[minsocal]

tariki, on Jun 23 2009, 03:45 AM, said:

Dear all.

I'm being hounded (I use the word with a gentle smile) to make a return to this forum, or at least some minor contribution. Well, at the moment I have no genuine or original input to give, but was reminded of some words of Stephen Batchelor by this topic.

It comes from his book "Buddhism Without Beliefs"......

When responding to a moral dilemma, we just repeat the gestures and words of a parent, an authority figure, a religious text. While moral conditioning may be necessary for social stability, it is inadeqate as a paradigm of integrity.

Occasionally, though, we act in a way that startles us. A friend asks our advice about a tricky moral choice.Yet instead of offering them consoling platitudes or the wisdom of someone else, we say something that we did not know we knew. Such gestures and words spring from body and tongue with shocking spontaneity. We cannot call them "mine" but neither have we copied them from others. Compassion has disolved the stranglehood of self. And we taste, for a few exhilarating seconds, the creative freedom of awakening.

Well, I've offered you the "wisdom of someone else" which perhaps indicates just how few are the moments of my own "shocking spontaneity". Yet, to be fair, they do happen. And for me they bring the grace of true faith, that such moments can never be the product of such a foolish/spiteful self that I know myself to be, but can only be the outpouring of the infinite compassion of Reality-as-is.

So maybe thats the answer to the original question. We just don't get out of the way enough!!

Research now indicates that the basis of compassion is innate. Johnathan Haidt and his fellow researchers have demonstrated this and found evidence of innate compassion in all cultures. In addition, they have found compelling evidence that all humans are born with innate moral intuitions. This accounts for those sudden insights that seem to come from nowhere. Haidt considers compassion to be an innate moral emotion. The precursor to compassion is empathy and empathy is clearly evident in pre-schoolers. While it is true that we have natural impulses concerning individual autonomy, we are complex organisms with natural intuitions and moral emotions in the social sphere and, probably, the spritual. Haidt has found clear evidence for this in all three domains. Other highly respected researchers have found similar results. If it is true that these positive characteristics are innate, our task is to elicite and use them in order to be whole beings in relation to ourselves, society, and God. We also need to listen to our children as they develop and ecourage them to use and develop their own natures. As I write this, advocates are mounting a campaign to promote this as part of effective parenting and self-growth. For far too long, we have talked about the negative side of our nature, and we are long overdue in the examination of the positive side in all three spheres of existence.

[rivanna]

Greetings Tariki,

I always appreciate your Buddhist perspective - you have a way of helping us not take ourselves too seriously (for lack of a better phrase) and being non-judgmental, which is refreshing.
Not sure I fully understood your post, but that last sentence spoke to me.
Yesterday I was looking up an artist’s work online and her statement said at the end, “I spend a lot of time getting out of my own way. This is not as easy as you’d think.” I found myself envying her.

Also I was reminded of Paul Tillich saying ”We are not capable of a great and merciful divine love towards ourselves. On the contrary, in each of us there is an instinct of self-destruction, as strong as our instinct of self-preservation.” To me this is true both on an individual and global scale. It was a tendency Tillich knew as an author and in personal life, which was not necessarily physical --though that may perhaps be a small part of it. It’s the inner conflict that all human beings experience in some form or another. The challenge is to become aware of, and acknowledge that duality. Buddhists are probably far better at this than most Christians.

[JosephM]

Rivanna,

Yes, It does seem to me like there is a destructive tendency that will rise up in us to re-enforce our separateness so as to make us feel more alive as an individual as if to insure the survival of self even to the point of its own death at times.

Joseph

[tariki]

rivanna, on Jun 24 2009, 01:20 PM, said:

Greetings Tariki,

I always appreciate your Buddhist perspective - you have a way of helping us not take ourselves too seriously (for lack of a better phrase) and being non-judgmental, which is refreshing.
Not sure I fully understood your post, but that last sentence spoke to me.
Yesterday I was looking up an artist’s work online and her statement said at the end, “I spend a lot of time getting out of my own way. This is not as easy as you’d think.” I found myself envying her.

Also I was reminded of Paul Tillich saying ”We are not capable of a great and merciful divine love towards ourselves. On the contrary, in each of us there is an instinct of self-destruction, as strong as our instinct of self-preservation.” To me this is true both on an individual and global scale. It was a tendency Tillich knew as an author and in personal life, which was not necessarily physical --though that may perhaps be a small part of it. It’s the inner conflict that all human beings experience in some form or another. The challenge is to become aware of, and acknowledge that duality. Buddhists are probably far better at this than most Christians.

rivanna,

hi again! Please don't assume that I always fully understand everything I quote, I'm just constantly learning. Anyway, as Paul Tillich suggests, the capacity to truly accept ourselves is the fundamental basis for many a path toward "awakening".........or whatever it may be called! And very difficult, with self conceit sometimes seeming to make the task easier than it actually is, and also with the words of C S Lewis ringing in the ears..........something about "no sooner do we hear that God loves us than we assume that we are intrinsically loveable".

In my own life I have just found that the pure and infinite non-judgemental compassion of Amida, which is the insight at the heart of Pure Land Buddhism, has been the illuminating light for me.

Not really certain just what "Buddhists" are better at......

[davidk]

"Pauline Christianity -- which is the branch of Christianity practised by the majority of Roman Catholic and Protestant denominations -- has imprinted the Western mindset with the dualistic idea that human beings sometimes act without love because they are basically flawed, tainted, and unworthy of optimism." - canajan, eh?/jesus

it's unfortunate that jesus seems to have misrepresented his apostle's ministry to the rest of us. it is quite inaccurate to imply that paul taught that man is intrinsically bad and unworthy of optimism.

"We are all One"works well for a time, but it cannot help people deal with the most troubling questions that arise from human experience." - canajan, eh?/jesus

Well here it is rightly co-emphasizing our idividuality. In this we agree the "we are all one" scenario is laden with problems as the single final answer. There needs to be a unity and a diversity to answer for.

Despite all that has been written on this thread, it is difficult to see where Janet's question has been actually answered.

The reason is, Janet, that we are separate entities from God. While we have been created in His image, we, as a race, have elected to disobey Him for much of the time. Fortunately, many of us recognize that and are seeking to correct our behavior to behave more in line with the way God wants us to behave. Since we should know we are made dependant upon what God has provided for our survival, we need also to realize we need His assistance to be individually successful at being our best selves.
Tell your friend thanks for the compliment. You're doing something right. Give the credit to God. When they see the love you have for and are getting from God, they will want it, too. That's what you wanted isn't it?

[Jake]

I don't know that I have any input into why we sometimes act without love. I can only respond as to why I sometimes do. I don't have the education to state genetic causes, or to give psychological evidence. I wouldn't use the excuse for myself that it is a retained survival trait from early developement that it imprinted on the brain chemistry of modern man. I couldn't call it human nature and point to original sin, or the flawed nature of man in the eyes of God. To do so would be hypocrisy, since I do not ascribe to the concept of original sin, or the need for substitutiary attonment in my personal theology. For me, that view seems psychologically damaging at best. Imagine being born into the world, and being told throughout your entire childhood and upbringing that you are inherently bad and unworthy of exceptence into the family by your parents. It would be considered psychological abuse at best, and quite probably criminal. It would be severely damaging to a small child, yet this is precisely the message delivered by much church doctrine (however, that is a topic for another thread).
I sometimes act without love because I am at times a selfish, egocentric, and arrogant man. I do it because at times it is easier, and more immediately gratifying to put my needs in front of the needs of others. I do it because I am in a position to exsert my will over them, because power can be intoxicating, or because I simply want to. I do it because sometimes I cannot see past someone elses annoying character trait, or because I disagree with someone on some topic that I am passionately about, or because I didn't get enough sleep last night, drank to much, don't feel well, etc, etc, etc. I do it because the Christian path is not the easy path, and it requires constant vigilance and self awareness, and sometimes a lot of really deep breaths and rapid repitition of the serenity prayer, like a mantra, just to keep from loosing my temper in traffic, or over some minor annoyance in life.
Acting out on the immediate impulse for selfish behavior is easy. Acting out for the good of others first is sometimes very difficult. Sometimes the two are entirely related. I put the good of someone else before me so I can feel good about doing it, or reap the reward of making them feel good. This is not Christian behavior. The day to day challenge is to act and react to everyone else out of genuine love. The hard part is to keep my egocentric self centered so that the grace of God, the divine wind of the Holy Spirit works through me without my individual involvement or interpretation. The battle with myself is to surrender my will and become a conduit for the Spirit to flow and have a physical effect on this world. Those occasional moments when that can happen, that's when God is in me, not I in God, and that is my purpose on this plane of exsistence. Following the teachings of the Master, Jesus Christ is my method to achieving this. All the rest is just dogma, rhetoric, and human rationalization.

[minsocal]

I really do not know why so many Christians remain in the grips of the Paulinian triadic model of body (negative) - mind - soul. Paul was educated in both Hebrew and Greek thought and his triadic model comes from Greek thought. While many religious sects take a life negating view of human nature, particularly sexuality, it is not a universal perspective within any of the major religions. There has always been a counter-balance of life affirming religious sects, including Christianity. Progressive Christians tend towards a life affirming view of nature. This has been well researched. The life affirming perspective has enabled many groups, including Christians, to transcend prejudices against homosexulaity and sexism.

Progressive Christians need to be aware of trends taking place in science and secular humanism that seek to move, as Dr John Searle writes, "beyond atheism." Self self-identified atheists are now recognizing an innate "urge" to the spiritual that they find hard to explain even though objective science has turned up evidence that spiritualty is part of our nature. The same holds true for the foundations of a positive moral life, particularly altruism and compassion. Science, in other words, has become an ally of life affirming religious sects and not an enemy.

Our life is a paradox. We often express this paradox to each other in the form of "Dear Jane, I hate you. Love, John." Accepting and tolerating this paradox is a major step towards individuation and what David Schnarch calls Level 2 spiritualty. In addition, we can reject the life negating "monster in the groin" view of human sexuality with a positive life affirming perspective. We could, after all, take the Song of Solomon seriously and apply it to our own lives. On serious examination, you will find that this is not new. Shortly after Hebrew Christians broke away from Judiaism, the Rabbi that unified the fractured Jewish community declared the Song of Solomon "the Holiest book" in what we now call the Old Testament.

Is it the case that a life afirming and sex positive view has already permeated Progressive Christianity? The answer is "yes". Some 10-12 years ago my church voted to become an "open and affirming" church that accepted openly gay members. An elderly women, a long tome member of the church, was heard to say "well, if we can talk about sex, we can talk about anything."

I sincerely hope that the readers of this post take what I have said in the best, mature sense. Dr Schnarch (previously mentioned) often speaks to Progressive congregations on the subject of life affirming religious sects. Frankly, if science can speak objectively about about the future of religion and spiritualty, it amounts to something of a challenge to the "fallen" and "corrupt" view of human nature some find in the Pauline message. As for myself, about six years ago I adopted a neutral view of human nature, it is what it is. Since that time I have experienced a resurgance of spiritual life that continues today. Yes, of course I experience negative emotions. We all do. But, well regulated negative emotions pass quickly, as nature intended. In addition, I am learning how to switch from negative to positve emotions while keeping both in their proper perspective. It is a work in progress.

P.S.

Before leaving this post, I should state that I am NOT rejecting the body - spirit - mind model. I am challenging the notion that the body (the material world) is somehow corrupt. As to our human nature, it would be absurd for evolution to produce a self-destructive species. It takes 21 years for our offspring to fully mature. In that time they need guidance while they learn to regulate or modulate their positive and negative emotions. As for adults, we can learn these same skills even though it might be a bit more difficult if we have been indoctrinated into a life negating view of nature.

Weel, it's time to step down from the soapbox, peace to all.

[tariki]

Jake, on Jun 26 2009, 01:42 PM, said:

I don't know that I have any input into why we sometimes act without love. I can only respond as to why I sometimes do. I don't have the education to state genetic causes, or to give psychological evidence. I wouldn't use the excuse for myself that it is a retained survival trait from early developement that it imprinted on the brain chemistry of modern man. I couldn't call it human nature and point to original sin, or the flawed nature of man in the eyes of God. To do so would be hypocrisy, since I do not ascribe to the concept of original sin, or the need for substitutiary attonment in my personal theology. For me, that view seems psychologically damaging at best. Imagine being born into the world, and being told throughout your entire childhood and upbringing that you are inherently bad and unworthy of exceptence into the family by your parents. It would be considered psychological abuse at best, and quite probably criminal. It would be severely damaging to a small child, yet this is precisely the message delivered by much church doctrine (however, that is a topic for another thread).
I sometimes act without love because I am at times a selfish, egocentric, and arrogant man. I do it because at times it is easier, and more immediately gratifying to put my needs in front of the needs of others. I do it because I am in a position to exsert my will over them, because power can be intoxicating, or because I simply want to. I do it because sometimes I cannot see past someone elses annoying character trait, or because I disagree with someone on some topic that I am passionately about, or because I didn't get enough sleep last night, drank to much, don't feel well, etc, etc, etc. I do it because the Christian path is not the easy path, and it requires constant vigilance and self awareness, and sometimes a lot of really deep breaths and rapid repitition of the serenity prayer, like a mantra, just to keep from loosing my temper in traffic, or over some minor annoyance in life.
Acting out on the immediate impulse for selfish behavior is easy. Acting out for the good of others first is sometimes very difficult. Sometimes the two are entirely related. I put the good of someone else before me so I can feel good about doing it, or reap the reward of making them feel good. This is not Christian behavior. The day to day challenge is to act and react to everyone else out of genuine love. The hard part is to keep my egocentric self centered so that the grace of God, the divine wind of the Holy Spirit works through me without my individual involvement or interpretation. The battle with myself is to surrender my will and become a conduit for the Spirit to flow and have a physical effect on this world. Those occasional moments when that can happen, that's when God is in me, not I in God, and that is my purpose on this plane of exsistence. Following the teachings of the Master, Jesus Christ is my method to achieving this. All the rest is just dogma, rhetoric, and human rationalization.

Jake,

Once again, I liked reading through your post. I like what I would call your existential approach rather than one based explicitly on interpretation of texts

The hard part is to keep my egocentric self centered so that the grace of God........can work through me without my individual involvement or interpretation

And a great deal in that sentence that corresponds to Pure Land Buddhism as I understand and seek to live it.

Best wishes
Derek