Lolly

Cynthia, regarding tolerance/intolerance, I wrote this here a while ago as a response to the same issue: I'll add here that this model seems to work best for me when I remember to remind myself that I don't really know what the truth is, either. It's easy to fall prey to 'belief' in the sense that I want to believe that I know something with certainty even though it is often actually impossible to be so certain. Every situation that presents itself to me has a deep history. If I go into every situation with the understanding that I may not be seeing the whole picture, it allows me to be more receptive to really hearing what others have to say.

Shouldn't you be doing this on the debate board?

This is the stuff that I find both fascinating and intuitively sensible. I do not know much about taoism but am given to understand that zen and tao do share a lot of common wisdom. The idea of a changing God, or perhaps a God that manifests, in one way, as change, is not problematic for me. In zen it is suggested that nothing is permanent, all is changing all the time. If we posit a God that includes all of creation, I don't see how it can be any other way except that this God is changing, too. Perhaps we're too quick to assign the dualistic qualities of good and bad to the idea of permanence/impermanence. I think many people tend to feel that a permanent quality of some sort would be "good"... that is to say, it would provide some sort of haven from the unpredictibility of life. Yet, I have found that when things are really observed, I am hard pressed to find a single thing that is not subject to change. Accepting that change is perhaps the only true constant means accepting that, like it or not, we really do walk our respective paths in uncertainty, with no real permanent thing to attach to. I think that, perhaps, this desire for permanence is what happens to religions as they evolve. We want to codify tradition into some set of unchanging rules and forms, because we feel that if we have something to hold on to that doesn't change, we'll find or create a safety zone in that religious practice. So we build up institutions to try to clarify what "should be" and to establish rules and protocols with the assumption that there can exist some really True and unchanging Truth that is the same from all perspectives, throughout time. These rules and protocols become ossified, etched into stone, accepted unquestioningly. We seek a safe haven in them and in so doing we shun the unfolding, everchanging experience of living that is available to us right now, in every moment. Okay, I'm rambling here... just some thoughts on impermanence and change which came to mind today as I read this thread.

Hello, Earl As you surely know, this is a topic that resonates with me as well. I was not raised in any faith and came to Buddhism in my early twenties. So, my background is mainly Buddhist, and my spiritual introduction to Christianity is fairly recent. I suppose it has much to do with my lack of Christian background, but I have found that much of the baggage many struggle with is simply absent. I have had brief brushes with various Christian teachings in the past, but nothing seemed to have a voice for me back then. However, when I walked into a church two Christmases ago and began really listening to the gospel (as opposed to endless reinterpretations of the gospel), the sense that this was something with which I was already intimately familiar was overwhelming. I couldn't pretend that this teaching of Christ was not dharma. It all seemed so clearly metaphorical for that journey to no-self, no separation. I fell in love with the words and the life and the example of Christ. So here I am... I practice two traditions. I feel both of them inspire and inform my spiritual life in important ways. It's always been odd for me to see that so many folks can be harshly critical of such a blended practice. There's not an ounce of conflict within me anywhere. I do love the works of the early desert fathers; some of their writings are deeply reminiscent of the words of zen masters: - excerpted from In the Heart of the Desert, John Chryssavgis

Yayyyyy, yard work! Oh, gosh... I've been doing a lot of it. I love spring and I love to garden. We have an early spring happening here this year, and I've been transplanting bulbs and moving other plants around. This is our second spring in this house, so there's a lot to be done. Aletheia, I have a nest of bumblebees under the rafters of my shed, which is where I am preparing one of my flower beds, and the sidewalk just in front of it is a main thoroughfare for moving from the front to the back of the yard. The bees think this is all their territory, and they're making a terrible fuss at me while I try to work there. So far they are all buzz and no sting. Hopefully I can get it all done soon so they can go back to just bee-ing

On the buddhism board I frequent, there is a section called "Other Religions and Philosophies" which was probably envisioned as a place where the sorts of discussions we're hoping to have on this "hybrid" forum would take place. Unfortunately, a lot of the time what you find there are people who are angry at Fundamentalist Christians and view it as a place for trashing Christianity So, I think it would probably help to use something descriptive in the name that would speak to the purpose of the forum in question, so that it doesn't invite "we're better than x, y or z" sorts of topics... not that anyone here now has an interest in such topics, but one never knows how things will go in the future. How about something like "Shared Wisdom - A Home for Interfaith Discussions" ?

Both of those books are great places to start, I've read them both. As Cynthia noted, TNH is very prolific and there's nothing I've read from him that I wouldn't recommend highly.

Ditto... I love the direction this thread is taking; it makes me wish we could all break the bread together. TNH is one of my favorite teachers, too. Thanks, everyone.

Hi, Earl Thank you for bringing up the subject of the Desert Fathers (and mothers) here. Their way of doing Christianity is hugely inspirational for me. I have also thought that it is interesting that such an early version of Christianity had such a strong contemplative/meditative component. Be well, Lolly

At the church I attend, each Sunday we're given a service booklet which maps out the liturgy in detail, and everyone uses it. The only problem I had initially was that no one really explained to me that it was all in there, and no one explained that the things in bold type are the things said in unison by the congregation (though it didn't take long to figure that out). And of course, when everything is new, it always seems a little awkward at first, but it didn't take long at all to get the feel of things. On the few occasions when there has been no service booklet (special services at odd times) there has always been instruction to turn to a particular rite in the Book of Common Prayer (which is provided with the hymnals at each pew). So I've never really felt lost in the service. The rite of baptism is also in the Book of Common Prayer, and before my baptism the rector went over it with me, walking me through the process. I did attend a class called "basics of the faith" and was very glad to have done so. In the class, I was able to offer some of my thoughts and reaffirm that my interpretive bent would be welcome in this particular church, and I also learned a whole lot about the institutional church and its way of doing things. Of course, that's just my own experience and I have no idea whether it's the same in the churches in your area. What you might want to do, Aletheia, if you do decide to go, is to call ahead and make an appointment to talk to someone there about what to expect. That might help to cushion the shock a bit on the first visit. On a totally different subject, I also want to say that I actually came back to this thread because I was concerned about how what I had said might come across to Catholics here, and I didn't want to offend anyone. My experience with Catholicism is limited and I'm sure there are various flavors of Catholicism, just as there are flavors within the Episcopal Church. I apologize if my comments came across unkindly.

Aletheia, I'd second the suggestion that you look into the Episcopal church. There are liberal and progressive Episcopal parishes, so you might have to do a bit of searching to find one that suits you. Still, I'd characterize the EP as Catholicism without the dogma... you get to think, contextualize and interpret instead of having to accept one approved interpretation of doctrine. Liturgically speaking, it is very close to the way Roman Catholics do church. I was quite surprised and pleased to find that I appreciate the Episcopal liturgy in a very big way.

Same here. I'm in "observation mode" with this thread. I find myself agreeing sometimes, disagreeing sometimes, and questioning where all this agreement and disagreement is coming from or what it's actually worth. The thread has value to me, but so far it isn't changing my thoughts about anything related to the actual thread topic. Mostly what I'm learning here has to do with the difficulty in communicating when people come at a subject from so many varied backgrounds and points of view. FWIW my background is so completely different from that of most others here that I've abandoned the idea that it's possible to get onto the same page as many here, and I'm pretty certain that any attempt to express my own spiritual sense of things is likely to be grossly misunderstood. So it's probably best that I just listen for now.

My take on the sacrament of the bread and wine is that it is a call to be mindful of the divine in all things. Cynthia, I think you have made an interesting observation, because surely if God can exist in something as "mundane" as the simple foods we eat, then God can be everywhere. I believe that God is always in the bread and wine (and everything else)... the ritual merely serves to bring this to our attention.

AletheiaRivers: This idea that God knows the future seems to imply, to me, determinism. It contradicts the notion of free will. However... I can imagine a God that knows all possible outcomes and what needs to happen for each outcome to occur.

You're welcome, PR. Sorry I couldn't be more helpful yesterday; was having one of my woefully inarticulate days. I get those... some days are better than others, and on some days I am utterly incabable of stringing words together to form complete sentences. Yes, it's very hard to communicate (even on my good days ). Sometimes I am convinced that people argue rings around one another when they often mean the same things, because they just don't understand the terminology or aren't familiar with the systems of thought being used by each other. It's difficult for me sometimes on this site because of my abysmal lack of familiarity with Christian ideas and standard theology, but this is a high quality bunch, and I'm learning. Multi-lingual sounds good to me I did have a bit of a chuckle once yesterday when I thought about this conversation. Here I am, the zen buddhist/episcopalian, arguing FOR the possible existence of a creator-god/first cause-- on a Christian website. It seems a bit over-the-top, even for me

I do

Thanks, Fred. This is along the lines of what I might have said, had I the presence of mind or the mental energy left to say it. To assume that we should be capable of comprehending all things with the standard issue equipment seems a bit irrational to me, actually. We can consider other species-- let's say an animal which has no color vision. Even if that animal had language and the intellectual capacity to understand equal to our own, I don't think there would be a way to accurately describe "red" to that animal. How could that animal possibly "get it" about "red"when the equipment he's been given isn't capable of processing information about color? From there it's not too far to the realization that there isn't truly a way to describe "red" to anyone. "Red" can only be pointed to. We can explain, in minute detail, how red occurs in scientific terms, how it differs from blue or yellow, but we cannot impart the experience of beholding red to anyone unless they look at red themselves with their own eyes. For the record I'd like to state here that, though I don't have much of a scientific or philosophical education, I have enormous respect for both of these disciplines. I was born into a family that placed great value on academic achievement and my early education was very rationalist. My feeling is that there are no truths that would be unexplainable if we had the capacity to explain them. However, I've come to believe that not everything can be adequately imparted to another, much less measured. ***eastern terminology alert*** I've been criticized for using the term "perfect emptiness" here, which unfortunately comes from the language I speak best when it comes to matters spiritual. I am relatively new to Christianity, and I'm not very familiar with the common theological language being spoken here, so I sometimes bring to the table concepts that speak familiarly to me but will be unfamiliar to others. Form and emptiness are terms used in zen quite commonly. Emptiness is, as I understand it, the absence of fixed form. It can be seen as a vessel within which the tapestry of life and the flux of the universe unfolds in each moment. Every moment is empty, all phenomena are empty, they have no abiding self-existance. A great deal of hooplah can be made over this concept of no-self (and often is), but all this really means is that nothing is fixed, everything changes, all the time. The "you" that existed at age five is not the same "you" that is reading these words in this moment. Emptiness is essential, for without emptiness there would be no room for change to occur. Things would remain fixed. Within the state of emptiness, change occurs. To put it another way, emptiness is simply the continuum of unrealized potential in each moment. So, when I speak of perfect emptiness, I speak of a state where nothing is defined, yet potential is everywhere. I don't know or profess to know if this sort of "pregnant possibility" would be capable of remaining suspended in a sort of inert, unmoving state. But it is such a state that I envision as possible at the beginning of time. It's perhaps just as likely that such a state is not capable of remaining suspended. I couldn't begin to know.

Magic is an explanation given when reasons aren't sought. Magic occurs when an event has no sufficient cause. I don't think you are seeking "comfortable" ideas. What I do think however, is that it is possible to become comfortable with meaningless terms (like perfect emptiness) and reassuring ourselves that God is ineffable or "beyond knowing". If this is true, let's simply give up the field to every whacko "mystical" concept that any mindless dolt can come up with. I tried to issue a warning that I am FEELING frustrated. I've invested years of my life in the study of philosophy and theology and then to find out that it has all been wasted and that what I should have been doing is sitting on my ass for years in meditation... Ya know, it's not that I don't meditate... and it's not that I don't think that what is gained in meditation is not ineffable... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ah, okay... my apologies, then. I don't want to add to your frustrated feelings, for sure. Please know that I'm doing nothing more than muddling along here as best as I can, knowing that I don't have any real answers. I'm not certain that anything I intuit is correct, by any means; I'm just walking down one tangential road to see what's there.

How is the idea that we are sitting here breathing, communicating, perceiving the world around us also not a magical idea? And what makes you think I'm seeking "comfortable" ideas? Or answers, even?

Well, about this, I don't know... quite literally, I mean. None of my own views are etched into stone and the moment I think I really know something, that's a cue that I'm probably in over my head . What you present here is an interesting proposition, and one I should contemplate. I'm not certain that it's far off the mark from my own thoughts about this, though in my own thoughts I tend to see God as whatever it is that might have been existing pre-creation in some state of perfect emptiness (void), and I see everything else somehow occurring from there, as a sort of momentum being set into motion which spread out and affected/called into being the entire universe (or multiplicity of universes, even). I see this as being something like a pebble being tossed into perfectly still water, with the resultant ripples stretching out as the unfolding of the material universe. This begs the question, of course, of how such a "pebble" would/could be tossed. I believe I see what you are saying about actuality... in zen we speak in terms of emptiness and form... where emptiness and form are ultimately the same thing, but form is the ever changing substantive appearance of "things"... which might be similar to what you are calling actuality here. In order for a creative process to occur, there must be form... form from emptiness (actuality from void? matter from energy?) is a creative process in itself... ah, I'm giving myself a headache now But I dunno... not being well learned in these things it's very hard to put some of these thoughts into words... they gel in my mind to some extent, but aren't easily articulated.

Earl: Yup

Been away for a few days, so I'm way back on page 1 here. Humor me Just a couple of things: - Co-creation as I see it is not "create everything with your thoughts". Let's take this into the realm of the everyday for a second. You're walking along the street and some big guy who isn't paying attention walks into you and knocks your grocery bag out of your hands, spilling groceries everywhere. You either: 1) get mad and yell at the guy to watch where he's going, adding an insulting name for effect; 2) get mad and remain silent, while bending down to pick up your groceries yourself with an air of indignance; 3) realize that the guy clearly wasn't paying attention and, knowing that this could be for a variety of reasons (like, maybe his mother just died), you check your rising anger and instead are courteous toward him. There are a myriad of other choices available, too, but you get the idea. The point here is that with any choice, you also modify the potential outcome-- the way the other person will respond to you. He will make choices, too. In the first example, the guy might want to fight and argue. In the second, he might just move on, or he might apologize and help you, in the third example he might apologize, help you, and perhaps even talk to you about something that's been weighing on his mind-- thus giving you the opportunity to be there for someone who is hurting. Three different realities, based on the choices of two people. So... co-creating this reality means that you made a choice, and he also made a choice as to how to respond to your response to him. This is happening all the time, all around us, so it's not some pie-in-the-sky new age notion. It's just the way things seem to actually work (at least as best I can determine). "Interbeing" is what Thich Nhat Hanh calls it and I like that term for it. - About this idea of God as some sort of cosmic traffic cop (micromanager ) I have to say that I can't even begin to fathom the point of creation if that's what his role is in the whole lot. Not that I ought to be able to do that, mind you, but it seems to be rather silly of him to give us the option of making choices (or the illusion that we are making choices) if he's going to then direct the choices that we make. My gut tells me that it's more personal than this... God set into motion creation in order to experience the whole of potential... and yes, this means that God truly is IN everything, because that is where each moment of potential is actualized, realized-- in everything. However, in order to experience the whole of potential that means he has to allow all of it; and to step in and direct us away from what we perceive as bad or uncomfortable doesn't fit with that notion very well. I think that God wants us to make choices that will ultimately return us to a full knowledge of him... to a realization of the God within us-- but he gave us the potential for choice in order that we may bring the whole of our own potential into being-- not just the good, not just the bad, not just his own selected bits and pieces of it. And yes, I believe in a panentheistic god, a god who is internal. The kingdom of God is within. It's very difficult to talk about a god in terms that do not personify, but I do agree with those who suggest that a panenthiestic God is more personal than a god which resides somewhere "out there".

Hi, Earl-- Many folks have told me that I ought to read Eckhart, but I've still not done so. Guess I'll add another endorsement to that list. I kind of like this

Good thoughts, Lily and Cynthia. Appreciate your taking the time.