Heffalumps & Woozles

One of my favourite stories from A.A. Milne's Winnie-the-Pooh is "Chapter III: In Which Pooh & Piglet Go Hunting and Nearly Catch a Woozle".

If you can get your hands on a copy, it's well worth the read.

It begins on a fine winter's day when Piglet joins Pooh-bear on a walk. He asks Pooh what's he doing to which Pooh answers, "Hunting. Tracking something".

Piglet looks down, and sure enough, there's a trail of paw-marks! "A Woozle!" he exclaims.

As the pair continues, suddenly they are tracking two animals now! Two Woozles! Pooh asks if Piglet would mind staying with him in case the Woozles turn out to be Hostile Animals. Piglet agrees.

Onward they journey until a third set of tracks joins the previous two Woozles! Now there are three! Pooh notices that these third tracks are different and must be a Wizzle who has joined the other two Woozles.

Now both Piglet and Pooh are just a little bit anxious and becoming frightened because they are outnumbered, but they continue on. Their adventure as trackers couldn't get any worse when a fourth set of tracks are discovered! "Three Woozles and a Wizzle" Pooh states. Now Piglet finds an excuse to leave as he is quite frightened by being outnumbered two to one and the ferocious nature of these animals.

The story ends with Christopher Robins overlooking Pooh from the high vantage point of a tree and pointing out how Pooh-bear and Piglet have been wandering round a spinney in circles, doubling back upon themselves repeatedly. Pooh hits his paw into one of the track and says, "I see now. I have been Foolish and Deluded, and I am a Bear of No Brain at All".

It is a cute and sweet story. But I think there is a wisdom present here. Pooh and Piglet are convinced there are Woozles and Wizzles. (I suppose Heffalumps and Woozles and Wizzles could be cryptids).

The evidence was right before them! Pooh-bear even has a witness. They wre looking at concrete facts. There can be no denying that they were following actual, real, emperical tracks!

Told from the simple children's story we can clearly and easily see through Pooh's delusion (Even Pooh-bear himself becomes enlightened to the truth by the end). But I believe there is a lesson here. I believe at times we are guilty of the same thing. we tend to have a difficult time when attempting to differenciate between our facts and our interpretations; what we want to call "truth". I think we very often miss the point that most facts are conditional. They are only true under certain conditions.

The sky is blue. I can see it and you can too.
At night the sky is black. I can see it and so can you.
 These are facts, but the truth of the matter is Night-and-Day. But even this perceived truth is conditional. Step off the planet or into deep space and this truth becomes conditional. Step onto a spacestation and the truth becomes a subjective man-nade construct.

These are conditions and issues we can see and maybe even touch. Inagine the danger we run into when we deal with abstracts like Theism/Atheism and Theology!

If we can't or won't accept that many perceived facts are actually condiional truths - unlike Pooh-bear - we stand little chance of escaping our delusions.

William Roache (Ken Barlow of Coronations Street) had once said, "Fear is a very strange thing. So much imagination is involved".

I think Mr. Roache hit the nail on the head.
Pooh and Piglet were frightened of a Hostile Animal called a Woozle. (Okay, maybe Piglet more than Pooh). Their fear was real even though imagined. (I can only imagine what horrible things a Woozle would do to me!!)

...but we have them, don't we; Heffalumps & Woozles?
I know I have them. If I can point them out and name them they would cease to exist because they can only exist in my imagination. I know I have them because I have encountered them in my past; delusions. Facts whose truths simply aren't.

That's why I - like Pooh and Piglet - am so frightened of them.
Their very nature of fear.
Their habitat is my ignorance and my imagination nurtures and feeds them.

There's an irony in this wisdom. Now that I'm aware, I have to at least attempt to purge them. I have to go on a Woozle hunt... but isn't that what Pooh-bear started out doing?
"Hunting. Tracking Something".

Jung-Joong Dong

"... meditation in Taekwon-do does not mean a total divorce from the world,like a dead body, but rather an active moment to reflect on our past mistakes in silence and in the privacy of our thoughts, and through penitence, to continue our self-improvement towards becoming better men and women. This active thought process in silence is called Jung-Joong-Dong." Excerpt from Jungshin Sooyang.

Jung-Joong-Dong means 'stillness in motion'. This idea of 'stillness in motion' is to keep the mind centered throughout motion, to keep the mind in the gap between thoughts, not to agitate the mind with thinking but to remain in the perpetual Now, purely in the present. Meditation in motion. It is one thing to 'still the mind' while being motionless, it is a whole new challenge to do so while moving, and even more difficult while in combat with another person. Martial Arts can require intense concentration, which can lead to mindfulness. The patterns, or tuls (or katas) are perfect examples of reaching for this state of mind through motion. 

One tenet of traditional Taekwon-do is Guk-gi, or Self-Control. 

I believe Solace is the fruit of Guk-gi.

I worry about the future. This has always been a problem I’ve struggled and battled with. I worry about my financial stability, about my family's health, my kid's schooling, my wife's business, my job, my friends, my relationships, my well-being. And when I allow that rogue beast Worry to roam free, it does nothing but further feed and breed Fear.

Too often I fall into the trap of living in the Past. Analyzing whether this or that choice or decision could have changed where I find myself today. When I open the memories and doorways to the past I run the risk of flooding myself with regret for what might-have-been.
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.

“Alan Watts likened the practice of living from our center to martial arts, where we are encouraged to “stay always in the center position, and stay always here”. He says, “If you expect something to come in a certain way, by the time you reposition your energy, it is too late. So stay in the center, and you will be ready to move in any direction”. When living from your center, in the now, he adds, “you stand a much better chance of being able to deal with the unforeseen than if you keep worrying about it”  Candance B. Pert, The Molecules of Emotion: The Science Behind Mind-Body Medicine (New York: Touchstone, 1997), pg. 27

I have found practicing the Tuls (patterns) in Taekwon-do extremely “centering” and a near form of Meditation. The concentration and focus clears the mind, forcing me to forget everything but the Now, returning the balance. I do not miss the point of every pattern begins in one position and returns to this same position. A centering. A balance point.

I believe General Choi (Taekwon-do's founder) deliberately encouraged this symbolism of centering; reigning in our runaway imaginations – not dwelling on the past and not worrying about the future, but always returning to this state of centeredness.
I believe the trick is to borrow this learned wisdom as we practice it in our patterns and apply it to our lives on a daily level. It can only make us better and stronger.

I do not believe it is only through Martial Arts that this Jung-Joong-Dong can be practiced. A common misconception is that meditation must be done sitting. Many meditations can be practiced while active. One simple activity is the act of walking. Since walking is something we do everyday, walking meditation gives us ample opportunities to practice.

Begin by quieting your mind and connecting with your body's sensations. Begin with a natural upright posture, with the arms hanging naturally at your sides. Allow your eyes to gaze at a point about five feet in front of you and ground level, while maintaining a straight spine with your head upright, as if suspended by a string. Don't just breathe in, but inhale your surroundings and environment.

Walk gently, at a regular pace. Feel your feet roll onto and off the ground and be aware of contact your feet make with it. I have a good amount of river stone in my backyard - an area we refer to as our "Zen Garden". I very much like walking in this part of the garden barefoot. Walking on 3/8" river stone isn't painful but neither is it comfortable. My wife won't walk barefoot on it and cannot understand why my daughter and I enjoy it. I enjoy it because it makes me consciously aware of the simplest act of walking. It should be similar to walking barefoot on the beach by the ocean. You need to feel the sand and water with your toes.

Your breathing should be synchronized with your steps. I find inhaling on one step and exhaling on the other far too quick. I find it much more comfortable inhaling through 2 steps and exhaling through the next two. Be aware of your steps, your breathing, the flow and shifting of your weight, the slight pause between the steps, the sway of the arms...

But what is the point of all this? What is the purpose of Jung-Joong-Dong? Why is it beneficial to practice "stillness in motion" rather than not practicing it at all?

Like Guk-gi (self-control), its fruition is solace. Inner peace. Peace of mind. Its truest test and its greatest need is not when we are calm and taking a pleasant stroll, but when we find ourselves at our worst. When the world around us has crumbled into chaos. Those moments when you are constantly chasing your problems. When you feel like crying into your hands. When the shit truly hits the fan. Those terrible times when we just want everything to stop and curl up in a fetal position under our bedsheets. This is the truest test and greatest need for Jung-Joong-Dong. We've all been there before, and we'll all find ourselves there again. I think we all know this. I believe we avoid thinking too much about it. Maybe even at times deny it. Out of sight, out of mind.

But the more familiar we are with Guk-gi and Jung-Joong-Dong, the less of a stranger we
are to ourselves and the more solace we will have discovered.

Once we tap into that reservoir within ourselves, the less catastrophic events around us might become.
That day we fear - when everything truly breaks down - may never come.

Jung-Joong-Dong; "stillness in motion" should not be a goal we aspire to attain, but an ongoing process that continually grows and enriches us. It will at times be shockingly successful and on other days a failure.

I am by no means a Master in this in any stretch of the imagination, but there is one thing I have learned;
That I am an infinitely boundless source of solace. It is only my fear that limits it.

Atangana, Jihad, and Sexiness

I think many Buddhists may have got it right.
Peace of mind; solace for oneself first. True compassion for others can only follow after compassion for oneself. Legitimate compassion for others should not have any sort of self-serving or hedonistic motives behind it. (for example, Salvation).

I think this is where the Anglo-Catholics, the Evangelical, Fundamentalists, (Extreme) Calvinists, the Born-Agains, and a great many "right-of-moderate" Muslims have been led astray. (I suppose - ultimately - I am speaking of the belief in Total Depravity).

For those in Christianity who cling to a historical or a literal interpretation of Original Sin, true peace of mind and solace can be a near impossibility. For those who believe we are all born into sin and corruption and remain that way until proclaiming Christ as Lord and Saviour - but are still never-the-less unworthy - I cannot fathom how they could attain solace. (Yes, I know of some who "never-frown", but I believe this is little more than a mask of pretension and ritualized denial). I also firmly believe without solace, true compassion for others is difficult if not impossible.

I have long since come to the conclusion that a literal (or possibly historical) interpretation of Original Sin need to be completely abandoned.

I agree with Lao-Tzu and the author of Taekwon-Do's Jungshin Sooyang and Mencius that man is inherently good. That's not to say we are immune to greed, temptation, or corruption. I believe that is the greatest internal struggle we can combat. It is also why I very much like and have hope for one particular interpretation of Islam's doctrine of Jihad. That Jihad is not a Holy War against others, but a war battled and waged within oneself.

I think there is a simply profound wisdom in this.

"Wisdom (Ji). The ability to judge right from wrong, not especially in matters concerning the right and wrong of others but in matters concerning oneself." Excerpt from Jungshin Sooyang.

I think that many 'right-of-modeate' Muslims miss this wisdom as well. The recent incident of the Toronto street Cleric, Al-Haashim Kamena Atangana, and his belief that Canadian Law should inhibit women's choice of dress - as those who dress too sexily or provocatively are the cause of crime and rape. As insulting as this is to women it is more insulting to men, that we should be some kind of uncontrollable (but perfectly unaccountable and excusable) animal.

I think Al-Haashim Kamena Atangana would do well to abide by Jungshin Sooyang's definition of wisdom and take a long hard look at himself. Maybe his own religion's doctrine of the internal Jihad would serve him well.

I know when I see a sexy woman dressed provocatively, I'll admit, my mind might wander, but one of the last thoughts is one of rape. If this is a demon that Atangana struggles with then maybe he should confine himself away from society until he can come to peace with his internal conflict.

This concept of an internal Jihad (strongly) suggests that within us is a good nature and that the struggling conflict is one fuelled by wisdom (our ability to judge right and wrong within ourselves).
I find this hopeful. It is an idea I am willing to synthesize.

As hard as I may be on Christianity at times, I find this same wisdom present in it as well, and that gives me more hope.

I think Rob Bell put it best in Velvet Elvis.

"Is the greatest truth about Adam and Eve and the fruit that it happened, or that it happens? This story, one of the first in the Bible, is true for us because it is our story. We have all taken the fruit. We have all crossed boundaries. We have all made decisions to do things our way and then looked back and said to ourselves, What was I thinking? The fruit looked so great to Adam and Eve for those brief moments, but the consequences were with them for the rest of their lives. Their story is our story. We see ourselves in them. The story is true for us because it happened and because it happens. It is an accurate description of how life is. The reason the stories in the Bible have resonated with so many people over the years is that they have seen themselves in these stories." Rob Bell, Velvet Elvis, pg. 58-59

A Glimmer of Hope

I have always believed people are inherently good, not corrupt; not fallen.
But when we see statistics that suggest number like 12% of all internet website are porn, or 25% of all searches are for porn, or 35% of all downloads are pornographic, it would seem to suggest otherwise. (However, these numbers are extremely difficult to accurately nail down. Not to mention that we are assuming that this desire or need for porn is a sign of not being inherently good or fallen, which it does not).

However, I have recently found othewise.
I have inadvertently done a sort of survey.
In December of 2011 I posted XXXmas: Porn for The Soul on this blog site.
I had thought that it would have been bombarded with hits, considering the term XXX and the word porn were in its title.

Overall, it has received slightly over 1 ½ % of my blogsite's traffic.

Incidentally, in May, I had posted Dharma-Ocean.
Since it has received over 28 % of my entire blog's traffic, most specifically with the word ocean.

Needless to say I was surprised, but happily so.

Is Atheism another form of Fundamentalism?

The recent announcement from the CERN of the discovery of the Higgs boson particle - also known as the "God-particle" - has lead to some interesting conversations with friend and co-workers over the past few days. One particular comment that has stuck with me as being rather odd is, "Science wins! The Atheists were right!" The assumption being that Science and Atheism are one in the same thing. (And although I would very much like someone - oh, I don't know... Stephen Hawkings maybe? - to explain the deeper significance of this discovery in layman's terms, I am by no means convinced the discovery of the Higgs boson particle argues in either direction for or against the existence of a God. It is no difference than the possibility of a Multiverse. It just adds another level to the chicken-and-egg dilemma. Maybe finds an explanation for the Anthropic principle, but little more).

Atheism is a belief-system, a religion of sorts, based not on fact or empirical evidence but on choice of belief. As its core it is a faith-based system of belief, no different than many other religions and subject to the same dangers, risks, fundamentalism and closed mindedness.

Atheism is not Science and Science is not atheistic. Although they can be compatible, they are not mutually dependent.

(On a side note, please allow me to be up front and clear on an issue. I do not have an ulterior motive or agenda. It is not my desire or purpose to undermine Atheism. I have no problem with Atheists and no problem with the position of Atheism. My issue, my problem, deals with the dangers of Fundamentalism within any Belief-System or Religion. The most dangerous position is one that doesn't even acknowledge its possibility to include a fundamentalist aspect, but simply presumes itself to be right and superior. Arrogance and Ignorance go hand-in-hand.)

Science is an indifferent process of intellectual discovery, as useful to those with faith as those without it. Atheism is an interpretation of that science which declares Divinity, Universal design, and religion, to be nonsense.

Not all scientists are atheists, and not all atheists are scientists. Science itself can make no judgement about Divinity primarily because it is limited to that which it can verify by theory and experiment, and its tools are not subtle enough to detect consciousness apart from the biological organism manifesting it, making it impossible to verify any form of life other than visible and biological, and secondly, because it cannot detect about 95% of the Universe at all. Therefore atheism is only a construction of minds disposed to that conclusion, and is indeed a belief system.

Most knowledge is acquired through academic study (theology fits within this category, whether theists like it or not). It is learning from our predecessors and ancestors; hopefully acquiring their learned and experienced wisdom.

But there is another kind of knowledge; Spiritual Knowledge and the most amazing and revolutionary thing about spiritual knowledge is that we can acquire it through contemplation - not only attaining wisdom on our own, but outside of an institution of study and free of its biases, influences, authority structure and potential manipulations.

I think this is why those with spiritual knowledge - the spiritually powerful - are nearly by definition "loose canons". (Let's be careful here and not confused religious knowledge and the religiously powerful, or, on the same note, let's also not confuse this with what some Christians may refer to being "spiritually powerful" as being a Christian filled with the Holy Spirit. No, none of these).

Atheism is itself a Belief-System and as such Atheism is not immune to the plagues of religiosity and fundamentalism. But on that same note, Atheism is also not exempt from a spiritual aspect and the acquirement of spiritual knowledge. Although the terms and terminology used may vary greatly.

The spiritually powerful are those that, I should think, institutions cannot control. I would think those with spiritual wisdom hold and maintain a sort of balance between what they know and believe, and doubt. They know that Doubt is not something to be feared or extinguished, but something to be embraced and nurtured.

It should be well worth while exploring the nature of what "spirituality" looks like within Atheism. It also cannot be denied that Atheism contains wisdom we would all do well in learning.

We actually need intelligent doubt and skepticism. They protect us against mistaken views and propaganda. They protect us from the mindlessness of fundamentalism. A healthy dose of doubt and skepticism will lead us to authentic knowledge which turns out to be wisdom in the end.

Certainty should not be synonymous with Faith.
Faith is not the opposite of Doubt.
In fact, I would argue that Doubt is not the antithesis of Faith at all, but that Certainty is.

Historically the spiritually powerful challenge, threaten (directly or indirectly), and even at times, break institutions. They are the catalysts of change. (Think of Yeshua of Nazareth, the Buddha, Martin Luther). The same cannot be said for the religiously powerful with their academic knowledge. These tend to 'toe the line' and maintain the status quo.

To bastardize a quote from V is for Vendetta,

"People should not be afraid of their ideologies, or beliefs.
Their beliefs should be afraid of its people".

I think that is the basic difference between the religious and the spiritual. The religious are frightened of their beliefs because their beliefs cannot be questioned. The spiritual are not frightened to question their beliefs and therefore threaten it with change and potential growth.

To the fundamentalist, their truth, knowledge, and beliefs are fixed and static.
To the spiritual, their truth, knowledge, and beliefs are progressive.

...Maybe Atheism itself is a fundamentalist position. After all, the type of Atheism that I am speaking of, the sort of open mindedness (maybe even watered down) version of Atheism may be more than just a tolerant passive sort. It may very well be Agnosticism.

Can any belief-based system truly include Doubt?I've always liked saying that I would rather have a Faithful Doubt than a Doubtful Faith, but can this be practically true?

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