SteveS55

Meditation is simply being with a quiet mind. "All men's miseries derive from not being able to sit in a quiet room alone." - Blaise Pascal

Nice summary of chapter 10, Rom. I don't have much to add. I agree about the "doubt" thing. On the one hand we are supposed to rid ourselves of notions and concepts (good luck with that), but we are to eliminate doubt? If doubt is the same as questioning everything, then I am full of doubt. The whole "emptiness", "non-self", "no-self" thing is a mystery to me. Intellectually, I get it, but the foundation of Buddhism is this notion, so there has to be something more to it than intellectual assent. I have to confess an obsession with this topic since about 2008, and I keep plugging away with it. Maybe someday I'll get it the way it is meant to be gotten. Steve

In chapter 7, Nhat Hahn makes the following statement related to the fifth precept: “In modern life, people think that their body belongs to them and they can do anything they want to it. When they make such a determination, the law supports them. This is one of the manifestations of individualism. But, according to the teachings of emptiness, non-self, and interbeing, your body is not yours alone. It also belongs to your ancestors, your parents, future generations, and all other living beings. Everything, even the trees and the clouds, has come together to bring about the presence of your body.” When I first read the precept, it came to me as just another platitude, for which various religious traditions are famous. But, when I examined the above statement I realized something very odd. If, as Buddhism claims, and as many people accept, there is no inherent “self”, “soul”, or whatever else you choose to call the “I”, then neither is there a “me” or “mine” to possess that which appears to be possessed – something to be pondered. Personally, that leaves me with nowhere to go, which is perhaps exactly where I should be. I am left with a vague understanding of “existence” (at least our beliefs about existence) as a “cosmic joke”. There is an image of the “laughing Buddha” that comes to mind. Lurking just beneath our presumed existential underpinnings, I suspect there is a huge primal laugh waiting to be released. Steve

I couldn't agree more, Sherrie. It's the classic "metanoia" experience. Whether it is fable, or not, whoever wrote this was familiar with this kind of realization. There are many, many documented accounts of these kinds of experiences in every religion and tradition. William James' classic book is the most obvious catalogue of these, but Siddhartha (the Buddha), Thomas Merton, Theresa of Avila, Hildegard of Bingen, St. Augustine, and J. Krihnamurti, to name a few, each had a metanoia. We tend to look at the final results for each of these individuals, after the fact. We don't know what leads up to this kind of experience. What appears to be sudden may have been years in the making. I suspect most peoples' "conversion experiences" are of the more gradual variety. Steve

It's hard to say how these realizations come upon us, Lex. Some are minor intuitions and some can be life changing. Yours came to you "out of the blue", but it may have been the result of years of pondering the nature of existence. Obviously,the intellect is involved in the process, but the end result may or may not appear to be "logical" to others. In any case, you came to your realization and it is yours alone. Steve

I agree that “Who am I” is a very good starting point after one has dispelled all of their belief systems, if that is indeed possible. It’s a very Zen-like question, something like asking “what is your original face?”. I’m not sure the point is to try and answer it, at least not logically. To speculate might ruin the intuition one hopes will arise, and that intuition might be the solution to the paradox of existence and non-existence. Maybe it’s best just to contemplate the question until we finally realize its futility. Steve

Without getting into the sordid details, I'm a bit familiar with the brothels of Nevada. Actually, in the "old days" the Las Vegas casino bars were filled with prostitutes. Not anymore, I'm told. I'm not judging these things either. I was a bit wild in my youth, and many times went to the hotel bar I talked about earlier. Probably all the more reason I had to chuckle at the message they had posted. But, these experiences somehow made me much less judgmental of others' "character defects". It was all for the good. But, getting back to "peace", unless we are at peace with ourselves, there can be no external peace for anyone. As Naht Hahn observed, peace is more than the absence of war. I think to do that we have to learn to accept all of our humaness, including the things we are not so proud of, like anger, resentment, hatred, envy and all of the rest. No one is immune to any of these. To pretend they are absent in our lives is just not true. To some extent they always will be. If we can reach that acceptance in ourselves and others, we can be "at peace" and maybe effect some small slice of our existence. To be of a "peaceful heart" means we have made peace with ourselves. Steve

There's an old hotel down the way from where I live near a marina. When I was young the dance bar there was known as a "pick-up" place. Convenient since you didn't have to go far for a room! They used to advertise their rates on a billboard outside. But, for the last few weeks they posted the following: "There is no path to peace. Peace IS the path". Pretty profound for a place like that! Steve

You're a better man than I am, Soma. I can probably still get into the lotus position...I just can't get out of it. My meniscus won't cooperate! Asia sounds great...enjoy! Steve

I think you are right, Soma. There are all kinds of "intentional communities", some formal and some not. It seems to me that Nhat Hahn is proposing an intentional community of social and environmental action coming from the practice of mindfulness. That practice would include group meditation, among other things. But, meditation does not have to be "formal", as in sitting on a mat for an hour or so. The challenge he presents is integrating the contemplative life with social involvement. Thomas Merton would probably be the Christian complement of what he is suggesting. Steve

I pretty much agree with you in your last post, Burl. I don't think there is a path either, but we do have to communicate sometimes with metaphors so people understand what we are trying to say. And yes, "spiritual formation" is indeed much more. What I meant by my last thread was more along the lines of an end to the discussion or conversation. I think that once a person asks another to take as axiomatic something that is far more complex than the simple statement "Jesus Christ is God", it pretty much ends the conversation and begins a debate. And then of course you run into various barriers to belief in people which are also pretty complex, and touchy. My personal view is that Jesus was/is not God. That's not based on any barrier that I am aware of, but merely studying theology and Christology over the years, including some alternative views put forward by some modern (progressive) people. I find some of these explanations more plausible than believing that Jesus is God. I simply don't believe the man, Jesus was God anymore than you or I are God. It may sound arrogant (and probably is), but I think Christianity has gotten this wrong for literally centuries, and most Christians have it wrong still. But, my opinions are just that. No one can say for sure which view is correct. We can just agree to disagree I suppose. The one thing that I am curious to know, Burl, is what you meant by "Jesus Christ". Are you saying that Christ is representative of Jesus, the anointed one, or is it something a bit more esoteric? I'm just curious. It's no big deal. Thanks, Steve

And so it seems that even the "pathless" path comes to a dead end!

I'm not limiting myself to Matthew, Burl. Long before the "Golden Rule", humans discovered that adopting a cooperative spirit as a way of dealing with others turned out to be for the benefit of everyone, and probably solidified the survival of our species up to this point. The "quid pro quo" that I'm talking about is a necessary requirement for survival-mode cooperation to take place. If I'm going to do something for you, I expect something in return. This is the basis for all of trade and commerce. I'm thinking the "Golden Rule" is simply a more elegant and formal way of expressing the same thing, and has since worked its way into many cultures. But, my real question here is "why, if accepted and adopted, do so few people practice it?" What is missing if this is a "universal"?

Hmmm...if the Golden Rule has been almost 100% universally accepted as a moral and ethical standard, why is it that so few people actually "practice" it? At least from my observation, it doesn't seem that most people give it much thought at all. But, I guess that's the problem with standards, they are hard to live up to. I used to have plenty of standards, but very few principles. I also think that even if people practiced the Golden Rule, the manner in which they want to be treated might differ widely from the desires of others. And there also seems like there might be a kind of "quid pro quo" thing implicit in the Golden Rule that could be flawed. You can't really expect anything in return for offering cooperation, kindness and generosity. I'm wondering if there is a "natural disposition" that would arise in people, assuming that they had navigated the purgative path necessary for the beginnings of illumination and character traits like wisdom and compassion to manifest. If that's the case, there wouldn't need to be any "standard" by which to engage reality. There would just be this idea called the Golden Rule, but it would eventually be forgotten. I think that there might be a definite need for such purgation before anyone counsels adherence to the Golden Rule. But then, I 've always been a bit of a John of the Cross fan, so I suppose I'm prejudiced. Steve

Maybe it’s just me, but this chapter seemed to be a bit fragmented. He talks about Dharmakaya, references Tillich’s “ground of being”, the mystical body of Christ and even devotion to the Virgin Mary. Any of these concepts are full of possibilities for endless discussion. But, in the end, I think he does a pretty good job of separating the man, Siddharta Gautama from “Buddha” and the man, Jesus of Nazareth from “Christ”. Both honorifics are available to all of us in any of 84,000 ways, only awaiting the birth (or rebirth) of the “Buddha” within, “Christ consciousness”, or whatever you choose to call it. Humans, being what we are, have frequently chosen to worship the particular manifestation and ignore the universal possibilities. Perhaps worship masks our spiritual envy at these two exceptional humans. But they, like us, come from the same “stuff”, embedded in the Logos if you like. We have all manifest as the same creative display of the “ground”, or zero dimensional fundament of reality. Since this idea is not necessarily warm and fuzzy, it seems necessary to make it so, and therefore create more idols for the Pantheon. Christianity gets pretty hung up on “time”, beginnings and endings. Buddhism doesn’t suffer from this constraint. To me, one of Naht Hahn’s more profound statements is “We come from nowhere and have nowhere to go”. Indeed, we have arrived, but in some sense have always been. Only now, in this moment, we are aware. I agree with him; there is really nowhere to go. Steve

Yes, Joseph. I suppose that's the end result of the practice. Harder for some than others I suspect. Steve

That's a bit of a tough question, Jen. I generally use the word "enlightenment" in a tongue-in-cheek manner, but I'm not sure if there is an emoji for that! But, as long as you are asking, I think enlightenment is probably a series of intuitions about the nature of one's existence where one eventually realizes that the "ultimate truth" is that there is no "ultimate truth". When that happens, a person can finally exhale and relax in the sun. As for "getting there", probably simply sitting in meditation and silent reflection a few times a day. I remember a story of one of the Desert Fathers who told a monk in his charge to go to his cell, and his cell would teach him everything. Keep it simple. Steve

"Do I have need to be mindful 100% of the time? I think not? What do I do when there are competing inputs for my mindfulness?" Interestingly, Rom, to reap the benefits of "mindfulness", there are teachers who say that eventually there can be no "gaps" in one's mindfulness. I just read a rather lengthy paper along those lines by one of them. Any distractions sort of ruin the whole thing. I don't know what Nhat Hahn would say. It is for this reason that I have pretty much discarded this method as too difficult and requiring too much effort. In this degenerate age and culture, with all of its attendant distractions, I don't think it is a real possibility. I suppose that it might work in a monastic environment, but not in my world. I'm looking for a more viable means to enlightenment, if such a thing actually exists. Steve

Mindfulness is nothing more than attending to whatever arises in the present moment (a very difficult practice in my opinion). According to Naht Hahn (in some of his other writings), “forgetfulness” is the opposite of mindfulness. Forgetfulness here means being distracted. It is as though one is not awake when one lacks mindfulness. Particularly in the Theraveda School of Buddhism, Vipissana meditation is taught, and it is the basis for the various “mindfulness training” workshops that have become popular in the West. For some Buddhists, and apparently Naht Hahn is one of them, it is through mindfulness of what arises in the consciousness that one can become aware of the “true nature of things”. And, in Buddhism, the “true nature of things” is the truth of suffering (Four Noble Truths), impermanence and contingent existence/non-self, or anatta. These “truths” are pretty universally accepted in all of the schools of Buddhism. That, it seems to me, is where he is coming from. I read “Living Buddha, Living Christ” some time ago, and I have read a few of his other books more recently. He is not my favorite Buddhist author, but he means well. Steve

The small man Builds cages for everyone He Knows. While the sage, Who has to duck his head When the moon is low, Keeps dropping keys all night long For the Beautiful Rowdy Prisoners. Hafiz

"That could very well be me." Wow, all at one time??

Hi Burl, Again, I can't speak as a representative of Progressive Christianity, or for the other participants on this forum. I would say that those who do express their opinions here are first of all, "free thinkers", and unabashedly proud of lacking any orthodox views about God, Jesus, or Christianity in general. There are agnostics, atheists, monists, materialists, and all sorts of others here. There are even some Christians! But, mainly, I think the people here are after the truth of things, or the way things really are, and not how we simply "think" they are, or have been told they are. Hopefully you will continue to contribute in spite of the difficulties you may encounter. Steve

Actually, Burl, I do not question either man's convictions. You seemed to say earlier that, at least in the case of Malcolm X, his conversion away from the NOI (a "virulent racist" group) was by the grace of God, and no other explanation was possible. I am saying other explanations are possible, and pragmatism is one of them. It is possible to be both pragmatic and convicted to a particular cause. Martin Luther King is a good example of that. Also, I guess I don't get the JFK thing at all. I remember his presidency quite well, and while articulate and inspirational at times, his accomplishments were few. He was certainly no champion of civil rights and wished all racial unrest could be swept under the carpet. It was left to his predecessor, LBJ, to make any meaningful change, and he made a lot. So, as long as we are talking about advancing social and racial justice, you should probably add LBJ to your list of divine vessels.

Yes indeed, there we have it. It's my personal view that neither the Hilary or Trump vessels will ever be filled with anything resembling the divine. But still, we hope that they are, and we cast our insignificant votes like good citizens, and "hope to God" whoever gets in won't demolish the place! Gotta love American politics!

I'm not privy to the reasons Malcolm X had a change of heart and mind and split with the NOI, Burl. There were probably a number of factors. Muhammed Ali eventually did the same thing. I would submit that it is possible both men saw the futility of keeping the Nation of Islam mindset alive in the midst of the racially diverse and highly charged atmosphere of the 1960's and 1970's. It seems to be somewhat more effective to attempt social change within a system rather than alienating the people who actually run the system. They certainly made themselves and their causes more palatable to white folk! I'm sure many whites celebrated this outcome, and for that reason probably thought these men had finally "seen the light". I think it's possible that both men may have come to their decisions based on pragmatism rather than grace. Then again, maybe they are the same thing? Steve