The Dharma Entanglement: The Doctor-Manhattan-Syndrome

The graphic novel, Watchmen, made Time magazine's list (2005) of All Time 100 Greatest Novels to be read (and the only graphic novel to make the list, alongside the likes of J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, George Orwell's Animal Farm, Margaret Mitchell's Gone with the Wind, and William Golding's Lord of the Flies). Yes, it was also made into a movie in 2009, and a good one at that, but the book is still worth the read!

Watchmen takes place in an alternate universe in which our recent history is re imagined with superheros present (from the 1950's through the Vietnam War up 'til today – with the potential of an American-Soviet doomsday war looming overhead).

Nite Owl (a Batman analogue) who relies upon Owl-themed technology and gadgets.
Silk Spectre (both) were highly trained in hand-to-hand combat and martial arts.
The Comedian was more of a super soldier in the sense of the arsenal of weapons he seemed to enjoy using.
Ozymandias is the zenith of the human potential – using 100% of his brain and having achieved mastery over his mind and body.
Rorschach, a masked vigilante, and nighttime crime fighter whose sense of right and wrong are black-and-white in a gray coloured world.

The one commonality we find is that these superheros do not have super powers... and then we have Dr. Manhattan. A glowing blue skinned deity with – as both the character himself and the reader slowly discover – near omnipotent powers.

As Dr. Manhattan's powers grow, the more 'secrets of the universe' he becomes aware of (none of which are openly shared with the reader unfortunately), the more and more distant and disconnected to his fellow human beings he becomes, to the point where he would seem to have not so much achieved Enlightenment, but passed into the realm of becoming a god; Alien and disconnected to the human condition. He can no longer relate and eventually abandons humanity and leaves Earth to pursue what we can only imagine to be his own interests or further enlightenment.

There's a great line in the movie A Fish Called Wanda where Wanda (Jamie Lee Curtis) corrects her dullard partner in crime Otto (Kevin Kline),

”Let me correct you on a few things... The central message of Buddhism is not "Every man for himself!"”

I call this the Doctor-Manhattan-Syndrome: Buddhism gone terribly wrong.(And let's not kid ourselves. It isn't solely restricted to Buddhism. We've all seen our fair share of the Doctor-Manhattan-Syndrome run amok in Christian circles as well. Who's saved and who isn't and a hedonistic obsession for self-salvation. The other side of this coin is the counterfeit compassion of attempting to 'save others' through prosytlization to the point where either people become projects – dehumanized – or bragging rights to how many people one has 'saved'. But I digress).

The Doctor-Manhattan-Syndrome is an exercise in missing the point, or totally becoming self-serving in our pursuit of (self) enlightenment or (self) salvation.

Interestingly, this "perfected" (if we can really call it that) state of Holistic Solace could be synonymous with what many might mistakenly understand Enlightenment to be. Because alone, it is incomplete and self-serving. This Holistic Solace, this state of "Enlightenment", this Doctor-Manhattan-Syndrome would be lacking in one's ability to discern, absorb, and understand truth and have critical deficiencies in Compassion if not completely separated from it.

The Doctor-Manhattan-Syndrome would be the Buddha's enlightenment under the Bodhi Tree and no more. He would have simply become enlightened and found no need to share this - let alone teach - to anyone else.

I believe when we focus our efforts on improving our mental and spiritual solace(s) alongside striving to find a better and more harmonious physical health, we slowly, surely, and gradually move towards a better and 'higher' soter state. Being 'healed' (salus), but more accurately, being made whole; unified. But these 'stages'; these areas of healing and unification and growth are all inner, private, and personal. By no means must we be perfect in these self-improvement endeavors, but we must be 'whole' enough (soter) to see clearly. We must be 'healed' enough (salus) to reach out and help others.

The-Doctor-Manhattan-Syndrome is when the effort is successful but our vision remains deluded and we can see no need or desire or purpose for compassion. It is an empty enlightenment.

Solace and Compassion are entangled by Dharma.

Judged by the Colours in my Skin

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/09/06/youre-bothering-me-column

Liz Braun writes the column, "You're Bothering Me" in the Toronto Sun. On Friday, Sept. 7th, 2012, the Ottawa Sun  published the article, "Think before you ink!" .

I guess it's socially acceptable to judge a person by the colour(s) of their skin.

She says, "A generation ago, psychiatric textbooks noted more than 3 tattoos was a sign of psychosis".

Homosexuality was considered a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Association up until 1972. Does that mean we're justified in judging, discriminating and looking down upon the gay community? According to Mrs. Braun's logic, apparently so!

The Michigan study done 'just a few years ago' in the journal of Personality and Mental Health, and its suggestion that there's some kind of link between heavily tattooed patients and signs of suicidal tendencies, sexual abuse, or substance abuse, was nothing less than manipulative.

Oh yes, but there's Liz Braun's passive disclaimer, "Calm down: The statistics refer to psych patients, not members of the general population".
Really? Than why list it at all?
I put this in the same category as saying, "No offense, but you're ugly". Prepping your insult with "No offense but..." does nothing to take the offensiveness away, nor does it give permission to say one's harmful words.

I think it is fantastic that the social value of tattoos have changed over the past 2 generations. We've become more tolerant and open minded. That's a good thing. (Maybe that's something the WWII soldiers brought back with them as well as their tattoos).

There can be no denying that tattoos shouldn't be gotten on a whim. But why list celebrities who have removed their tattoos and body art? Why not list celebrities who have gotten tattoos? (And since when  are celebrities suddenly a beacon of wisdom? Britney Spears? Definitely a roll model for our younger generation! Not.)

I think it's a good thing that we have the science and technology not only to provide beautifully tattooed artwork within a safe and sterile environment, but also the ability to have them removed for those who make that choice.

And that's my point; Choice.
I don't discriminate against the un-inked. I would like to think those who are tattooed should not be judged either, but apparently this article states otherwise. Regardless of whether you, or I are tattooed, not tattooed, or 'ex-tattooed', I don't want to be judged by the colour(s) of my skin.

I think what I find most offensive about this article is the fact that it attempts to hide behind the facade of simply giving advice to think twice before getting a tattoo. It is anything but.

Liz Braun is not making the point of 'think twice before you get a tattoo', regardless of the article's opening and closing paragraphs. Her point is that getting a tattoo (and by implication, being tattooed) makes you mentally deficient, mentally questionable, damaged, or somehow less of a person, and she backs this up with misinformation and half-truths (isn't that propaganda?)
To me this is inciting discrimination.

Please feel free to leave your thoughts or comments.
You can contact Liz Braum directly at her email, liz.braun@sunmedia.ca or at twitter, @LizBraunSun

“Free Will”, by Sam Harris; review and commentary

“Free will is an illusion. Our wills are simply not of our own making. Thoughts and intentions emerge from background causes of which we are unaware and over which we exert no conscious control. We do not have the freedom we think we have.

“Free will is actually more than an illusion(or less), in that it cannot be made conceptually coherent. Either our wills are determined by prior causes and we are not responsible for them, or they are the product of chance and we are not responsible for them”. pg. 5

This is an odd statement. I am simply being told what the facts are. Not convinced by any sort of method. Are these two paragraphs meant as an introduction?

”Imagine a perfect neuroimaging device that would allow us to detect and interpret the subtlest changes in brain function. You might spend an hour thinking and acting freely in the lab, only to discover that the scientists scanning your brain had been able to produce a complete record of what you would think and do some moments in advance of each event.” pg. 10

"Imagine what it would be like to see the time log of these mental events, alongside video of your associated behavior, demonstrating that the experimenters knew what you would think and do just before you did.” pg. 11, Bold text added.

At this point in the book, it would seem that Sam Harris is giving us a completely hypothetical situation; posing a rhetorical question, but yet – somehow – expecting us to take it as fact. Let's hope these ”facts” materialize later in the book.

Unfortunately, what I find later in the book is disappointing. On page 24 we find more speculation.

”If we were to detect their conscious choices on a brain scanner seconds before they were aware of them, they would be rightly astonished – because this would directly challenge their status as conscious agents in control of their inner lives. We know that we could perform such an experiment, at least in principle, and if we tuned the machine correctly, subjects would feel that they we were reading their minds (or controlling them)".

This is followed by a footnote, but a footnote worth taking notice to. This footnote, number 11, states, ”Unfortunately, there is some uncertainty as to whether the experiment was ever performed”.

Later (page 40) has another footnote (number 17) noting, ”...this notion of counterfactual freedom is also scientifically untestable. What evidence could possibly be put forward to show that one could have acted differently in the past?” Once again, dealing in speculation.

I have always attempted to be careful in my life and my decisions. I think it is important to ask yourself, can any good come of this?

"We did not know what we intend to do until the intention itself arises... this insight does not make social and political freedom any less important. The freedom to do what one intends, and not to do otherwise, is no less valuable than it ever was”. pg. 13

I agree and I am forced to question what is the intent of this book, this thesis? Can any good come of it? What is Sam Harris' actual goal? It makes me wonder if this entire premise – free will or no free will – is little more than a clever exercise, either as an intellectual argument, or simply being right.

In the introduction, he suggests that the question of free will touches a great many things, including morality and religion. Stating that without free will we lose our concept of sinners and criminals, guilt and innocence, and punishment. Although I do not believe he has a 'chip on his shoulder' about religion, there is definitely something at stake in the debate over free will.

What I find interesting is that he states,

"Consider what it would take to actually have free will. You would need to be aware of all the factors that determine your thoughts and actions, and you would need to have complete control over those factors. But there is a paradox here that vitiates the very notions of freedom - for what would influence the influences? More influences? None of these adventitious mental states are the real you. You are not controlling the storm, and you are not lost in it. You are the storm”. Pg. 13-14

Interestingly, this is ”emptiness” in Buddhism, or ”dependent-arising” (or interdependence). Nothing - most especially the mind – has independent existence. (Although an argument can be made that Buddhism isn't a religion, but rather a scientific/empirical 'system' or philosophy. I think I may have 'bumped' into Sam Harris on the Buddhist discussion forum New Buddhist. It confused me as to exactly what he might be 'selling' here).

It saddened me to see the methodology of debate present. In the opening of the chapter entitled Changing the Subject, Sam Harris throws out the terms, determinism, libertarianism, and compatibilism - clearly addressing an audience well versed in the Free Will debate. (It is also the chapter where a couple of the uncertain and untestable results are mentioned. This is religiosity for the Atheist). This entire exercise reminds me of attempting to learn and hear the various theological Christian camps' debates over Eternal Conscious Torment, Universalism, and Annihilationism. At some point, the arguments become so self-absorbing, basic practicality has long since become secondary or even abandoned. (I mean, outside of the fun and joy of debate, how important is it really, and what good can come it?)

What I believe Sam Harris sets out to do is establish - scientifically – that we do not have Free Will. But ultimately he fails to scientifically prove the point. (I'm starting to believe that scientifically it cannot be proved either way). I think the book is reaching for scientific certainty where certainty might not exist. I cannot decide who would be this books targeted audience. A friend of mine (and self-proclaimed Atheist) suggested this book for me to read, stating that it makes some great (and empirical) points as well as scientific tests and experiments that prove our choices are completely predicable. Clearly, this individual saw the points he wanted to see but looked no deeper, as many of these tests and experiments are somewhat questionable.

Maybe a better direction to pursue would have been the implications of whether Free Will exists or not. How this can shape how we view and relate to other people. Do we see those guilty of crimes as terrible sinners deserving little more than punishment, or do we see them as victims of circumstances far beyond their control and deserving of help? Do we see our own successes are a reflection of how great and important we are, or humbly concede our fortunate luck? Or maybe we should question the danger of allowing ourselves to absolute ourselves of any and all responsibility for our actions. I would have been much more interested in seeing this line of thought, exploration, and reasoning followed.

The conclusion of this book is anything but conclusive. At best what I gleaned from this book is that in the debate over Free Will, nomenclature – how one chooses to define Free Will – become critical in winning one's argument.

The Dharma Entanglement: Introduction

We, the human species are by nature gregarious; social creatures. We live in communities. I also believe that is why we are religious; or at least have a tendency towards it. I believe we are all religionists of one flavour or another.

Maybe I shouldn't use the word “religion”. It can cause some confusion. 'Religion' often implies a necessary belief in God or gods. It doesn't need to. I would count Atheism as a 'religion' for the purposes of this discussion. Maybe a better term we should use is Belief-System. Yes, we'll save the term 'religion' for the disease of religiosity...

Belief-Systems

Because we are gregarious and because we must live amongst our fellow man – and with ourselves – I think this is the reason we all have and follow some sort of Belief-System. Some of us can happily name and identify which Belief-System we belong to and follow. Some of us cannot. Some of us think we can but in reality don't know.

Our ability to acknowledge which one Belief-System we belong to has no bearing of the fact that we all do. There are many of us who follow a Belief-System that has no official recognized status, or even some who follow an unnamed, poor, and damaging Belief-System. But the fact is we follow one or some.

Which, ultimately, brings us to an important question. What should we expect our Belief-System to do for us? What purpose should it serve and what purpose does it serve?

"Western philosophy, having little connection with everyday living, is (to this observer, at least) comparatively egocentric and impractical, with much Arguing and Theorizing, and much bounding back and forth across the intellectual landscape.

"Western philosophy has become the domain of pipe-smoking, tweed-suited college professors (who may profess it but not necessarily practice it) and hypercerebral students who, for all their intelligence, often seem to have a hard time washing their clothes or repairing the lawn mower.

"In the East generally... philosophy has always been considered of no value unless it can be, and is, applied in one's daily life.

"Out of the "Hundred Schools" of Chinese philosophy, only two - Confucianism and Taoism - have survived. They have lasted through thousands of years because they have proven the most Useful."
Benjamin Hoff, "The Te of Piglet"

What should we expect our Belief-Systems to do?
It's funny because this was the final question I came to during my 25 year 'travels' as a spiritual sojourner. An unfortunate event triggered this journey for me and began my searching for answers. - And boy did I find answers! - But that wasn't what made this journey so difficult and so challenging. Unbeknown to me, it wasn't answers that I should have been searching for, but questions. The challenge was that the questions, over the years,  kept changing.

I'm one to believe there's nothing new under the sun. I'm not going to present the things I learned as ideas I came up with or created or invented, but rather as concepts I discovered and stumbled upon. Men thousands of years ago – much more educated and wiser than I'll ever be – have summoned some of the concepts and thoughts that I desperately struggle with up in a single word. No, there is nothing new under the sun, least of all what I write here.

So, what should we expect and demand of our Belief-Systems? What should we demand of our religions? And when they fail to provide these expectations and demands are we ready and willing to eject them either wholesale or partially?

(It was late February 2012 when I had to submit my written thesis for my Black Belt examination in Taekwon-do. It was entitled “Solace & Compassion” and it was at that point when the purpose of most (all?) Belief-Systems solidified to me).

I should think our Belief-Systems and our religions should provide us three things and enjoy the byproduct of a fourth.

1) It should not provide us truth. It should provide us with the methods and tools to acquire, accept, and manage truth.
2) It should provide us with direction and guidance to Solace; inner peace (be it physical, mental, spiritual, or all three).
3) It should teach, foster, and help nurture Compassion for others. (We should be watchful that it doesn't pretend and offer a counterfeit compassion; pity).

A byproduct of these three points is community. And as gregarious creatures by nature – like or not – we live in communities. Families, friends, social circles, clubs, gangs, churches, unions, the list goes on. Not all communities are good; we must live in them never-the-less. But we can make good communities.

It is important to understand these three points and how they are intertwined with one another. Without Solace one is divided and conflicted. Without some degree of Solace caring for others is a near impossibility. To a certain degree, Compassion becomes the fruit of Solace. But yet so too can the opposite be true. Genuinely helping another – even a single kind act – can bring peace of mind and a sense of balance and harmony.

Dharma

I wholeheartedly believe how we view, accept, and acquire truth heavily influences both our Solace and Compassion. If we are set in our ways and in what we hold to be true, regardless of what our experiences show us or how reality is, we will repeatedly come into conflict with those “facts” of reality. If we cannot or will not change to accommodate new or corrected truths then it becomes increasingly more difficult to live at peace with the world and the people around us. A Belief-System or religion that teaches us specific and erroneous truths rather than how to find truths can only undermine us.

I find it interesting those people who seem to feel the need to argue and defend the truth (often their truth). Truth needs no defending. It simply is. It should be self-revealing and obvious.

I call this 'Dharma'. This is not Dharma in the Buddhist sense of the three gems or the three treasures. This is not the Buddhist teachings that indoctrinates one into Buddhism. This 'Dharma' is simply the self-evidential truth, but more specifically our openness to being aware of it and accepting it. It is a reflection of ourselves more than the truth in question.

Dharma is not truth itself, but one's understanding of and methods of acquiring, accepting, and managing the truth...

...and Solace and Compassion are entangled by Dharma.

This is what I call ”The Dharma Entanglement”. This is the goal and purpose of a Belief-System I have come to believe and pursue.

Below is a map, a flowchart of sorts, showing the paths and conclusions I have come to and discovered. Although it shows the various paths and conclusions I have encountered it is extremely generalized and extremely summerized.  Yes, it will look like I am painting with a very broad brush. It may even appear judgmental, but please understand, years were spent (wasted?) following (not studying) these numerous and meandering paths. It is by no means meant to be a universal truth, but only one I have experienced. (I had been extremely hesitant in using this Excel-chart. It is far too 'mathematical'; far too black and white. It frightens and concerns me that it gives the wrong message that this entire process is little more than an equation, which it is anything but. Each and every point on this chart could easily be a lengthy post onto its own, and in fact, some of them are).

(The chart itself is a link to the Excel-chart proper and this chart has numerous links to various topics and articles).

When I had began this blogsite, The Woven, the idea was to explore and hopefully discover the commonalities between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. But like I mentioned earlier, the challenge was not in the answers I discovered, but that the questions kept changing. What it ended up becoming was an exploration of Atheism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Taoism, Buddhism, and Gnosticism.

The Mu Portal

Although there could be many possible paths to the Dharma Entanglement, ultimately I believe “Mu” is a necessary gateway to escape the shackles of Religiosity and enjoy the emancipation of Spirituality. (Only then can Spiritual Solace be realized, cultivated, and nurtured).

Mu is Japanese for “not” often used as a prefix, but can stand alone, simply as 'not'. It can mean to “unask the question", suggesting that the problem does not lie within the answer (there is no correct answer), but within the question itself. The problem needs to be approached from another point of view.

I have found many monotheists (as well as many Atheists) lack a healthy sense of Doubt, and suffer from an addiction to Certainty. And when we fall victim to the Certainty Addiction everything becomes a matter of knowing and fact and proving one's beliefs. Faith dies. Truth takes a back seat to being Right. Thus enters the hidden and silent inner conflict. Combine this addiction with inner conflict and the monotheist's concept (fear) of Damnation and their Solace's destruction is complete.

”Mu” (regardless of which avenue one arrives here or even by which name one recognizes it as) is the ability of simply 'letting go' and be at peace with not-knowing. (And shortly we will discuss the value Gnosticism can provide to approaching this gateway and better understanding of it through symbolism). Allowing a Faithful Doubt (rather than a Doubtful Faith) and living at peace with its mystery. Something many religious people (especially institutional religions) struggle with.

I think this gateway is critical to one's spiritual journey. Without it, it is simply stagnation. Growth becomes impossible. The entrapment of religiosity remains unbroken.

Solace(s)

There must be a great many paths to mental Solace; clarity of mind. I can only speak of my own experiences. For me it came through Guk-gi (“Self-Control”) and Jung-Joong-Dong (”stillness in motion” meditation), both from Traditional Taekwon-do's Jungshin Sooyang (“Moral Culture” - the base and underlying philosophy and principal behind Traditional Taekwon-do).

Physical Solace, is really little more than keeping your body healthy and balanced. I have began this process by certain dietary changes, being attended to by an acupuncturist and Traditional Chinese Medicine Doctor, and being physically active (In my case, practicing Taekwon-do). I take a daily dose of Bee Pollen to help build and maintain my immune system and I have recently chosen to give up alcohol (Aug. 20/12).

These three forms of Solace are a potentially long process and I do not want to give the idea that I am anywhere but at the beginning of this process. But one thing is clear. At least I have a 'map', so to speak – a direction.

"Holistic Solace, Soter, Salus"
I believe these three ideas of finding peace or a balance within oneself can be cumulative into something truly marvelous. I'm at a loss as to what it may be called. Holistic Solace; Soter; Salus (Salvation? Enlightenment?) It needs to be explored as to what it is, but it is part of this Dharma Entanglement; intrinsically tied into Dharma and Compassion. Clearly this "Holistic Solace/Soter/Salus" needs to be better fleshed out. As of this moment, I'll have to leave that concept for another time.

Gnosticism

Of the seven 'faiths' I have been looking at - Atheism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Taoism, Buddhism, and – Gnosticism, must be the most peculiar of the lot.

There are hidden pearls of wisdom within it. There are also aspects of it present within many other Belief-Systems. It might at times be best viewed as fragmented. What complicates this further is that there was never a single group that we can refer to as 'the Gnostics' (capital 'G'). They were numerous, varied, and diverse. They existed in different times, different cultures, and different religions. It's surprising that we even use an umbrella term like Gnosticism for this entire group. But rather than focus on the underlying definition and traits that unify these varied groups, I prefer to focus on the bits and pieces worth extracting and keeping; those pearls of wisdom that we would do well to pay heed to, and have helped me on my way.

One strong feature in Gnosticism is their understanding of myth (mythos). It would seem at times deliberately opposed to historicity and purposely to combat literalism.

I particularly found values in Valentinus' gnosticism, a Christian Gnosticism. In his reinterpretation of the Genesis story of the Garden of Eden, we find a story through metaphor of an inner struggle to escape the oppressive slavery of Religion and suggestions of Religiosity's petty and insecure god.

The Garden of Eden is not paradise, but the Cage of Religiosity. The Serpent is not Satan, but Sophia - God the Mother - the Holy Spirit - showing the path (or the way) to the Mu Portal. The Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge is not Death, but to pass through the Mu Portal (freedom from Religiosity - emancipation), and only then can the Fruit of the Tree of Life be attained (The Fruit of the Tree of Life being the Cosmic Christ (Christ the Revealer rather than the Redeemer), Sophia, and Abba (literally "Daddy" in Hebrew, as opposed to the God of Eden, Yahweh/T'ien), all understood as metaphor, not literal history.

And it is here that we find an example of Gnosticism's strongest points.
But allow me to jump to a slight tangent for a moment:

T'ien, Yahweh, & Sophia

The Confucianist's concept of a Heavenly Power shared a certain resemblance to the Old Testament image of God. The Confucianists called it T'ien - “Sky”, “heaven”, “Supreme Ruler”. T'ien was seen as masculine and often ferocious. It needed to be appeased with sacrifices and rituals. It took sides. It granted authority. It transferred authority and sovereignty directly to the Emperor, the Son of Heaven.

T'ien was said to grant material prosperity as rewards (thus the Confucianist equation of wealth with goodness).

T'ien was considered something to fear rather than love, hence the emphasis on unquestioning obedience and loyalty and the absence of terms such as Compassion.

The Taoists on the other hand, saw Heavenly Power as both masculine and feminine, as symbolized by the Taoist's Yin-Yang symbol.

In the natural world however, Taoists saw it as mostly feminine in its actions, what Lao-Tsu called “The Mother of Ten Thousand Things”.

It was gentle like flowing water. It was humble and generous, like a fertile valley, feeding all who come to it. It was hidden, subtle, and mysterious. It took no sides, it wasn't tribal, and granted no authority. It could not be influenced or manipulated or appeased by sacrifices or rituals.

Like the dichotomy between the Confucianist and Taoist view of Heavenly Power, the Gnostics (Valentinus especially) revered and worshiped Sophia - the divine feminine.

Sophia - God's wisdom personified. Possibly the third aspect of the Holy Trinity itself; God the Mother.

The parallel between the Confucianist's masculine and ego-driven (insecure?) Heavenly Power, T'ien, and the Old Testament's masculine and blood-thirsty tribal God, Yahweh, is uncanny.
This projected God even carries itself forward into modern day Christianity with certain adherents' refusal to acknowledge anything but a masculine God, down to the Prosperity Gospel, Confucianist's twin image of wealth being a sign of goodness.

The Gnostic's divine feminine - Sophia - is the missing piece. Like the Taoists understanding of the feminine power active in the world around us, Sophia is the mother of all things. Gentle like flowing water, but never-the-less all-powerful like water. Even the stone cliffs are eroded away by the ocean. She is humble and non-egotistic. Generous and accepting all who come to her. She is the God of non-tribalism as she desires no sacrifices and cannot be influenced, manipulated, and needs no appeasement.

These factors, the wisdom of gnosticism, can be an equally valid path to the gateway of Mu; an escape from the bondage of Religiosity; literalism, legalism, an addiction to certainty, tribalism, and into the freedom of spirituality.

But the point here isn't to convince you of a female God. That would only lead you astray, making you fall victim to the addiction of certainty but only of a different flavour. The point is that we do not and cannot know God fully. God cannot be simply placed within a convenient box, categorized or clearly defined. If we believe we can do this, then the God we believe in is nothing more than a personal projection; an illusion. It is an act of supreme arrogance. And this applies equally to the Atheist as well. You do not and cannot know of God's non-existence. You cannot know for certain of God's theistic or atheistic natures. You can only choose to believe in it. To do anything else is arrogance.

I think in the opening verses of the Tao Te Ching, Lao-Tsu put it best, ”The Tao that can be named is not the true Tao”.

Which is why I believe and have listed Agnosticism as a potential path to Mu. Because a healthy agnosticism embraces Doubt as part of their faith. There are some “theological” issues you must be at peace with simply not knowing.

We can see the crossover Gnosticism shares with Taoism.

I know many people who would place Buddhism as Atheistic, but I think that's in error. Some Buddhists are theists of one sort or another. Some Buddhists are atheists. But ultimately I think Buddhism doesn't address the issue. It simply doesn't ask the question because it cannot honestly be answered beyond the statement, ”I believe...”

And for those who would pass through The Mu Gateway, ”belief” must not be abandoned, but must be acknowledged for only what it is. A choice but not necessarily fact. Belief but not necessarily truth.

I remember reading John Hick's God Has Many Names in 2008. He was speaking of interfaith discussions and pluralism.

He held hope for Judaism, Christianity, Islam (monotheistic religions) and Hinduism, but saw potential pitfalls and challenges with non-theistic religions like Buddhism, Taoism, other Eastern religions, and Humanism.

I think this demonstrates the problem quite well. Is the topic and goal at hand to find consensus and common ground on the issue of theism? Is it really all a Question of Theism? (Yes, I admit, many people will make it an issue of exclusively Theism), but is that the entire purpose and goal of religion and Belief-Systems? Are we really only concerned with being Right? Are we attempting once again to defend a truth which needs no defending?

Arguing and proving and defining God? Or is it only the shallow and spiritual hedonistic self-serving pursuit of Salvation or Spiritual Enlightenment?
No, I don't believe that.
Solace and Compassion. Plain and simple.

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.