SteveS55

"Perhaps like the irony of those who spend so much time railing against a God they do not believe in." I’m not so sure about this. Those who seem to be “railing” are probably simply struck by the unbelievable nature of belief. That’s probably a bit ironic in itself. As for Eckhart, he was for the most part a theologically orthodox Catholic, so it may not be quite fair to read him out of context. But, out of context is where he becomes most interesting. He changes from Neoplatonist to panentheist when his writing is taken out of context. He is most interesting when he leaves the land of orthodoxy and travels to the realm of heresy. What is also interesting is that he was writing in the 14th century. It’s reasonable to understand why he wasn’t understood then, but it’s harder to see why he isn’t understood now. As for “becoming the Story”, I simply have no idea what that means. It is, I think and as I pointed out in an earlier post, a clever idea conjured up by the intellect with no real substance. It is far too abstract for that. It is perhaps an attempt to administer an antidote for our dualistic perspective, but that is a perceptual problem and not an intellectual one. Steve

"As for where we end up, I admit I do have more than a passing interest." That's an easy one, Thomas. It's where we are in the moment! Steve

The last posts by Tariki and Soma helped me to remember that I became convinced some time ago that "religion", by whatever name it is called, is distinctly a young person's sport. There is far too much discursive thought and clever ideas thrown around for us old guys. It's fun from time to time, but it means very little in the overall scheme of things. Going to hell, or not going, heaven, nirvana, wherever...who cares?? We are where we are, we go where we go. Better to take it as it comes, not consider ourselves very seriously and smile at both the pleasure and the pain. Steve

I am fond of Christian mysticism as well, Soma. My favorite mystic (Christian or otherwise) is Meister Eckhart. In his sermons he talked a lot about concepts versus "bare" experience or existence. He once said "I pray to God to be rid of 'God' ". The quote below, I think, is relevant to some of what we have been discussing in this thread. I can even see some similarities between this quotation and Tariki's "unborn" poem. "While I yet stood in my first cause, I had no God and was my own cause: then I wanted nothing and desired nothing, for I was bare being and the knower of myself in the enjoyment of truth. Then I wanted myself and wanted no other thing: what I wanted I was and what I was I wanted, and thus I was free of God and all things. But when I left my free will behind and received my created being, then I had a God. For before there were creatures, God was not ‘God’: He was That which He was. But when creatures came into existence and received their created being, then God was not ‘God’ in Himself – He was ‘God’ in creatures." Meister Eckhart - Sermon 87 Steve

Most reasonable people can become convinced of the fundamental interconnectedness of phenomena. This also goes for the notions of impermanence, non-self, and so on. But I suggest that the mere intellectual understanding of this is not enough. There is still a part of us that holds fast to the ideas of separateness, permanence and an eternal soul or immaterial conscious entity that survives physical death (at least we are hopeful of this). I think it is the “witness”, or the “watcher” still remaining as an ego defense mechanism, that needs to have its covers pulled and drawn into the light of intuitive, realized understanding. Until we have lost the witness, we can’t really comprehend anything. We are still stuck in the realm or relativity where we perceive self and other, subject and object, “me” and “them”. I believe one of our problems is the contemplation of the concepts themselves; “interconnected”, “interbeing”, etc. The thing in itself, whatever it may be, is not the word, label or concept. It is probably something entirely different from the imaginings we glean from conceptualizing the word or phrase. There is no “interbeing”. There is that which remains after we drop the concept. We don’t need to name it to experience the thing. We “interconnect” phenomena in a very complex way, so that a complete story line is created in our minds. Existence may be nothing more than spontaneous, momentary flashes of experience, woven together like a motion picture. If we look closely enough we find what Buddhists describe as “emptiness”. Such is the direction my mind is taking me these days! Steve

"An era in need of a christian reformation definitely but I lean toward Chesterton's assessment: not tried and found wanting, found difficult and not (really understood or) tried." What sort of "reformation" do you have in mind, Thormas? Have we missed something about Christianity in our over-abundance of analyses and interpretations over the last two thousand years or so? With all due respect to Chesterton, Thormas, I think that could be said about most any religion, philosophy, spiritual practice, and so on. Because Chesterton said it, doesn't give it any additional weight in my mind. Clearly my statement was terse. In actuality, I'm sure Christianity has provided some psychological comfort to many people over the centuries; something that shouldn't be overlooked. If we don't have the answers, then we can at least hope for some comfort in this veil of tears between birth and death. Christianity, like most religions and traditions, relies on faith, not evidence, to adhere people to it. On that much we agree. Steve

I'm not sure if we have asked the correct questions, and I think their are probably only one or two important questions. It seems to me humankind has had a sufficient amount of time to find "Truth", but to no avail. And yes, I agree, we do live in a post-Christian era. That too appears to have been a failed experiment. Steve

How is "I" not an illusion, Thormas? Where, or what is "I" . What is the difference, in your opinion, between the universal and particular notion of "being". Is there a difference? You can quote or refer to a philosopher if you like. Thanks, Steve

Try as I have for the last few days, I cannot be okay with Trump. The most I can do is acknowledge his election as president, and that's it. Out here in California, and I suppose Oregon and Washington too, we feel a bit adrift. Nearly everyone I've talked to is shocked at this result and many of us wonder about the fear and anger that has gripped the rest of the country. The West Coast went for Clinton by almost two thirds, the most since FDR. It wasn't that we liked Clinton, we just despised what Trump stands for. But, we are very progressive out here and diverse. We like that about us. On top of that, California is the sixth largest economy in the world (after Brexit). We voted to increase taxes for the second time in as many elections! Must be something in the water (what's left of it). But, Trump says our drought is a myth....a true moron. Good luck with this America....our door is always open! Steve

The Governor asked a teacher: I have read in the scripture the following and I do not know what it means. “A boat driven by unfavorable winds drifts towards the land of the demons.” Please explain it to me. The teacher responded: What kind of ninny asks such a stupid question! The Governor visibly stiffened and turn red with rage. The teacher said: A boat driven by unfavorable winds drifts towards the land of the demons. The Governor’s demeanor suddenly changed as he got some understanding. -Zen Koan

When the London Times asked a number of writers for essays on the topic "What's Wrong with the World?", Chesterton sent them a short letter: "Dear Sirs: I am". Sincerely yours, G.K. Chesterton"

I would think most of what we “truly know” (forgetting about all of the stringent qualifications we would have to put on the phrase “truly know”), is provisional at best. Something we truly know today may go up in smoke tomorrow. That’s also true of most of our belief systems, opinions, moral judgments and so on. Deconstruct it all I say, and see what lies at the heart of this dream. Steve

I pretty much stand by the old adage: “When the student is ready, the teacher will appear”. I think we can only truly know our personal course in retrospect. That sounds obvious, but it requires a good deal of trust in others to allow it to happen. It just happens, because at the time we are in a state of “not-knowing”. The “teachers” can be almost anyone or anything that provide us with a moment of clarity. At least, that’s been my experience. So, during my life I have run in to these teachers, or teachings, when I was ready to hear. I find it still happens today. People or books, or practices I learned from or participated in ten or twenty years ago may not have much relevance now, except that they provided the framework for the next steps in the journey. There is something about trusting in one’s instincts that must be buried in our DNA. Trusting in intuition is an art not practiced much anymore. Each particular entity must know somewhere deep down what it really needs.

When we speak of a “supernatural realm”, are we not attempting to gild the lily? Our daily mundane existence is perhaps too familiar to us. It has become so to me. Although, every now and then I am struck with awe at this “natural realm”. In those moments, I need no apparitions, or burning bushes, or major epiphanies. Whatever can happen will happen. I think that is a restatement of Murphy’s Law. So, if it happens it happens because it “can”, not because something has impinged upon us from another realm. Although, if that’s what you think is needed, by all means posit the existence of the supernatural! We don’t experience the awe, amazement and seeming impossibility of this existence because we are jaded and unenlightened. We are ordinary beings existing within something really extraordinary. Steve

A few years ago I read "Autobiography of a Yogi". The entire book is full of extraordinary unexplained experiences of various Yogis in India, including those of the author. To me, it read like a bunch of "parlor tricks", but who knows! Christianity is full of "miraculous" events, many of which, these days, center around apparitions of the Virgin Mary. Some of these can be explained and others cannot. But, these unusual, or even miraculous events have been reported far outside of Christianity. In Buddhism, there are stories of realized monks sort of de-materializing at the moment of death, leaving only hair and fingernails behind. They remind me of the story of the Ascension of Jesus, And, in India there are many incredible stories about Yogis and holy men and women like the ones I mentioned in the above book. I think Joseph is right, unless we experience something for ourselves, we won't believe it. And, I think that is exactly the way it should be. On the other hand, I won't throw cold water on the experiences of others. Steve

First we wanted to be fish. Then we wanted to be human. Now we want to understand why we aren't comfortable anywhere at all! Steve

Personally, I'm beginning to think we are apparent, yet absent!

I couldn't agree more, Paul. I like Stephen Batchelor's agnostic approach to karma and rebirth. If we can neither affirm nor deny, then we are left with the "excluded middle", the middle path in Buddhism. The mystery remains, and we extinguish one more opinion. It is the more intellectually honest approach to these questions. Steve

"In my most mystical moments, when I sense or perceive that there is no separation between my self and God, I'm still aware of my self, but it doesn't impede my relationship with God. In fact, I'm not sure I could feel "at one" with God unless there was an "I" to feel this." Bill - There is at least one Christian mystic I know of who would say that your experience of "God", or "oneness with God" actually IS the self, and not "God". You can ponder that or not, but I throw it out as a possibility. "Reincarnation and karma do not make sense unless there is a durable 'self' which maintains its integrity after death." Burl - Buddhism does not accept the notion of a "durable self", and therefore there is no integrity of such a construct after physical "death". Then again, birth and death as we normally conceive of them are illusory. What is "real" is constant flux and transformation. Steve

There is, of course, no hard, scientific evidence for a "soul", Bill. I don't happen to be an adherent of a view of soul myself. I was just pointing out a specific difference between Christian and Buddhist doctrine. Actually, the Buddhist perspective on this was a reaction to the notion of "Atman" in Hinduism, which roughly means "soul", or "self" as I understand it. I would say that most "Christians" probably have a notion of themselves as being comprised of both body and spirit, or soul. However, these days, and on a "Progressive Christian" website, it might be hard to find one who claims this is the case. As a recovering Catholic, I can assure you this was Catholic orthodox doctrine, and it is also the case in the Eastern Orthodox Church. Among the various Christian denominations, I don't know. But I would be surprised if rebirth, or ultimate existential annihilation is part of their belief system. I don't know what "immortal" means, nor do I know what "eternal" means. Those are both temporal reference points which apply only to our current mode of existence. But, Christianity seems to use these words a lot. Steve

Buddhism maintains the notions of karma and rebirth. Apparently they were commonly held beliefs among the people of the Indian sub-continent in the Buddha's day. For purposes of this thread however,it doesn't seem relevant. My point was to illuminate the Buddhist belief in contingent existence, versus the Christian view of an enduring, individual "soul". Actually, many people, regardless of their particular religious views, including Buddhists, have a very hard time accepting contingent existence. For those who tend toward literalism, I suppose karma and rebirth are hard pills to swallow!

This thread points to what I think is an irreconcilable ontological difference between Christian and Buddhist doctrine. Buddhism claims that all “things” are empty of inherent existence. Therefore, there can be no permanent “self”. Existence/ non-existence are contingent upon various causes and conditions manifesting in time. When these causes and conditions are exhausted, a thing no longer manifests. Christianity, as its basis, posits an immortal “soul” which presumably survives physical death and is eternal. At least this is what I believe to be the orthodox Christian view. Leaving that difference aside, one can still argue for both a Christian and Buddhist perspective that respects the existence/manifestation of entities within what we know as “reality”. For Christianity, that looks like “love thy neighbor as thyself”. Buddhism calls for honoring all things simply because they exist, and that existence, or manifestation, is considered a very rare and fortuitous occurrence. Steve

Here’s a quote I like from Thomas Merton: “Therefore, as long as we experience ourselves in prayer as an “I” standing on the threshold of the abyss of purity and emptiness that is God, waiting to “receive something” from Him, we are still far from the most intimate and secret unitive knowledge that is pure contemplation. From our side of the threshold this darkness, this emptiness, looks deep and vast – and exciting. There is nothing we can do about entering in. We cannot force our way over the edge, although there is no barrier. But the reason is perhaps that there is also no abyss. There you remain, somehow feeling that the next step will be a plunge and you will find yourself flying in interstellar space.” "When the next step comes, you do not take the step, you do not know the transition, you do not fall into anything. You do not go anywhere, and so you do not know the way by which you got there or the way by which you come back afterward. You are certainly not lost. You do not fly. There is not space, or there is all space: it makes no difference.” "The next step is not a step. You are not transported from one degree to another. What happens is that the separate entity that is you apparently disappears and nothing seems to be left but a pure freedom indistinguishable from infinite Freedom, love identified with Love. Not two loves, one waiting for the other, striving for the other, seeking for the other, but Love Loving in Freedom." – Thomas Merton New Seeds of Contemplation, pg 282 He is referring to what Buddhists regard as the realization of emptiness, or Anatta. Merton was a Catholic and his description fits with what is believed to be the “unitive state” in contemplative Christianity. In experience, I believe it is the same realization, but they obviously differ is doctrine. There is a question of “timing” involved here. As Merton says, there is no question of being “transported from one degree to another”. It just “is” and the only thing remaining is the realization. Time seems to be an irrelevant factor and process is redundant, but "spaciousness" appears. Steve

Have fun with the course, Lucas. Fr. Richard is a good guy, so he probably put together a nice package. I've gone to a couple of Franciscan retreats years ago and they have an interesting spirituality. It's not really "individual" spirituality, but more all-encompassing. Steve

I read the article about the dangers of meditation with interest, Rom. I can’t say I disagree strongly with the author’s views, but I think they are probably over-amplified. However, for someone considering a “serious” meditation practice, I think they should definitely find a qualified meditation teacher. They might have to look around for a while and see what best fits their particular mental, emotional and physical disposition. Also, like the author, I don’t think just anyone can automatically benefit from meditation. Many people have serious emotional and psychological issues that should be addressed prior to getting into meditation. I have in mind Abraham Maslow’s “self-actualized” individual. Someone who has it “all together”, or who is at least working toward that would benefit much more than an emotional wreck. For the ill-informed, certain meditation techniques can bring up very disturbing thoughts, memories and images. Without knowing why this is happening, a person is likely to just stop altogether, and that is probably for the best. I started meditating when I joined AA thirty years ago. But, I was also in psychotherapy at the time. I noticed that the “meditation” step was number eleven of twelve. I wondered about that at the time, but not anymore. There are ten very challenging steps to be done (clean-up work) prior to getting into meditation. For those who are after a spiritual “fix”, or an experience of “ecstasy”, meditation isn’t for them. I would suggest peyote or its equivalent for that! Finally, it’s important (at least in my opinion) for a person to have a purpose for their meditation practice. Steve PS I realize we are seriously off-topic here, but what the hey!