Half-Assed Efforts

Recently I read two books in particular. Three points stood out to me. Although these three points were not to main issues of these books, it struck me that these points were far too often dealt with in half-asses efforts.

I decided, in order to avoid plagiarism, I'd put this post together nearly exclusively with quotes. I hope you can forgive me. ;)


Agnosticism:
The English Oxford Dictionary defines Agnostic as follows:

""One who holds that the existence of anything beyond or behind material phenomena is unknown and, so far as can be judged, unknowable". In other words, we can guess, we can hope, we can believe or not believe, but whatever we believe or don't believe we don't know and we're not likely to.

""Agnostic was the name demanded by Professor Huxley for those who disclaimed atheism, and believed with him in an 'unknown and unknowable' God"."

The New Columbia Encyclopedia says this of Agnosticism:

""...form of skepticism that hold that the existence of God cannot be logically proved or disproved".

"So an agnostic might believe in God, or might not believe in God. But regardless, what the agnostic also believes is that there is no way to know. Some on both sides of the theist/atheist fence find this unsettling. The agnostic says to the Atheist, "You might be right". But the agnostic also says to the Theist, "You might be right". Equivocation? Consider. It's hard to establish "right belief" when the question of who is "right" becomes something unknowable.

"Some may think of this as weakness. I look on it as a strength: the strength to admit something that is always excruciatingly hard. It is the strength to say, "I don't know" and then carry on." Steven Greenbaum, The Interfaith Alternative; Embracing Spiritual Diversity, pg. 50-51

It is wisdom to know when to cut your losses.

"Real ignorance is not knowing what you don't know. When you think you know something you don't, it can lead to a kind of make-believe wisdom, an imaginary sense of knowledge that is powerless to free you from your confusion.

"We actually need intelligent doubt and skepticism; they protect us against mistaken views and propaganda. A healthy dose of doubt and skepticism will lead us to precise and clear questions". Dzogchen Ponlop, Rebel Buddha, pg. 21

Tolerance:
It's funny sometimes how accurately we can pin-point a memory of exactly when we learned a word.
Tolerance is one of those. Years ago, I think shortly before high school, when I first began playing Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, I remember reading how the various races views one another. Dwarves and Elves were listed as having tolerance towards each other. Not friendly, but tolerance. I think I knew that tolerance wasn't a good thing. Granted, it wasn't hatred, but it wasn't something we would want to strive to attain.

Fast forward decades later and tolerance is a word I have heard far too often in the wrong context through numerous churches and religious institutions; using like it is a good thing; like it should be the goal to strive to attain.

It never struck me that way... ever.
Tolerance to me is a half-assed effort. It is something that I am forced to settle with when my friendliness or my Love for others has simply failed.

"We think of tolerance as a good thing. We see it as positive. Beneficial. It isn't. Or rather, it's beneficial in the same way that not kicking people in the teeth is beneficial. Without doubt it is a good thing not to kick people in the teeth. But that hardly qualifies it as a worthy life goal. Tolerance, while better than mindless discrimination, should be seen for what it is: a patronizing, self-congratulatory form of prejudice and power.

""You're beneath me, but I'm a terrific person so, within reason, I'll tolerate your existence".

"Or, "You're wrong. Your religious beliefs show you have no idea of the truth about God. But I'm open-minded. I'll tolerate your right to believe those heathen, atheistic, blasphemous ideas that you embrace. Of course, I sit in the smug confidence that God won't let you into heaven because of your wrong-headed beliefs, while i will enjoy eternal bliss, but hey, I'm great. I'll tolerate you".

"Or, "You're wrong. Your religious beliefs show you have no idea of the truth about what you call God. But I'm open-minded. I'll tolerate those infantile, outmoded ideas that you embrace. Of course I know science. You're too naive to understand that 'God' can't possibly exist,and that your beliefs are nothing but childish myths. Any thinking person knows that you're nothing but worm food once you die, but if you want to cling to nonsensical beliefs I will cheerfully tolerate your inability to think".

"The bottom line is this. Tolerance becomes a great enabler. The concept of tolerance allows us to continue with the paradigm of "right belief" (I know the "truth" and you don't) and yet still feel good, even proud of ourselves (even thought I know you're "wrong", I will tolerate you).

"In this day, in this age, stopping at "tolerance" is a sin. For it to be the "comfort zone" where we live is inexcusable. We need to move beyond tolerance. Way beyond it.... We need to start respecting each other's beliefs and heritages, not simply tolerating them."Steven Greenbaum, The Interfaith Alternative; Embracing Spiritual Diversity, pg. 54-55

Compassion vs. Pity:
I had an experience a few years past.
I will change the individuals names, for I have no desire to embarrass any of them.
I had at one point privately approached Margaret and explained the financial troubles that had befallen our mutual friend, Debbie. It was my hope that, as a church elder, Margaret would have offered through the church some kind of financial aid or relief.
Margaret offered to pray for Debbie with me. Debbie was allowed to continue her tithing, whether she could afford it or not...and that was the extent of this church's help.

It bothers me to this day still, but it has only been recently that I could very specifically pin-point the why of it.
In a word, pity. Where the church should have shown compassion, they showed pity and chose to name it compassion.

One definition of compassion is "the sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a desire to alleviate it".
The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines pity as the "sympathetic sorrow for one suffering, distressed, or unhappy".

What's the difference between compassion and pity?
One wishes to alleviate suffering, distress, and  unhappiness and does something about it. The other just sits back. I fear this happens far too often. In fact, I think this may very well be a blight of the modern day church.
Pity is easy to do. It costs nothing. It's self-serving because it allows one to believe they are a good person, but requires nothing of them.
Compassion is not so easy. It can cost dearly.

And isn't that a major problem? When we substitute pity for compassion and then add a mistaken understanding of tolerance into the equation, we are left with a crisis scenario that I think the modern day church is facing today. Factor many religious institutions' demonization of agnosticism into this and we end up with the self-serving, small minded, insular religionists we find today, so frightened of doubt within their belief must be a certainty.

I don't believe the ever shrinking world we live in today can afford these kinds of half-assed attempts of making a better world. In fact, they do not make for a better world but for a far worst one.

A Pluralistic Sophia (expanded)

I suppose to many, religious pluralism embraces many derogatory issues, like “the path of least resistance”, or watering faith down to the lowest common denominator. I suppose it falls victim to political correctness and attempting to be warm & fuzzy, believing that all paths lead to God.

I can't honestly say I know the proper or official definition of being a religious pluralist, so you'll have to put up with me and the terms and words I choose to use. But I believe there is a certain kind of religious pluralism that doesn't embrace the path of least resistance, or watering one's belief-system down to the lowest common denominator, or being politically correct, or believing all religions are alright and that all paths lead to God. Hardly. I think, possibly, just the opposite.

It is not that I believe all religions lead to God, but that none do. God's wisdom - Sophia - is subtle, elusive, hidden between the lines.

I believe God 'distributes' His wisdom – His Sophia – with all peoples of all nationalities, in all geographic locations, and all cultures. Whether this Sophia speaks their “culturalistic languages” or that they hear her voice through their “culturalistic filters” matters little. The outcome is the same. She meets them where they are.

A think a common accusation levied against pluralists is that they water down the 'truth' to the lowest common denominator. I'd rather see this aspect as deliberate choice to focus on what unites us rather than on what divides us for the sake of relationships, simply getting along, peace, mutual respect and tolerance. In a single word, Compassion.

But what about the actual truth itself, outside of social or civil environments? This doesn't address how to 'hear' God's wisdom; God's Sophia.

It is easy to find common ground within various belief-systems but I'm not totally convinced this is necessarily the voice of Sophia. After all, this could just be various cultures or people in agreement.

I think it is in the contradictions (or possibly paradoxes) in which Sophia is most challenging and speaks the loudest.

It is not in their shared commonalities that she speaks and challenges us to change and grow and learn but in their apparent conflicts. It is in the parts that don't 'fit'.

If God's word and will were so simple, so clear in its intent, then why are holy scriptures so ambiguous? Outside of personal and/or private manipulation and agenda, why can so few people agree? We would be following an apparent omnipotent deity who failed in His endeavor to successfully communicate to us.

If I'm trying to communicate an idea or message to you, there's three places for it to go wrong.

Firstly, I may not have the idea or message straight or correct in my head to begin with. If this is the case there will be guaranteed failure.

Secondly, I may not properly articulate my idea or message and it may be misunderstood.

And finally, you may not properly interpret or understand my idea or message.
If any of these occur the effort to successfully communicate will fail.

Let's lay down several assumptions:
1) the bible is the final and total revelation of or by God.
2) that God is omnipotent,
3) God is omnipresent,
4) and most importantly, God is omniscient and omnibenevolent.

Now, if God has attempted to communicate a message to mankind, there's three areas it could (at least potentially) go wrong.

1) the communicator doesn't have the message properly
2) the communicator doesn't articulate the message well enough or clear enough for the recipient to understand
3) the receiver doesn't proper receive or understand the message.

But, when dealing with an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent entity, these “rules” change somewhat. The first two point deal with errors or flaws with the communicator, which in the case of God, cannot be, or else we need to reevaluate one of our presumptions (omnipotency and/or omniscience). If there were errors or flaws then they would be deliberate omissions, which could put into question God's omnibenevolence.

The problem cannot be in the articulation of the message itself (the bible) unless we are willing to compromise that God is its author, or had less than genuine intentions. (An alternative possibility is that the bible is a sort of hybrid of human and divine authorship and editing, but this carries its own set of problems and issues and is an avenue I don't really want to explore in this topic as I don't think it would be constructive).

And finally, as far as the recipient not correctly receiving or understanding the message properly; I struggle with this one. A perfect God would know how to successfully reach and communicate His message, unless the deliberate intention was to make it veiled, hidden to all except a select few (which would only work with the selected-damned of extreme Calvinism, but, I should think, would compromise this God's omnibenevolence).

We find ourselves in this conundrum because of an assumption; that the bible is the final and total revelation of God. This assumption includes that the bible is somehow the answer or the solution; that it is in and of itself the goal, or contains the goal, or is some sort of map to the goal.

What if it isn't? What if it is directional in the sense that it points to a process, a direction of growth, a spiritual evolution, rather than a goal?

In Christianity alone there are over 35,000 denominations. It isn't just Christians disagreeing and dividing amongst themselves. It isn't just Catholics and Protestants. Catholics don't agree with Catholics and Protestants don't agree with Protestants. Muslims divide into Sunni and Shi'a, as well as Sufi and others. Jews divide into Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionists, and others. Buddhists divide, Hindus divide... every single spiritual path divides. Yet, ironically enough, we have a wellspring of time, experience, and resources at our disposal. Hindus trace back over 4,000 years. Moses led the Hebrews out of captivity more than 3,000 years ago. The Buddha taught his wisdom and shared insight over 2,500 years ago. Jesus preached 2,000 years ago. Muhammad brought forth the Qur'an over 1,500 years ago. Humanists have been around in one form or another since before the Renaissance. If there was one correct way to view or encounter or experience the sacred, in our ever shrinking world, it should have been made absolutely crystal clear by now.

I think the truth is right before us; we're just hold onto the wrong paradigm. All of us know the Golden Rule: Do onto others as you would have other do onto you. The Rabbi Hillel living a generation before Jesus taught this exact same thing. 500 years earlier still Confucius taught the same thing. Muhammad and Buddha likewise.

In nearly all of our religions and sacred traditions we are called to compassion via the Golden Rule. Interestingly it has always been made absolutely crystal clear how we are to treat one another.

Let's make a few assumptions once again. Let's assume God exists (in whatever form we wish to define 'God' as). Let's also assume God has tried and continues to try to communicate his message to us.

Why has God failed to successfully communicate to the world what's the one true, right belief? And more importantly, why has God left absolutely no ambiguity as to how we are to treat one another? Why is Compassion the one message or instruction we are called to?

If we return to the 3 points of potential failure in the act of communicating and factor in the conundrum of God's 'omni's' traits I think we find a clear solution. Whether we choose to approach the problem from a single faith point of view, or even from a global, pluralistic multi-faith point of view, we are given little to no wiggle-room.

God's message - Sophia's wisdom - to the world through numerous times, places, and cultures was never a message of the one true right faith. (That was us looking for something's that not there). Sophia's message was a calling to Compassion. Plain and simple. The rest is our controlling, self-serving propaganda.
I don't believe God's 'revelations' are the answers in and of themselves. I believe they are progressive; that they're directional. I believe there is a divine agenda afoot – a prime mover in and throughout human history.

That is how I see being a religious pluralist. It is no path of least resistance. It is not for the faint of heart. It is not for those who seek spiritual security.

...And to those who would argue with me that there is only one true religion (theirs) and the consequences of turning from this religious truth is to be brutally tortured relentlessly and continually for all eternity......if this is really the case (and I've seriously pondered this), then I am truly screwed, no matter which way I slice and dice it. It paints a picture of a truly dismal and near Lovecraftian cosmos. Because the only hope I have - at best – is to lie to this terrorist and tyrant god and hope he doesn't see through it.

The Dangers of Rom-Coms

I hate Romances.
Rom-Coms, Romantic Comedies, Chick-Flicks.

No, I don't hate Chick-Flicks for stereotypical “guy” reasons. I like love stories. (I cried when I read The Bridges of Madison County).

The reason why I hate Chick-Flicks is because they perpetuate and teach a lie. The collective underlying truth that is assumed is that every single solitary man has a natural and innate ability to be 'romantic'. It is only a matter either of getting in touch with it, or caring enough, or 'coming out of their shell', or getting over their shyness, or any number of possibilities their plots will permit.

Again, the underlying assumption is that all men can do romantic. This is perfectly fine in literature or in movies for purely entertainment value.

But that's not where it ends, does it? A sad fact of reality in our Western society today is that – unfortunately – we often are taught by movies.

What's wrong is when the real women, single or in relationships, go out into the real world with the belief that if a man, if their man, cannot be romantic then that must translate into meaning they simply do not really care. (Because, as we know from Rom-Coms and Chick-Flicks, every man innately can do 'romantic' if they truly love their woman enough).

What a facade. What a farce. What a lie. What damage... to both parties.

That's how relationships are damaged and broken. When we fall into the trap of believing in how things are supposed to be rather than how things actually are. We miss out the treasures right before us and fall in love with a fantasy that can only disappoint.

It is like the woman walking along a stony beach at night, fascinated and obsessed with the bright stars in the night sky. It is only when the beach ends and the sun rises does she realize that she has missed all the interesting and wondrous treasures the beach has laid out before her, and left with the fantasy of the stars which are no more than an unattainable memory.

Dharma-Ocean

I believe that Dharma is not contained within Buddhism, but rather Buddhism is only one of many that draws from it. The Buddha said, “To be attached to a certain view and to look down upon other views as inferior – this the wise call a fetter”. If this is true then holding onto a belief that Buddhism is the one superior position is a path to entrapment and slavery, then Buddhism cannot be the one and only superior “way”.

I believe the concept of Dharma is simply a teaching. More specifically one's ability to 'see' or one's openness to be aware of it within one's surroundings. I don't think Dharma is necessarily a teaching or doctrine to introduce or indoctrinate one into Buddhism. The truth is simply out there and existent with or without our noticing it. Dharma is when we become in tune with it and give it life.

“Both the ocean and the Dharma become gradually deeper. Both preserve their identity under all changes. Both cast out dead bodies upon the dry land... The ocean is the goal of all streams and of the rain from the clouds, yet it is never overflowing and never emptier: so the Dharma is embraced by many millions of people, yet it neither increases nor decreases. As the great ocean has only one taste, the taste of salt, so the Dharma has only one flavour; the flavour of emancipation”. From the Cullavagga, translated by T.W. Ryhs-Davids

This is an absolutely beautiful piece, but it most definitely needs to be unpackaged, explored, discovered, shared, and discussed.

“Both the ocean and the Dharma become gradually deeper”.

Once a truth has been discovered it is near impossible to 'unlearn' or forget. (Now, let's be mindful and not completely write off the power of the human (dis)ability of denial though). We tend to build upon the truths we know. In fact, truth itself tends to be cumulative; the more we have the more it grows.

“Both preserve their identity under all changes”.

One core tenet of Buddhism is impermanence and Taoism holds that the only thing that doesn't change is Change itself.

"There is a thing which is all-containing, which was born before the existence of Heaven and Earth. How silent! How solitary! It stands alone and changes not. It revolves without danger to itself and is the mother of the universe. I do not know its name and so call it the Path [Tao]. With reluctance I call it the Infinite.”. Lao Tsu

So how can this 'Dharma-Ocean' preserve its identity under any and all changes?

I can't help but think that the very nature of the Ocean can and does teach us its lesson.

We cannot (ever) see the entire and whole ocean. Even when our entire view – from horizon to horizon - is filled with the Ocean, we only catch a tiny glimpse of its entirety.

For those who would claim to know the Tao, the Dharma, God, or even truth (Truth?) in their totality, the Ocean plainly holds their lesson.

For those who would show us the true nature of God; who would tell us what God is and what God isn't, and give us perimeters – who would attempt to put God in a box; who would have the arrogance to preach to us, to teach us the errors of our ways... the Ocean says otherwise.

I am not hesitant to name in the same breath the Dharma, the Tao, or God; nor am I suggesting that they must be synonymous. Simply that, like the Ocean, they would seem to share many similar qualities alongside the truth.

“Both cast out dead bodies upon the dry land”.
Although Dharma is the teaching, let's not take this too literally. It doesn't necessarily have to specifically mean Buddhism's teaching(s). We should not become frightened that to accept this Dharma means a path away from whatever belief or religion we currently belong to. No, I think this treasure – this universal truth – is simply being open to learning. I take Dharma as taking and accepting truth whenever and wherever we discover it. In fact, this might very well fly in the face of propositional truth. It may very well be the cure for the disease of Fundamentalism. (But again, let's not underestimate the great human (dis)ability of denial).
The Dharma-Ocean becomes the acid test for immutable fundamentalist beliefs. Why do so many people believe they must defend the beliefs they hold to be true? The truth needs no defense. It preserves its identity under any and all changes and challenges. It is unassailable.

It is also why – I believe in my humble opinion – so many fundamentalists (of numerous flavours) both avoid the Dharma-Ocean and become insular and isolationists. They really have no choice.
I think Taoism might have put it best. The Tao isn't the Path, but the passage. In more modern terms? It isn't the destination but the journey.

“The ocean is the goal of all streams and of the rain from the clouds, yet it is never overflowing and never emptier: so the Dharma is embraced by many millions of people, yet it neither increases nor decreases”.
I believe many (millions?!) of people embrace this Dharma but are not necessarily aware of it. Maybe they have different names for it. Maybe it's the elusive and evasive thing they reach out and search for.

I cannot decide whether these lines suggest a pluralism or a sycretism perspective. Maybe it's neither.
In "The Future of Buddhism", Sogyal Rinpoche may have put it best:

"...encourage each tradition to master completely the authentic teachings and practice of its own lineage, while at the same time maintaining a spirit of openness, harmony, and cooperation. There was no blurring or synthesis of one tradition with another - the purity of each was ensured - but they co-existed and often drew inspiration from one another."

"As the great ocean has only one taste, the taste of salt, so the Dharma has only one flavour; the flavour of emancipation”.


I should think a prerequisite to freeing an individual of what ails them is compassion. I think the Dalai Lama might have put it best when he said,

"...a key element here is to be truly sincere about the values of compassion that are at the heart of one's own faith tradition. For the ultimate reason to accord respect to other religions is to see that they, too, engender the beautiful qualities of the human heart and foster compassion and loving-kindness - exactly the qualities one is striving to attain through one's own faith.

"Interestingly, when it comes to actual spiritual practices, which I consider to be the essence of these religious teachings, as opposed to metaphysical or theological formulations, there is profound convergence across all traditions. All carry the message of love, compassion, and universal brotherhood and sisterhood. Based on these virtues, all teach forgiveness, forbearance, contentment, simplicity of life, and self-discipline". Excerpt from "Towards a True Kinship of Faiths"

 The Dharma-Ocean has but one taste, salt, and but one flavour, emancipation.
...I think I tend to agree...

Today and Tormorrow

I suppose this blog site, The Woven, had an agenda since its inception 5 years ago. Although it wasn't set in stone; it wasn't fully concrete, the general idea was always there. Originally it was to look at and hopefully explore the direction Judaism, Christianity, and Islam pointed in. (Not politically nor nationally, but theologically and possibly morally; maybe even ethically). The first inkling of these thoughts can be found in Three Syntheses: A Confession, of Sorts

“Barb” has asked whether this might extend to incorporate Buddhism or possibly even Zoroastrian. I wanted to explore and include the ethical, moral (spiritual?) values, resources and direction of Atheism as well.

I ended up doing a year and a half private study into Gnosticism which carried its influences.

After meeting Mark Townsend (can I truly call it 'meeting'? Talking with, email-conversations, discussions, etc. Maybe I should restrict myself to saying “electronically met”) the importance and values of a more natural earth-based pagan spirituality seemed to carry enough merit to entertain. (Hedge-Church).

I have been influenced by a few strong Agnostic positions and people (Lydia from On The Other Hand as well as Jonathan of Spritzophrenia. (You might be surprised to learn that Agnosticism doesn't have to be a position of transit or simply indifference or unknowing).

Most recently I have 'studied' (I use this word cautiously – I don't want to come off sounding pretentious) and immersed myself in more Eastern 'philosophies' and 'mindsets' (not really sure what to call them. I can't call them theologies).

Over the past three and half years I have trained in and practiced Taekwon-do under one the worlds true Masters (and student of Taekwon-do's original founder), having recently received my first degree black belt. (Traditional Taekwon-do finds many of its core values based upon Buddhist and Taoist tenets).

I have spend the past year and a half receiving Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) and acupuncture treatment for my asthma (which not only is under control now, but cured. Yeah, I know. That's quite a statement, isn't it, but I'm willing to wait and see). From my understanding, TCM and acupuncture are based upon Taoist concepts and I have (to a small degree) studied and looked into and explored.

My latest and newest excursion is into Buddhism, but my interest doesn't lie so much in its more traditional rolls, but in its newer, modern, western avenues and implications.

What is interesting is that this 'branch' of Buddhism – this new opening petal of the Dharma lotus – would seem to have a great deal of overlap in science, many new modern discoveries, and some psychology – often seemingly bordering onto secular and maybe even the atheistic.

These are exciting days!

A friend of mine (and fellow student of martial arts and self-proclaimed Atheist) suggested a book for me to read (Sam Harris' Free Will - book review yet to come).

This is great stuff! This is what spirituality means and looks like to an Atheist (much to their chagrin in their refusal to use the word “spiritual”). However, I was disappointed. Within the first 10 pages of the book I saw an old and disturbing pattern emerge.

Although I am sure few people want to hear this, I saw the same methods as Bible-centric Christians suffer from. Circular thinking. (Why is the bible authoritative? ”Because it says it is. It's right there in the bible!”) And it was then that – once again – I came face to face with that ugly demon, Religiosity. (Yes, even the atheist can suffer from religiosity).

Something struck me. In a recent and short conversation with my tattoo-artist, she had referred to herself (or maybe it was I who referred to her) as the “artist-type”. We both know what we were talking about.... but maybe I should clarify.

I think this might very well be the crisis we are currently facing in the world today. Maybe it has been the crisis we have always faced? They say that Science and Religion cannot mix. That Science is purely fact-based, and Religion is purely Faith-based.

There's a problem with these definitions. By “fact-based” are we to presume truth? By “faith-based” are we to presume belief? And by “belief” can we, or are we to substitute “circular-thinking” at worst, or at least “subjective” at best? Is the opposite of “belief” doubt? Is the opposite of doubt certainty?

By “fact” are we meant to take this word as being synonymous with truth? I wouldn't think so.
I can tell you a completely fictional story yet at the same time tell you an absolute truth. (Myth).

I have long since abandoned using terms like Postmodern and Postmodernity because they have lost all context of meaning. I have found that Postmodernism (e.g. the "Emergent Church" movement)  is little more than excuses to reinvent an old an defunct religion and hope to repackage it. I have my suspicions with various book reviews I have written. (John Crowder's Mystic Union, Jay Bakker's Fall to Grace, and Andrew Farley's The Naked Gospel).

The conversation with my tattoo-artist  was about how those "artist-types" see the world and generally view things. But how they see things are no less viable or truthful than those "science-types".

Maybe this is exactly what we need. Maybe this is what we're slowly seeing? Maybe this is the truer postmodernist? Those of us who can see both of these sides. Clearly the truth cannot exist within any single religion or belief-system. Exclusivism has little to no place in this consistently shrinking world we live in.

I think Ken McLeod may have put it better when he says,

“We interpret our experiences in life according to a set of deeply held assumptions. We may or may not be conscious of the assumptions, but they are there. Even when we explore our experience, we are usually looking for evidence that supports or confirms them. These assumptions are never questioned. They are taken as fundamental. A self-reinforcing dynamic develops that results in a closed system in which everything is explained, the mystery of life is dismissed, new ideas, perspectives, or approaches to life cannot enter and certain questions can never be asked. This is call belief.

The other way is to open and be willing to receive, not control, whatever arises – that is, not only allow but embrace every sensation, feeling, and thought, everything we experience. In this approach, we allow our experience to challenge our assumptions. Here, there are no fundamental or eternal truths, and some things cannot be explained; they can only be experienced. This willingness to open to whatever arises internally or externally I call faith.

...What, then, do we make of all the teachings of various spiritual traditions and other forms of human knowledge? For me, God, karma, rebirth, emptiness, brahman, atman, heaven, hell, all of these stories that people use to understand, explain, or give direction to their lives. The same holds for scientific views, astronomy, biology, quantum mechanics, or neurology. If we wish to be free of suffering, to be free of struggle, then the way to look at experience is to know “There is no enemy” and stop opposing what arises in experience. Is it difficult and challenging? Yes, but it's possible.”

Ken McLeod's Something from Nothing

Lessons of a Tea Connoisseur

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

A Line in the Sand

Recently I had posed the question, what is the crux of Christianity?

I am quite certain many if not most Christians' answer will be the crucifixion or resurrection; that is the crux, the centrepoint, the fulcrum of Christianity.

I disagree.
I don't like that answer.
I don't like that answer because that answer in itself doesn't mean anything.
It's a squirrel-answer. It's a mindless answer members of Churchianity have been conditioned to recite. It's a mantra.

What does the crucifixion and resurrection mean? WHY are they important? Is it important that they literally happened? Is it important what they signify? Are their meanings intrinsically linked with their historicity? Do they hold metaphoric meanings? Do they represent spiritual evolution, healing, growth, or transcendence?

These are questions that have divided the church throughout history and continue to divide the church and Christians today.

I believe the Crucifixion and the Resurrection signify two things. The end or death of Religion (or more accurately, Religiosity) and the unique concept of Grace – Unconditional Grace (because conditional Grace is no grace at all).

I have long since moved past the argument of whether these two events literally happened or not. I'm more concerned with what they mean; what Yeshua gave us through his crucifixion and resurrection.

...the end of Religiosity. Freedom from trying to jump through hoops, to try to get right with God. But not just the Judea-Christian God, but also our attempts to get right with any God, or other forms of gods or “gods”. Whatever concepts we're shackled and enslaved by.

The end of religion. The end of the task-master. To be freed of our shackles, our bonds. To be unfettered.

How? Grace. Unconditional Grace.
Unconditional?! But there's gotta be some boundaries, doesn't there? I mean, it's a slippery slope to anarchy and chaos otherwise, isn't it?


At some point we have to draw a line in the sand, don't we? I think, ultimately, that is the main question the church has always asked. Where do we draw that line in the sand? Where does Grace end? At what point does Grace lose its power? Where does that line in the sand lie?

When do we say, “here and no further?” Isn't that the sad summation of church history?

A line in the sand?

I think Christians are asking the wrong question. The question shouldn't be where do we draw that line in the sand. The question should be WHY are we drawing a line in the sand? After all, a line in the sand is a boundary, a border; a point of defining “them” from “us”.

Maybe a much better question should be, what are we trying to protect? What conditions are we trying to maintain? I think this has been the genesis of Churchianity.

What saddens me about Churchianity is that it is a path that leads its flock back into captivity; back into shackles; back into fetters; back into religiosity.

Churchianity undoes what Yeshua gave the world through the crucifixion and resurrection.
A line in the sand.

What is the crux of Christianity?
Sadly, a line in the sand. That is where my hopes lie and where my hopes are shattered; in a simple line in the sand.

Although I haven't yet abandoned Christianity, I have moved past it.

The Conundrum of the Unconditional

The Crux of Christianity

In Rob Bell's book - Love Wins - he spells out painfully and simply the problem (as far as I'm concerned, the real good news) with Christianity – that of an unconditional grace.

“And that question raises another question. If the message of Jesus is that God is offering the free gift of eternal life through him – a gift we cannot earn by our own efforts, works, or good deeds – and all we have to do is accept and confess and believe, aren't those verbs?

"And aren't verbs actions?

"Accepting, confessing, believing – those are things we do.

"Does that mean, then, that going to heaven is dependent on something I do?

"How is any of that grace?
How is that a gift?
How is that good news?

"Isn't that what Christians have always claimed set their religion apart – that is wasn't, in the end, a religion at all – that you don't have to do anything, because God has already done it through Jesus?” Rob Bell, Love Wins, page 11

This is Unconditional Grace.
This is the conundrum of the unconditional.
This is the crux of Christianity.

Ultimately, this only points out that we have a simple choice.
Either Christianity has always been flawed and little more than just another religion not necessarily worth keeping, or that what we have today is a hijacked corruption of what its founder(s?) intended.

There's no doubt that this conundrum of the unconditional, has and is causing a lot of rumbling and controversy in church circles. There are few acceptable options to the church... and this conundrum cannot simply be written off.
 

If they truly loved what they say they do, then they would follow it. This conundrum, this crux becomes a delusional mirror.

The Conundrum of the Unconditional

I believe a certain Christian view of Judaism (as a symbol, not necessarily the faith itself; possibly the Pharisees themselves) represents the Law, Legalism and the trap of legalistic religion – all religions; all religiosity in its numerous forms.

I believe Christianity with its unique concept of Unconditional Grace (which I believe Christendom and Churchianity will never fully understand nor accept or embrace), not only frees us from the constraints and shackles of Legalism, but also signifies the death of Religion itself in its most absolute sense.

Christianity cannot be a replacement for all religion. (Not even a benevolent once-and-for-all one). This makes Christianity a process. This makes Christianity a transitory state; something that one evolves through and out of, but extremely important and valuable for what it is. Maybe even globally necessary.

Once we realize that there is nothing we can do or need to do to “get right” with our God (or “gods”) - that we don't need to gain forgiveness or appease them because that acceptance, that forgiveness, that “salvation” was always there. Once we discover that innate and inherent unconditional grace I believe the only question left is, “Now what?"

The more and more I learn of it, I believe Buddhism might be a continuation of that question. Buddhism isn't the destination but the “how to” response. It can be a practical way to living with oneself and with others (or for others). (But let us be mindful, Buddhism itself is not immune to religiosity).

I realize that many Trapped-Christians believe God and only God can help us – never the actions or deeds of our own doing. I think these Trapped-Christians misunderstand this as Grace. (But it's conditional, and conditional grace is no grace at all. If it's conditional it is that path back to the Law, Legalism and Religiosity. That's why they are trapped. It's a perpetual circle)....  maybe I should stop calling them Trapped-Christians and start calling them shackled, or fettered; or simply Trapped. For they are by no means exclusively Christian. They are simply victims of religiosity.

”The Buddha said, 'To be attached to a certain view and to look down upon other views as inferior – this the wise call a fetter.'” From the Sutta Nipata, translated by K.R. Norman.

I realize that many of those Trapped also believe that Buddhism is some sort of self-help guide to earning one's salvation. A sort of “Who-needs God? I-can-do-it-myself” scheme. I think many (some?) believe, the Buddhists believe, that enlightened state of Nirvana is supposed to be synonymous and interchangeable with Heaven. They are not synonymous.

Clearly, this Western modern day Buddhism - this new opening petal of the Dharma lotus - needs to be better explored, better understood, better interpreted, and "unpackaged".

"The three Jewels of Buddhism are 1) the Buddha, 2) Dharma, and 3) Sangha.

"I don't believe this concept belongs exclusively to the religion of Buddhism. I believe Buddhism only expresses it through its own particular paradigm. In fact, I think these 3 treasures - these three jewels - are universal truths. I see these as three Lotuses.

“Nirvana shares one quality with the lotus. As the lotus is untainted by water, so is Nirvana unstained by all the defilements”.

"The first jewel – the Buddha – does not necessarily have to mean Siddhartha Gautama himself, but, in all likelihood, might refer to the awakened nature of all beings. I see this as extremely similar to the martial art's Taekwon-do's tenet Guk-gi (Self-Control). (And Solace is a fruit of Guk-gi).

"The second Jewel, Dharma, is the teaching, but let's not take this too literally. This doesn't have to mean Buddhism's teaching(s). We shouldn't become frightened that to accept this Dharma means a path away from whatever belief or religion we currently belong to. No, I think this treasure - this universal truth - is simply being open to learning. I take Dharma as taking and accepting truth whenever and wherever we find it. (In fact, this might very well fly in the face of propositional truth [fundamentalism?]). I see this Dharma as akin to what is borrowed from the Chinese -do, or Dao, or possibly Tao, meaning the way or path or route to something, and that something is the fundamental nature of the universe.


"The Sangha in Buddhism generally refers to the Buddhist's community itself. But the further we take this concept the larger one's Sangha becomes. On its largest level we are faced with the global community as our own, and I think this is a perfect place for us to reflect on the underlying concept of Compassion. I think it is important not to mistaken, or force a necessary interpretation, of this Sangha as meaning a specific and exclusive religious body of followers. I take this Sangha concept as being boundless and without boarders.

"I believe the most valued truth that we can discover is that of Solace and Compassion.
"And Solace and Compassion are entangled by Dharma." (Excerpt from The Three Lotuses).

Mindfulness

I recently went for my first degree Black Belt testing (Taekwon-do), in which a thesis, or essay, needed to be submitted.

My original Black Belt Thesis was about 10 pages long. The final edited version ended up being closer to 6 pages. Although I am confident much of what was cut was the proper choice, on hindsight there are parts that I regret removing, especially in light of what I learned through the actual black belt testing itself.

One section that was edited out of my thesis was on the topic of General Choi's* Jungshin Sooyang – Moral Culture. [It never made the final cut simply because it was not something my Master specifically taught, or for that matter, even made mention of].

The whole concept of General Choi's Jungshin Sooyang (the ethics and morality behind Taekwon-do) I believe, was built upon Buddhist and Taoist principals, and one Buddhist concept is that of Mindfulness.

In his book, Dharma Road, Brian Haycock has this to say;

“If you want to develop mindfulness, there are several options. First, you can join a monastery. This is the traditional way. For thousands of years, seekers have left their lives behind to take up a new life of contemplation and meditation...


Not all spiritual practice is about peaceful contemplation. The martial arts are based largely on mindfulness practices. The goal is really to keep your head under extreme conditions and react to the action without becoming distracted.”

I think this is interesting. In my black belt thesis I speak of something similar.

When I spend my energy worrying about Tomorrow and regretful for Yesterday, I do nothing but destroy my Today. The illusion is that our Today – our Now – is a tiny hairline separating Yesterday from Tomorrow. The truth of the matter is that there is no future and there is no past, but only an eternally endless Now.

I believe these points all came into coherence for me during the actual black belt test.

The test itself was 3 ½ hours long. It began with running for a half-hour, followed by having to do 200 sit-ups and 200 push-ups within 15 minutes. Then came the patterns – all 11 (near 300 memorized movements/strikes). Then having to perform 400 kicks (shoulder height or higher) within 15 minutes. Then self-defense (had to hold off 3 attackers for 5 minutes), followed by sparring. 3 Rounds with a new (fresh) opponent every round. Then, finally the board breaking (14 boards in total).

It was at the patterns stage of the testing that my legs felt like rubber. I kept thinking of how much more I had to do and how little energy I felt I had left. But it was also at this same time that my method of thinking changed. I cannot honestly say whether it simply happened or I chose it. I got to the point when I had to (literally) force myself to function exclusively within the Now. No more thinking about how much more I had to do. No more thinking about how my energy levels were dropping. No more thinking about time. Just focus on what I was doing right here, right now.


And I believe, that was a near perfect example of this Mindfulness.









* General Choi (1918 - 2002) was the founder of Taekwon-do.

Raft-centric

"[A] man, who going on a journey, sees a great stretch of water, the near bank with dangers and fears, the farther bank secure and without fears, but there is neither a boat for crossing over, nor a bridge across. It occurs to him that to cross from the perils of this bank to the security of the further bank, he should fashion a raft out of sticks and branches and depending of the raft, cross over to safety. When he has don this it occurs to him that the raft has been very useful and he wonders if he ought to take it with him on his head or shoulders. What do you think? That the man is doing what should be done to the raft?

"When he has crossed over to the beyond he must leave the raft and proceed on his journey. [A] man doing this would be doing what should be done to the raft. [T]he raft [is] for getting across, not for retaining."

Adapted from the Majihima Nikaya, translated by Christmas Humphreys.

Religion is a tool. Religion can be a useful tool, even a necessary one.
A tool serves its purpose, accomplishes its task and then must be either left behind for another to use, or simply abandoned and discarded.

Like a raft built to cross to the other side of a river. Once the other shore is reached, dragging the raft behind you through the trees, brambles, and thickets only holds you back. It is falling victim to the disease of Religiosity.

Our purpose was never to build, protect, guard, or worship the raft. Our purpose is the journey. We should never be raft-centric.