SteveS55

I think Mother Teresa’s quote is right on target. Any mature reflection of the reality of human behavior results in the same conclusion. We need look no further than ourselves to find unreasonableness, irrationality and self-centeredness, even if they are mere concepts. We are more than the accumulation of atoms and molecules. When we operate at the Newtonian level of existence (and we all do), we are able to observe this in ourselves and others. Very few have realized the absolute nature of reality and human existence, so most of us react to our environment in ways which must be described in relative terms. A nihilistic view of reality refuses to admit this fact. As Joseph alluded to, believer or not, things like love, compassion and forgiveness free us to experience reality unhindered by irrational and unreasonable concepts of self. That way, we are able to experience reality with more clarity. Ultimately, this proves beneficial to ourselves and those we interact with. In my opinion it is the nature of happiness. Peace, Steve

I suspect these notions of “self” will haunt me for some time to come. Now that I’m in my sixties, I would have thought I might have a greater degree of certitude about the nature of things. Just the opposite is true for me. I seem to “know” less and less. But, maybe that’s how “emptying of self” presents to me. Like many others, I must content myself with vague understandings of “grace” and “karma”, using them as temporary “fudge factors”, like some complex mathematical equation that needs a constant to work. They seem to explain many results, but it is impossible to grasp their nature. Peace. Steve

I’d like to follow up a bit on that statement by Merton. I’ve always enjoyed reading Thomas Merton. I think I’ve read most of his books, including the one you reference here, Tariki. My issue is with the Christian understanding of “self”. I don’t think it is well defined; actually it is quite vague. Within Christianity, I have read quite a few authors (Merton included) who claim that we must “empty the self”. Without a solid understanding of self to begin with, I don’t think any Christian can make that claim. It sounds virtually meaningless to me. I suppose I am more inclined toward the Buddhist point of view regarding self. In Buddhism, as some of you know, the self is considered lacking in inherent existence. As I understand it, the aspect of our consciousness that we refer to as our “self” is transient and impermanent, and the “I” we refer to in order to distinguish ourselves from others is merely imputed on the basis of the individual’s constituent parts (aggregates, which I won’t go into). The self does not “follow” us after the death of the body. It is mutable and impermanent. It seems to me that in Christianity, the self is conceptually linked to a permanent “soul” capable of surviving the death of the body; an Aristotelian notion. If I’m not mistaken the use of Aristotle’s explanation of the soul was reinvigorated by the Scholastic movement within the Church. Prior to that, Plato was apparently a more popular Greek philosopher. I’m not sure poor Aristotle would have approved, but there you have it. As conscious beings, we become aware very early in life that we are individuals, separate from everything else. I would say this is inherent and necessary for our continued existence. But, there is also the issue of “memory”, and how that impacts our “self-image”. Every experience we have, everything we learn, and every relationship we enter into imprints itself in our minds to create a concept of self, unique from everyone else. These are physiological processes over which we have no control. But, they all leave us with a very real sense of a permanent and enduring self. Assuming my reflections are correct (and they may very well not be correct), it seems to me that any concept we hold of a “self” is merely an accumulation of past knowledge and experience, overlaying an inherent individual identity common to all conscious beings. Our image of self as something substantial then, is flawed. To “empty the self” would mean to lose all memory of conscious experience, which I don’t think Merton meant when he made his statement. So, what exactly is meant by Christians when they say one must “empty the self”? I suppose I am searching for reconciliation between the Christian notion of “losing the self” and the Buddhist notion of the “emptiness of self”. They are two very different ideas, and perhaps no reconciliation is possible. Peace. Steve

I have absolutely no quarrel with anyone positing a “God” as the architect, or underlying divine principle (Logos) of the universe, or even that they believe they have a personal relationship with that God. We are in the relative realm of words and semantics, and therefore this is the only way we can make ourselves and our experiences understood. It doesn’t get much more “personal” than being the thing itself that we are trying to identify and explain. But, I’m afraid it doesn’t work, because we are too close to it. We are either “it” and leave it at that, or we look for something else as the cause of “it”. Most people choose to call that cause “God”. While I don’t necessarily agree, I certainly can respect their opinion. Peace. Steve

I remember seeing a series called “The Cosmos” narrated by Carl Sagan, in which he stated that we are all made of the same “stuff” as the rest of the universe. In that sense we actually ARE the universe, as well as that part of the universe where conscious awareness of itself has been generated. The thought of that is actually pretty staggering to me. We are all separated from everything else by time and space, a unique property of the universe, but we still share its fundamental elements. I suspect that the universe has always had the ability to generate life and conscious awareness of itself. Apparently, all that is required is the right combination of elements and its formation by evolutionary processes. For me, to posit a “God” or other “outside” entity and label it “holy” or “sacred” to account for this ability somehow lessens its magnificence. I think I’m content to just let it be. Peace. Steve

Matteo, Regarding women and enlightenment in Buddhism, you might want to check out the "Soma Sutta", or "Sister Soma's Sutra", from the Pali Canon. Steve

Bernadette Roberts is a Catholic contemplative who is considered by some to be a living Christian mystic. She has written a number of books related to self/no-self from a Christian perspective, and the spiritual journey in terms of consciousness. I became aware of her work about five years ago and began reading some of her books, which I found fascinating. A few years ago I attended one of her semi-annual retreats which are in my neck of the woods in California. It was called “The Essence of Christian Mysticism”. Last year she self-published a book called “The Real Christ”, which is still in manuscript form and badly in need of editing! Still I read it and would recommend it to open-minded people, Christians or not. It takes a very different approach from what she refers to as“party-line Christianity” regarding the Incarnation, the Trinity and what she believes “Christ” really means. I won’t go into too much detail, but I found it refreshing and very informative from a historical point of view, although a bit lengthy and very redundant. It is a bit pricey ($45) and is only available from the following website: http://bernadettesfriends.blogspot.com/ You can read a summary of the main points of her book there where she amusingly states: “WARNING”. That's a pretty effective marketing tool! Peace. Steve

"It, like the UUA, is just a loose association of people who get together to share different points-of-view......." Sounds like my kind of outfit! I liked this part of your comment, Bill. As for the rest of it, well you did say it was merely your opinion. I think what we have here is a forum where people can express their religious and spiritual views freely. I don't think there is any particular movement afoot, nor does there need to be. I don't think there is much more to it than that. If there is a "Progressive Christian Church" per se, I don't know of it. Of course, we are always free as individuals to express the truth or unite to make a difference. Peace. Steve

Recently I heard someone say the following: “The God you do not believe in does not exist”. I don’t know who came up with this originally, but I think it’s quite good. I like it because nothing necessarily follows from it. It stands on its own…something to ponder. Peace. Steve

Hi matteoam, Thanks for the introduction. I have a deep respect for Benedictine spirituality. For about ten years I lived in the California high desert near a Benedictine Abbey. I attended Mass there nearly every Sunday, as well as a couple of retreats. So, I became somewhat familiar with the Benedictine world view. Some time ago I came across a Zen koan that goes as follows: “If everything returns to the one, where does the one return to?” I thought this was very interesting, especially in light of the historical discussions and disagreements over duality/non-duality. It seems to me that conceptually, none of this will ever be resolved. Each term requires the other for its own understanding, and is therefore, highly “dualistic”. But koans never attempt to elicit a conceptual understanding; the solution is always non-conceptual. So, I personally prefer the terms conceptual/non-conceptual to dualistic/non-dualistic, with the understanding that non-conceptual cognition recognizes neither dualism nor non-dualism. Peace. Steve

I guess old Lao Tzu had it right when he said: “The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao.” That’s about as “apophatic” as it gets! So, is it correct to speak of “God” or not? Peace. Steve

I think I agree with Paul. It seems to me that many ex-fundamentalists enter into a period of recovery. There is a certain amount of grieving implicit in this process, part of which is working through one’s anger. Personally, I think this is perfectly natural. I don’t come from a fundamentalist background per se, but I would suggest that dogmatic Catholicism runs a very close second. And, this is something I had to recover from myself, anger included. My main criticism of fundamentalism is what appears to me as its insistence on believing that one “must” believe. While I’m sure this is too simplistic an explanation for the fundamentalist’s state of mind, I think it carries with it at least some truth. This insistence on the primacy of belief at all costs runs counter to both our penchant for rational thought and our desire for intellectual, emotional and spiritual integrity; things that are distinctly human characteristics in the post-modern world. So, it is this aspect of fundamentalism (if I have it right) that I find most troubling, and where I am able to find my compassion for those who are searching for new possibilities, and the vision of Progressive Christianity seems to be one of those possibilities. Peace. Steve

Hi matteoam, The doctrine of the shared natures (human and divine) of Jesus was based on a little known doctrine first proposed by Ignatius of Antioch, I believe, referred to as the “Communicatio Idiomatum” (Communication of Idioms, or Communication of Properties). You can find it on Wikipedia, and if you can make sense of it, more power to you! Basically, it says that anything of either nature, divine or human, can be said of, or attributed to the one divine “person” of God – Almighty God. Since God’s human nature was given the label “Jesus”, then anything Jesus said or did means “God said” or “God did”. So, all references to Jesus’ dual natures are references to God as their sole, divine agent. This was a doctrine, mind you, that was “invented” for the sole purpose of “proving” that Jesus was both fully human and fully divine. As I said, it is something very few Christians are aware of, but it is a matter of early Church history. It was officially sanctioned by Pope Leo in the fifth century. It wouldn’t be so bad, I suppose, but it completely confuses the philosophical understanding of the “universal” with the “particular”, and “nature” with “person”. Well, that’s all just what I remember from early Church histrory. Peace. Steve

Hi Fr. Erik, I enjoyed reading about your journey. Mine has been very similar with the obvious exception that I didn’t become a Catholic priest! I’m a cradle Catholic though, and didn’t stray far from that until the last few years. I have shared your interest in Christian mysticism, but since that is such a vague concept to me, it was mainly the Christian (Catholic) mystics that interested me. They were people like St. John of the Cross, Meister Eckhart, and Nicholas of Cusa, to name a few. Some contemporary Christian mystics I have been drawn to are Simone Weil, David Steindl Rast, and Bernadette Roberts. These were/are all people who, for the most part, came out of contemplative monastic communities, and generally accept the purgative, illuminative and unitive schema of the spiritual life. Outside of obvious doctrinal differences, I see no real distinction among contemplatives/mystics of all religious traditions, a point which you made in your post. In other words, they are all attempting to accomplish the same thing, couched in terms appropriate to their particular religion/tradition. Just what this “accomplishment” is remains a mystery. People call it enlightenment, the unitive state, theosis, and many other names, but I suspect it has no name, and cannot be known other than through non-conceptual cognition. It has been called the Tao, but then, we can’t even call it that. I think it is where we find ourselves when we come to the end of the Via Negativa, and realize we haven’t gone far enough. So much for all of those words. You seem to be very knowledgeable in these areas, and I look forward to reading more from you, Erik. Peace. Steve

I certainly agree with what has been said. I’m never quite sure what Christians really mean when they speak of “salvation theology”. My impression is that most are talking about escape from the human condition to an easier, friendlier existence. If this is the case, individually none of us have to wait very long to change realms of existence. That’s already a done deal. In John 10, Jesus said that he came so that we might have life more abundantly. If I were picking and choosing, I think I’d want to start right there. Peace. Steve

Gratitude isn't a word I hear a lot when people talk about religion, spirituality, or life in general. But, then again maybe I've been traveling in the wrong circles! Frankly, when I was younger, I didn't give it a thought. But, this has changed for me over the years. It's not that I sit around itemizing all of the things I'm grateful for, or making a gratitude list. I dont do any of that. I'm just aware of being grateful. Quite a few years ago I was sitting and thinking about things, and I was suddenly struck with how amazing it is to exist at all. At the time, it seemed to me incomprehensible and impossible that things exist, and that I possessed the consciousness to be aware of it. I just couldn't get over it, and I'm still not over it. The experience left me with a sort of abiding sense of gratitude. It's not that I dont have tough days, and it's not that I walk around with some silly smirk on my face. It's more as if I have a kind of internal "companion" for the journey. I have tried to explain this to a few people over the years, and I generally get affirmative head-nodding, but rather blank looks in return. I just couldn't understand why no one could relate to what I had "discovered". I've pretty much stopped trying because I now realize this is uniquely my spiritual journey, and no one else's. What works for me isn't going to work for others. There is no cookie cutter approach to use here. Besides, I have no idea how one develops gratitude. The reason I bring it up here is just to share my experience of gratitude on this forum. Some of you might relate, but others won't. The beauty of the spiritual journey is that there are so many unique stories, and none of them are wrong. Peace. Steve

You have posed the most fundamental existential question for everyone. “Do exactly what you would do if you felt most secure.” Meister Eckhart The above quote is from my favorite Christian mystic. When I am troubled by doubt and uncertainty I bring this quote to mind. My spiritual life is not an accumulation of beliefs, which many people call “faith”. I see faith as a “truth sensor”, or an ability to weed out blind obedience to some belief from authentic truth. There is no need to be “forgiven” for leading an authentic life. Peace. Steve

Hi Luvtosew, Yes, life in the present moment, or "choice-less" awareness in the moment was something Jesus often taught. To look upon, or to experience a thing without thought, judgment, or comparison, is true freedom. Peace. Steve

Hi Soma, It’s good to run into someone who is also interested in the Christian mystics. My favorite is Meister Eckhart, although much of his work was destroyed by the Church of his day. He doesn’t speak in such flowery language as many of the others, and he makes me think. I guess a lot of these people wrote in the “afterglow” of their mystical experiences and found it hard to express in words. So, many times it sounds awfully “fluffy”. I agree that certain Eastern ( Buddhist) practices can be a very effective means of reaching these advanced levels of contemplation. Christianity doesn’t seem to provide much guidance in this regard. I once read an article by a Buddhist monk about “addiction as a spiritual path”. I found it fascinating. It is strange how hard knocks and suffering can lead to authentic gratitude and compassion. I’m guessing you have experienced this for yourself. I always enjoy reading your posts, Soma, and I look forward to reading many more. Peace. Steve

Luvtosew, I hear you on Catholic education in the 50’s. It wasn’t much fun. I think I spent most of my childhood worrying about whether I had committed a mortal sin or not! Now that I’m 65, I have long ago thrown off those concerns. After high school I pretty much convinced myself that being Catholic wasn’t for me. However, I did go to a Jesuit university to learn Western philosophy and theology, among other things. Still, I was an agnostic/atheist/secular humanist. I guess today that would be considered a progressive Christian! I stayed that way for almost 20 years until I went to AA in the 80’s to get sober. There I was told the main purpose of the Twelve Steps was to enlarge our spiritual life. To fulfill this obligation and knowing of nowhere else to go, I went back to the Church of my youth, but without all of the previous Catholic guilt. This reminded me a lot of the Prodigal Son story in the bible, and it wasn't lost on me. That was only one of the steps that were invaluable to me in AA. Eventually I became interested in the contemplative life and Christian mysticism. I think that, fundamentally, the Catholic liturgy is contemplative in nature, so it was pretty natural to go in this direction. Lately I’ve been studying and practicing Buddhism as well, and I have found that this has enriched my overall spiritual life, and of course it is also contemplative. I don’t worry much about doctrine. If there seems to be some truth to it, I’ll take it with me, but I leave all the rest behind. Sorry to bore you with my personal story; just thought I’d share a little of it with you. Best of luck with that whole Eucharist thing. Peace. Steve

Hi Luvtosew, I’m certainly not an apologist for Catholicism, or Christianity in general. Still, I take care when throwing out the bath water so as not throw the baby out as well. I’m not sure, but my sense is that some “progressive” Christians are left with an empty bath tub, and so they struggle to find a ground. Clearly, the “Virgin Birth” is a myth. There are many such religious myths throughout history. The Buddha is said to have not experienced a normal birth either. There is some story about him being generated from the side of his mother…very strange. Most people, including Catholics, reject transubstantiation. I don’t think Catholic doctrine is at all clear on this issue. Still, the early Christian community’s central focus of worship was on the Eucharist, and that was years prior to any doctrine being developed. For that reason alone I treat the institution of the Eucharist with respect, and its okay for me not to understand how Christ could be present in bread and wine. Humans have very concrete concepts about matter and form. Again, not proselytizing here, just suggesting some alternative views. Peace. Steve

Hi Dave, I’d say you captured the spirit, or “Zen” of Jesus’ teaching pretty well. I also agree that our religious traditions and spiritual lives are generally determined by the culture into which we are born. Christian doctrine, as determined by the early Church fathers, was designed as a religion for the Greeks (at least in my opinion). So, you have a healthy dose of Plato, Aristotle, and even Stoic philosophy embedded in Christianity. Peace. Steve

It’s interesting that many Protestants didn’t or still don’t think Catholics are Christians. I was born and raised Catholic and I never identified myself as “Christian”. I simply said I was “Catholic”. I must say in retrospect that there was a rather profound arrogance in this, because for years I was taught by Jesuits, and became convinced that Protestant doctrine was completely false. Actually, doctrinally speaking, I still think Protestants have it all wrong, and I don’t even debate these things anymore! As a result, it was for the Protestants to identify themselves as “Christians”, but the “true doctrine” was Catholicism. The Virgin Mary is another very interesting matter. I see the worship of her as a very esoteric, even mystical practice within the Catholic Church. I have known many people who claim to have been “helped” by her over the years. I still recite the Hail Mary myself, mainly because I think Christianity, and the Church in general, is far too dominated by male figures. Mariology is actually quite interesting. It is the female aspect of spirituality which draws many people, particularly women, to Mary. A female Christian mystic once said that Mary is interested in us as individuals, whereas God is only interested in human nature in general. Catholics are supposed to believe that when they receive the Eucharist, it is the “real presence” of Christ (not Jesus) that they are receiving. I think some Lutherans and Anglicans also adhere to this doctrine, as well as the Eastern Orthodox Church of course. But, I think many see it as merely symbolic. They also tend to confuse the person Jesus with “Christ”. To know the difference between the two is to be able to understand the true doctrine of what “Christ” is, and how it is that this presence comes to be within reality. When understood correctly, it begins to make some sense. But, this is not the place to go into it. Peace. Steve

I’m wondering, Kathy, what you are attempting to achieve when you say you want to “mitigate” the harm done by religions. Who exactly makes the determination as to what that harm actually is, and by what standard is that to be judged? It seems to me that we are talking more about individual preferences than anything else. Some fundamentalist doesn’t want gay marriage to be made legal, but a progressive does. Both have reasons for their preferences, but where is the agreed upon standard that determines which is good and moral? Without that no one will ever agree, and each will think the other is doing harm to society. I’m about as liberal or progressive as you can get. But, I make my views about society known in ways other than through my religious affiliation or spiritual practices. I vote, e-mail elected representatives, support causes I feel are just, and so on. I do these things when I feel peoples’ human rights might be in jeopardy. In that way, I live out what I believe to be “moral”, but I also realize I have had no personal revelations in this regard. I do this as a result of my own conditioned life experience, and try to remember that everyone else acts out of theirs. Who really knows the true nature of a purely moral action? Peace. Steve

Just to clarify a little Buddhist doctrine; it is not moral relativism. As was mentioned in an earlier post, the Buddha realized, during the “night” of his enlightenment, the Four Noble Truths, which became doctrine. He also realized the Noble Eightfold Path, the “moral” path to the cessation of suffering. This also became Buddhist doctrine. For a Buddhist, the reality we apprehend is referred to as “conventional” or “relative” reality which overlays absolute reality, metaphorically speaking. Absolute reality can be thought of as Paul Tillich’s “ground of being” if that is helpful to Christians. The Buddha believed in an absolute moral law, like karma and rebirth, woven into the fabric of reality, which is why so much emphasis is placed on compassion, loving kindness and the performance of “virtuous” acts in the practice of Buddhism. Most schools of Buddhism today believe we live in a degenerate age. While this doesn’t bode well for most individuals, or societies in general, it is still is possible for some individuals to practice a moral, satisfying, and happy spiritual life. Whether that is worked out within Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, or secular humanism, doesn’t really seem to matter. Peace. Steve