Lolly

Missed this thread when it came up earlier; I agree that it's nice to read about everyone. I'm soon to be 46, in a committed relationship with live-in partner. We are planning a marriage sometime in the next year or two. Neither of us has children. We also have a bit of a zoo here, with five small dogs, all of whom are spoiled beyond reason and frequently demanding of special favors . Of course, they usually get what they demand. I am semi-retired; partner has a small business and I work a bit to promote it, but it's nothing like a full time job. Mainly I do upkeep to his website and post flyers for advertising locally. Our life here is pretty simple, by design. Many of our activities revolve around our religious centers-- that would be the church we attend and the zen center that I attend-- and we're active with property matters at church, meaning that when something needs to be painted or nailed up, they call us I sing in the choir, and both of us used to be professional, performing musicians. My interests include zen and christianity, sociology, psychology and cooking (though I am a "pincha this, pincha that" kind of cook). I love to read, but mainly non-fiction. And I spend way too much time on the internet.

Hi, Des! I think we agree then... I suppose what the underlying issue may be is that I see the potential for big problems, but don't at all relate this to any sort of biblical prophecy, whereas some do. I see it as a direct result of the way humankind has treated the earth-- and I believe that the way some folks interpret scripture can significantly add to the problem, particularly if the popular belief is that none of what we do matters because God is going to restore the earth for his faithful once it's been plundered beyond recognition. That really scares me, actually, because while I figure the big picture is... well... bigger than I can comprehend, I still don't want to see that happen.

Oh, I think the cycles are much larger than we can see with these tiny, human eyes. This is going to sound blasphemous (and it perhaps is) but I don't really think that the universe is necessarily centered around the existence or non-existence (or the well-being) of mankind. I am fairly certain that mankind could pass out of existence entirely (and surely will) and the universe would not miss a beat. We tend to think in time scales that are near term. Two thousand years to us seems an eternity. To God, perhaps, it is merely the blink of an eye. Mankind's role in the whole of creation, I cannot know. The end of the earth, or of human existence on earth, seems to us an unspeakable tragedy. I do not know that God hasn't created us in order that we might go through a process that, ultimately, ends in extinction. Is our tragedy also God's tragedy in the same measure, or is there a much bigger picture which we are incapable of seeing? How does it feel to a bacterium when the piece of rotting food on which it makes its home is incinerated? How does God feel about that? I cannot know if we have any purpose beyond the simple fact of our apparent existence. Only God could know that. I agree with you that there have been many such doomsday scenarios pointed out in the past. However, as I mentioned, there has never been a time when the planet was so heavily strained. It seems a bit foolish to cavalierly dismiss that very real difference between those times and these. The earth has a remarkable capacity for regeneration, but I'm not so sure the earth has a mandate to include humankind in the regenerative process. I do think that mankind has a responsibility to the earth that, currently, is not being met. It remains to be seen what will come of all of this.

I tend to agree with act5367 and ani-man here. I am not a rapturist and consider the rapture dogma to be a cultlike meme (sorry beach, but it's a word that I feel is appropriate here). However, it may well be that we are living in "end times" for the reasons described. Yes, there have been other doomsday scenarios but never has the planet been so strained by the demands an out-of-control human (read exploiting and consuming) population has placed upon it. The earth will only stand for so much; something has to give. With regard to Ani-man's points about the economy, I strongly feel that it is possible to develop local economies that would circumvent the need to trade within the established system. An economy exists by virtue of those participating being in mutual agreement about things like currency. If a subset of the population decides to, say, avoid using money and instead barter, and if a large enough group buys into this alternative economy so that goods and services are available, it's possible to circumvent the system to a large degree. The problem is we believe that we are tied to our cars and our plastics and our disposable economy, and as a society we are lazy. We use paper towels where a reusable rag would do. We choose pre-packaged goods for convenience where bulk foods would do. We choose a long commute instead of looking for work within walking distance. I know that the way society is structured today, it is difficult to change some of these things. Difficult, but not impossible. I recently had a discussion with a friend who is very gung-ho about progressive and liberal ideas. He dislikes the right, dislikes the neo-conservative agenda. I pointed out to him that every time he goes to Wal-Mart, he is putting dollars into the pocket of the people whose agenda he believes is wrecking this country. He said "If I don't shop at Wal-Mart, I would live in poverty." I asked him, "What's wrong with that?" The thing is, we talk a lot. But when action is demanded, how many of us are willing to leave our comfortable chairs in order to actually do the things we say need doing?

As an example of utterly selfless living.

The one that doesn't teach hatred.

I haven't read all the posts in this thread yet, but I got to some discussion about "leaving Jesus behind" and I felt compelled to comment. I would very much like to leave the fake Jesus behind. You know, the one who sanctions warfare and condones hatred and bigotry. The one that excludes people from God's table based on petty differences-- that Jesus. I think it would be a very large mistake to leave the real Jesus behind-- the one who actually lived and spoke as is portrayed in the Gospels. Perhaps the main problem that many disillusioned people have with Christianity have to do with the fact that the fake Jesus is all they ever knew. I believe the progressive churches have a responsibility to introduce people to the real Jesus, because most "Christians" have never even met him.

It depends on the buddhist. The way I understand the buddha's philosophy, it would be a mistake to do so-- and it would also be a mistake to discount the experiential, mystical bits that can't be adequately described through rational means. It would seem that the truth about reality stands somewhere in the middle. But, interpretations and levels of understanding vary greatly among buddhists, just as they do among Christians. In general, though, I would guess that buddhism in the west probably does attract a fair share of folks who eschew rational thought. At the same time, it perplexingly enjoys a reputation as a "thinking person's religion". Go figure

Well, his website is part of Shambala.com, which is a buddhist publishing company. Many of the buddhists I know will run and hide (or get very annoyed) if anything that looks too much like theism shows up, in my experience. I'm not all that familiar with Whitehead and Process yet myself, but if most of Wilber's "followers" are coming from eastern traditions, that may have something to do with it.

Doh! That Ken Wilber. You know, I have heard many sing the praises of this man but I have yet to read any of his works. The more I hear, the more intrigued I get. May have to reach for my wallet soon... it's about time for an Amazon.com binge.

Yes, I call this sort of thinking a "reverse egoism" because it usually pays a great deal of lip service to the concept of ego-death, but upholds the ego in practice by asserting in effect that the "I" is all there really is. No, it's not. It's an extreme view in its own right, the flip side of strict materialism (which asserts that only material form exists). And I agree with you that it is another device to facilitate denial. A frequent observation I've made is that viewpoints tend to swing to and from polarities... you can either believe the world is wholly existent as form only, or that it is wholly imagined, but it's very difficult to find the conclusion that both (or more) states may coexist. Human beings seem to scurry mentally from one form of denial to the other, afraid to linger in the middle. I suppose this is the question of duality/nonduality as it shows up in daily life and affects us on a psychological level. BTW, I've liked the Process Thought information I've read so far, as well as the link you provided earlier in this thread. I'll go and give Ken Wilbur's link a look.

Yes, I agree that moderation requires a lot more discipline and minfdulness than does extreme behavior in either direction. It's much easier to flip that "yes" or "no" switch than it is to constantly monitor one's behavior. A six or seven day fast, if done properly, wouldn't qualify as extreme, I don't think. I suspect this sort of fast might be seen as an effective purification ritual, and yes I believe stepping out of our normal conditions certainly has validity. I know that I feel pretty good even after fasting for just one day. A longer fast may also show devotion when one is able to remain steadfast on such a course... so perhaps a show of devotion is also part of what is being asked for in the apocrypha?

One day of fasting is about all I have ever wanted to do; I don't find extreme asceticism to be a fruitful endeavor... or extremes in anything else, really. Sensible, moderate discipline is fine; developing mastery over the impulsiveness and reactive nature of the ego is quite useful and can require a good bit of well-applied discipline, but I don't see the usefulness in self-inflicting any sort of extreme duress or pain. I'm also wary of the spiritual value of visionary experiences reported during extreme physical duress. Hallucinations which have a genesis in starvation or other forms of extreme behavior are not, to my mind, likely to be divinely inspired, but there will undoubtedly be a great temptation for the spiritual seeker to believe otherwise.

Yes! Thank you, Des, for stating this. I have a similar distaste for the common new-agey assertion that "we create our own reality". This, as stated, is a gross, yet common, misunderstanding/misapplication/oversimplification of certain beliefs that are common to many eastern systems of thought. I find it particularly distasteful when young children are led to believe that they are responsible for the bad things that happen to them. Children's realities can be very harsh-- abuse of all sorts, frequently coming from those who are charged with caring for them. To suggest that, for example, a six year old is somehow responsible for the actions of a parent who abuses is highly offensive to me. It's probably more accurate to say that we are all responsible for our own perceptions of reality, and especially for our own reactions to what we perceive. Through our reactions, we do have some measure of input in creating our own futures, BUT, the future does not consist entirely of our own projections. I am far more inclined to believe that reality is co-created, the result of many, many causal factors, not just those of my own imagining. A young child being abused by a parent has limited options if he/she wishes to survive. At best, it is unrealistic to believe that somehow this child has the power to stop or prevent such abuse. At worst, it is blaming the victim, which places a new wound atop what is already a serious tragedy. Getting back to the matter of thought for a moment, it takes a good deal of mental training to become the sort of person for whom only "good" thoughts would come to the forefront naturally. It is instead quite natural for most of us to have "bad" thoughts. What is likely to happen to a person who believes that "bad" thoughts are dangerous or wrong is that they will learn quickly to repress all "bad" thoughts the moment they arise. Repression of thought is not honest, as it is a denial of reality-- that is, a refusal to allow for what actually comes to mind. Repression is dangerous in that it doesn't give one the opportunity to examine the so-called "bad" thoughts in order to see what sort of real power, if any, they actually have. I can easily see how a lifetime of such repression, coupled with guilt, could have a serious psychological impact on a person, especially if this repression began in early childhood. Sorry if I got up on a soapbox for a moment here... this is one of my biggest pet peeves, as you can probably tell

Cynthia: Had a pretty good meditation today, too. Some stuff is currently coming up in meditation that isn't exactly fun, but it's good for me to get it out there where I can see it. On Friday I went to pray the stations of the cross; being a fairly new Episcopalian this was the first time I had ever done that. I was very moved by it. Only a few of us were there, still fewer stayed to partake of the Holy Eucharist afterward. I always feel very strongly connected when the group is small like that... there is something very intimate and holy about celebrating the Eucharist with just a few people. Also, the celebrant for that service was a priest who had just been ordained the week before. I was at her ordination, and it's really meaningful to be a part of this period in her life. So, there seems to be lots of stuff coming up to just reinforce the faith. It's been a good week.

Thought I would also offer this link here, which captures a good bit of what the season of Lent means to me (though I'm not sure I would agree with the author that it's "me" in charge... more like "me" trying to get out of my own way so as to let God in). An excerpt: The Observance of a Holy Lent I invite you, therefore, in the name of the Church, to the observance of a holy Lent, by self examination and repentance; by prayer, fasting, and self denial; and by reading and meditating on God’s holy Word. With these words, the Church calls us to enter the forty days of Lent. I hope you will consider this season an opportunity for spiritual growth, as that is what it is intended to be. Consider it the “spring cleaning of the soul” if you will. We may not like to clean, but it sure feels good after it’s done. We may not like Lent, either, but if you follow a Lenten discipline, I assure you that it will transform your experience of Easter. The model for Lent is Jesus’ forty days in the wilderness. We are invited to make a similar journey, into the wilderness of our own soul. We are invited to look deep within ourselves, and confront those things hidden in the dark corners. To make this journey, we have to begin by recognizing that there are parts of ourselves that don’t want to go along. Our emotions, often the voice for the appetites and desires of our body, are going to protest. Our emotions, in league with our bodies, wants to be in charge of everything. The other part of ourselves that will most likely protest the journey inward will be our minds, which I often call “the committee that meets in my head.” Those folks never seem to shut up! Consequently, I can rarely reflect on much of anything. The internal dialogue goes on and on, often about pointless stuff, never giving me a moment’s rest. Beyond the incessant noise, I’ve also learned not to trust my head. I can justify almost anything, if I think about it long enough. The truth of the matter is that neither the body, the emotions nor the mind are really in charge. You are. They must submit to your will. Once they’ve submitted, the inward journey can begin. How do we get them to submit? This is where the Lenten disciplines come in.... This is a lovely post, really, and I encourage anyone interested to read it in its entirety: http://frjakestopstheworld.blogspot.com/20...-holy-lent.html

Thought I'd start a thread that might be fun.... or not... I was just wondering if there are any other Episcopalians here, or members of any other denomination that "does" lent. In our household this lent, we are trying to eat vegetarian as much as possible, and I am also spending less of my time on the internet. Also, there is a daily eucharist at my church throughout the season of lent and I am trying to get to at least one other service a week aside from Sunday mornings. Am also trying to set aside more time for reflection and meditation. I feel that lent provides an excellent opportunity for inward reflection and moving closer to God, and I love this time of year. Anyone else doing anything for lent?

What a beautiful answer, BrotherRog... I wouldn't change so much as a comma.

Just to add a bit of interest, there is a similar story in one of the buddhist sutras, about a princess who reaches "enlightenment". In the instant before this happens, she turns herself into a man. I agree with you about what this sort of story reflects. I see it as a way of guiding people in a male-dominated society to digest that women can become spiritually accomplished. I would suppose that, in those times, the idea of a woman advancing in spiritual attainment might have been dismissed out of hand. As such, the message being conveyed by such tales was probably meant to be helpful (if the alternative was that women would be disallowed from participating) but it certainly doesn't read that way to us today.

Just want to add another voice of encouragement and agreement here. What makes a progressive a progressive, in my view, is a willingness to dig deeply and entertain alternate views. We don't all have to hold the same views in order to be progressive. I read through the 8 points and though I don't have them in front of me right this minute, I'm pretty sure I agreed with all of them. They are broad enough to include all sorts of folks under the banner "Christian", and that appealed to me very much. You certainly belong here as much as the rest of us do, and as someone else pointed out, we do like having you around

Yes

Oh, absolutely! I know mine do

Joshu's "Mu" is probably the most well known koan in the west. Koans, for those who don't know, are paradoxical riddles given to students in Rinzai zen for the purpose of gaining insight to things which can't be worked out through logic alone. Also known as Chao-chou's Dog, this koan and some interesting commentary on it can be found here: Chao-chou's Dog Most commentators say that "mu" means "no" in this koan, but I've also heard it said that "mu" was meant to convey a nonsensical answer or a barking sound. I think "no" is probably the better translation. Just to mention it, koan practice is a part of the Rinzai tradition of Zen, which is not the school I am most familiar with. I haven't done formal koan practice, so my knowledge of koans is limited to what I've read in books. In the Soto school, which I am more familiar with, the practice is to just sit in mindful awareness and observe the mind. If you are interested in Rinzai practice, I'd add to the list of books above "The Three Pillars of Zen" by Philip Kapleau. Roshi Kapleau passed away just last year, and his book is also a classic.

I like what both of you have said.

Since we're on a Christian board, I'd start with "Living Buddha, Living Christ" by Thich Nhat Hanh. TNH relates his practice of Buddhism to the practice of Christianity in this book, and I found it very interesting. He also gives several meditation practices that Christians can feel comfortable with. I actually read it after I had already been baptized, and it tied right in with a lot of the things I was feeling toward Jesus and his teachings. For some zen proper, you might try "Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind" by Shunryu Suzuki. This will be a little more obtuse, but it's a classic zen text for westerners, and I love Suzuki's teachings. Aitken is supposed to be very good, too, though I haven't read him. Another good book on koans was "Mountain Record of Zen Talks" by John Daido Loori. Aside from this, I would also recommend almost anything else by Thich Nhat Hanh; his writing is very clear and straightforward and not so difficult to get through for those who aren't too familiar with buddhist terminology. As for meditation, I don't want to go too far afield, so I'll answer that question in a private message. I'm happy to share, but I worry that I might be stepping out of bounds here. And Cynthia, I love dogs, and I bet your puppy is adorable