atheists would really care for the fact that my beliefs aren't strictly, well, atheistic, at least not except in the broadest sense, and certainly not in the popular usage. Considering I practice Buddhism, and that Buddhists, at least here in the West, tend to tolerate and even celebrate eclecticism in one's beliefs, I feel comfortable using that term, but that doesn't mean I am rejecting my past. It means I am opening myself to the present.


Enhanced by Zemanta

Sunday, February 11, 2007

Just as you are

In a post called Cause it's how you are supposed to feel I was writing about "getting it", which was intentionally vague, but had to do with one's relationship or perception of connection to the unfolding existence of which one is a part, however that might be symbolized or expressed...

It seems to me that "getting it" is kind of an on or off thing - you do or you do not, there is no try. But at the same time, I don't think "getting it" is an end, either, but more like a constant companion and reminder that stays with us even when we are in the doldrums. Maybe that's why we tend to personify "getting it".

Yet if we can "get it" and still at times find ourselves to be out of sorts, frustrated, or discouraged, then what is our companion reminding us then? What is that message, whether embodied or transmitted through a life philosophy, spiritual path, or sacred tradition, for someone on the outs?

I can't speak for you. I can't speak for "getting it" on your behalf. The next time you are down and out, I guess you will get another shot at hearing the message yourself. So don't let what I say, or what someone else may write on the topic, "poison you", so to speak. I don't mean you won't find the same answer, or that my answer or someone else is wrong, but rather that hearing what someone else thinks may bias your own experience at best or serve as a substitute for having your own genuine experience at worst.
My phrasing might have been better, but I think the sense that I perceive is something along the lines of "Just as you are". In fact, it's a signature I've used to some degree on the web as my greeting to the people reading my entries and posts. This basic idea is not anywhere new or revolutionary, but I felt t might be worth expressing on the most basic level. Still, you've got to be impressed when someone says it expansively with style.

At Dharmakara's Prayer the author recently quoted Paul Tillich, who is known as a Christian philosopher and theologian who has advanced notions of God that are more dynamic and ubiquitous; rather than a localized being, God is the ground of Being, which is in some ways an "anti-fundamentalist" conception. Despite the fact that people make superficial comparisons between Pure Land Buddhism and many forms of Christianity, their similarity is rooted in their emphasis on acceptance. This is a tricky notion as it is so simple it seems to be in need of complication, which people love to provide. This is especially true in Christianity because of the notion of sin. Hence acceptance, or grace, can be superficially seen as a license to sin since salvation is often viewed as an eternal destination with a single moment of judgment; hence, if you are "in the clear" at that moment, you are good forever. But if one forgoes that framework, and sees eternity as an ever-changing manifestation of the moment, then in the Christian view grace is not an excuse to sin, it's the realization that separation from God is an illusion we create for ourselves and which we can abandon anytime. That is, you are always accepted, no matter how many mistakes you have made. And the deep realization of this, when it shakes someone to the core, is a transformative event in liberal Christian theology.

While the framework of Buddhism, even the Pure Land traditions, do not translate to Christian ideas of God and sin and the soul as well as some might think at a superficial glance, again, the emphasis on acceptance does give rise to remarkably similar discussions of one who is transformed by an awakening to unwavering acceptance. Nor is this alien to other Buddhist traditions and schools, it's just that the Pure Land versions emphasize it more than the other teachings (each East Asian tradition seems to be like this, emphasizing some basic aspect of Buddhist teachings more than the others, reflecting the needs of various practitioners). Here, for example, is an expanded passage from the Tillich quote used recently by Dharmakara:
Thus, the state of our whole life is estrangement from others and ourselves, because we are estranged from the Ground of our being, because we are estranged from the origin and aim of our life. And we do not know where we have come from, or where we are going. We are separated from the mystery, the depth, and the greatness of our existence. We hear the voice of that depth; but our ears are closed. We feel that something radical, total, and unconditioned is demanded of us; but we rebel against it, try to escape its urgency, and will not accept its promise.

We cannot escape, however. If that something is the Ground of our being, we are bound to it for all eternity, just as we are bound to ourselves and to all other life. We always remain in the power of that from which we are estranged. That fact brings us to the ultimate depth of sin: separated and yet bound, estranged and yet belonging, destroyed and yet preserved, the state which is called despair. Despair means that there is no escape. Despair is "the sickness unto death." But the terrible thing about the sickness of despair is that we cannot be released, not even through open or hidden suicide. For we all know that we are bound eternally and inescapably to the Ground of our being. The abyss of separation is not always visible. But it has become more visible to our generation than to the preceding generations, because of our feeling of meaninglessness, emptiness, doubt, and cynicism -- all expressions of despair, of our separation from the roots and the meaning of our life. Sin in its most profound sense, sin, as despair, abounds amongst us.

"Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound", says Paul in the same letter in which he describes the unimaginable power of separation and self-destruction within society and the individual soul. He does not say these words because sentimental interests demand a happy ending for everything tragic. He says them because they describe the most overwhelming and determining experience of his life. In the picture of Jesus as the Christ, which appeared to him at the moment of his greatest separation from other men, from himself and God, he found himself accepted in spite of his being rejected. And when he found that he was accepted, he was able to accept himself and to be reconciled to others. The moment in which grace struck him and overwhelmed him, he was reunited with that to which he belonged, and from which he was estranged in utter strangeness.

Do we know what it means to be struck by grace? It does not mean that we suddenly believe that God exists, or that Jesus is the Saviour, or that the Bible contains the truth. To believe that something is, is almost contrary to the meaning of grace. Furthermore, grace does not mean simply that we are making progress in our moral self-control, in our fight against special faults, and in our relationships to men and to society. Moral progress may be a fruit of grace; but it is not grace itself, and it can even prevent us from receiving grace. For there is too often a graceless acceptance of Christian doctrines and a graceless battle against the structures of evil in our personalities. Such a graceless relation to God may lead us by necessity either to arrogance or to despair. It would be better to refuse God and the Christ and the Bible than to accept them without grace. For if we accept without grace, we do so in the state of separation, and can only succeed in deepening the separation. We cannot transform our lives, unless we allow them to be transformed by that stroke of grace. It happens; or it does not happen. And certainly it does not happen if we try to force it upon ourselves, just as it shall not happen so long as we think, in our self-complacency, that we have no need of it. Grace strikes us when we are in great pain and restlessness. It strikes us when we walk through the dark valley of a meaningless and empty life. It strikes us when we feel that our separation is deeper than usual, because we have violated another life, a life which we loved, or from which we were estranged. It strikes us when our disgust for our own being, our indifference, our weakness, our hostility, and our lack of direction and composure have become intolerable to us. It strikes us when, year after year, the longed-for perfection of life does not appear, when the old compulsions reign within us as they have for decades, when despair destroys all joy and courage. Sometimes at that moment a wave of light breaks into our darkness, and it is as though a voice were saying: "You are accepted. You are accepted, accepted by that which is greater than you, and the name of which you do not know. Do not ask for the name now; perhaps you will find it later. Do not try to do anything now; perhaps later you will do much. Do not seek for anything; do not perform anything; do not intend anything. Simply accept the fact that you are accepted!" If that happens to us, we experience grace After such an experience we may not be better than before, and we may not believe more than before. But everything is transformed. In that moment, grace conquers sin, and reconciliation bridges the gulf of estrangement. And nothing is demanded of this experience, no religious or moral or intellectual presupposition, nothing but acceptance.

In the light of this grace we perceive the power of grace in our relation to others and to ourselves. We experience the grace of being able to look frankly into the eyes of another, the miraculous grace of reunion of life with life. We experience the grace of understanding each other's words. We understand not merely the literal meaning of the words, but also that which lies behind them, even when they are harsh or angry. For even then there is a longing to break through the walls of separation. We experience the grace of being able to accept the life of another, even if it be hostile and harmful to us, for, through grace, we know that it belongs to the same Ground to which we belong, and by which we have been accepted. We experience the grace which is able to overcome the tragic separation of the sexes, of the generations, of the nations, of the races, and even the utter strangeness between man and nature. Sometimes grace appears in all these separations to reunite us with those to whom we belong. For life belong to life.

You are accepted

Now, the fact that one can remove the words "Jesus" and "God" and the reference to the Apostle Paul and have a sentiment that could easily come from Buddhist teachings and experience suggests that the underlying experience is beyond something that is taught or otherwise culturally generated or maintained. I am sure that some Christians would say "Oh, well, that just shows God's grace is at work in Buddhism", but then again some Buddhists could say that Jesus (either figuratively or literally, depending on the Buddhist) was/is a sambhogakaya, or archetypal manifestation of the Buddha.

Yet Buddhists also talk about things like "fingers to the moon" and using a raft to cross to the other shore. Once across, we no longer need to carry the raft around with us. So in terms of this intense revelation of acceptance, how would one who has experienced such an event feel about such a debate? Interestingly, Clark Strand wrote in a (fairly recent) issue of Tricycle magazine about such acceptance and the deep faith it engenders ("Born Again Buddhist"). He refers to it as being settled. Those who are not fully settled, Strand claims, are the ones who have to go around making justifications and arguments justifying their own beliefs while tearing down the benign but differing beliefs of others. Therefore the "faith" that these unsettled people talk about is loud, and sometime vulgar, and frequently intolerant, bereft of the very appreciation of grace/acceptance of their traditions teachings. Hence grace becomes a hollow trophy for the righteous who follow all the right rituals and images of this or that sect (OK, I am going a little beyond what Strand actually wrote). Looking at Tillich's quote, I am compelled to wonder if that would be an example of how a "settled" Christian talks about their faith. I suspect that it is.

It's always interesting to find out how different people understand "getting it".

LinkWithin

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...