SteveS55

"I submit this is undeniable proof Malcom X was transformed by the grace of God, and that he was utilized as a divine vessel. There is no other possible explanation." Really, Burl? That is the only possibility? Steve

Yes, Rom. I suppose anything that keeps us in the game and annoys us when it is taken from us can be seen as an addiction, at least the way I have defined it. But politics and religion are particularly nasty ones! They are very hard to overcome.. I'm also coming to the end of my work addiction, and wondering what I will replace it with. Steve

The only thing worse than religion is politics, and together they are a disaster! I just vote my preference, something I have been conditioned to do, just like the Trump supporters do. Our religious and political beliefs are our addictions. When someone tries to challenge them, or take them from us, we act exactly like addicts, and become irritable and discontent. Steve

I would argue that Donald Trump is merely a reflection, or manifestation of an underlying current of authoritarian fascism in this country. This is not surprising since most of his supporters are white, middle class people of European descent, a culture, I would also argue, that historically seems to be partial to monarchs or fascist governance. This is borne out by the nationalistic, nativist regimes of the 1930's. So, there is nothing particularly new about the Trump phenomenon. In himself, there is no real substance, or transcendent qualities. He is merely a showman for the masses who espouses their private, dark desires. So, on election day, I'm going to take this humble vessel and vote against this clown! Steve

I think that teaching and sarcasm is an honorable path to pursue in life. There is far too little of it for my liking. And yes, you are right, there is a disconnect between what is posted on the website and what is shared in this forum. I'm pretty comfortable with discussing orthodox Christian theology and Christology, but the times I have attempted to do so have not been met with much enthusiasm by the participants here. I was born and raised and educated Roman Catholic, and I guess I'm supposed to feel bad for that. The fact is, I don't at all. It had its rough spots, but I have no resentments. I look at it as just one of the things I did in my particular path. I can't speak for Progressive Christianity or for the participants on this forum. But, there is enough of interest posted here, from time to time, to get my attention. I just try to steer clear of theology these days. Steve

I could be wrong, Burl, but you seem to equate "mysticism" with self-delusion. That may be the case as mysticism has been popularized over the centuries. I agree that being "alone with one's thoughts" can have a self-deluded result. But, that is also the case with the discursive thought processes involved in speculative theology and metaphysics. In my opinion, mysticism, or contemplative practices are, for the most part, experiential. Some may believe certain practices can result in feelings of "bliss", "oneness with the divine" and so on. I agree that these "experiences" are often misleading and self-deluding. It is also my opinion that what is fundamental to mysticism is thoughtless contemplation. Or, as Padmasambhava stated: "Leave the mind alone". That's not a place most people are comfortable with, but my guess is that Jesus often practiced leaving his mind alone. Experientially, this "aloneness" has nothing to do with delusion. In fact, at least in my opinion, it removes delusion from the mind. Just my thoughts on the subject. Steve

No “blame”, no “credit” is interesting to me. It puts us humans in an awkward spot – one of humility if we are lucky. Still, I sense a certain “thirst” has driven us to this existence, along with the other myriad variables which account for human existence. I wonder if that drive would have been so strong had we known how limited we would become. Steve

Hi Byrch, I think that a true path will eventually transcend religion, ritual, dogma, etc. I also think that the "aloneness" you are feeling is the path. That's not to say everyone will take your journey, and you may not be able to relate to them, but they are allowed their own freedom. Your path is unique to you. Steve

Those are interesting questions, Derek. I don't know the answer to any of them. I can say that I think we get "doctrine" wrong much of the time. Doctrines must have started with an "experience of something", whether we are talking about Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, or other doctrines. The experience of that "something" gave rise to a collective desire (doctrine) to understand it within a particular culture. I think Merton is pointing out that we falsify pure experience the moment we attempt to speak it, categorize it, classify it, analyze it, and intellectualize it. That is not to say the underlying "doctrine" given as an explanation is incorrect, but it is only a dim reflection of pure experience, and is ultimately flawed. I was recently reading another book by Suzuki, called "Zen And The Doctrine of 'No Mind'". In it, Suzuki says that we mainly attempt to fit our experiences to the language already available for similar shared experiences. He claims that what comes first is "pure experience", which is incommunicable and ineffable. Attempts to explain it in words, language, symbols, by human logic, etc., are futile. This is why most people can't make any sense of statements by Zen masters. They are contradictory, illogical, or just plain nonsense. I guess the point of these masters is to get their students to understand this futility. Reliance on doctrine seems to be putting the cart before the horse. Theoretically, we could probably all come up with our own doctrines, but some of us would simply remain silent in the face of pure experience. I think the human ego has much to do with our inability to remain in the silence. Steve

It seems my previous quote was from Tilopa, here's another: "No thought, no reflection, no analysis, no cultivation, no intention; let it settle itself." Tilopa Yep, gotta love Tilopa! Stay hydrated, Soma. Steve

"Gratitude is all a lie.....there is nothing the matter with one". Love this quote, Derek. But, like you, I can't help myself from feeling grateful. No "boat", no "other shore". Rite and ritual, words and doctrine as means to a goal are redundant. They should only be practiced for pure enjoyment. A great Buddhist teacher (can't remember which) said "abandon all spiritual method". Sounds like a plan. Steve

I think there is some kind of natural affinity between contemplative Catholicism and Buddhism, particularly Zen. Merton intuited this as did D.T. Suzuki. As a Catholic who has studied and practiced Buddhism, myself, I can also feel this affinity. I’m re-reading a book by Suzuki titled “Mysticism, Christian and Buddhist”. In it, Suzuki compares the sermons and teachings of Meister Eckhart with various Zen masters, finding many common threads, despite obvious doctrinal differences. Personally, I think it is appropriate to laugh at “existence”, at least our perception and thoughts about existence. It is probably the only sane approach to what, from time to time, appears to be merely a sensate dream or magical illusion, rather than anything inherently permanent and lasting. We really know nothing at all about it, as St. Augustine came to understand. So, Merton continued celebrating Mass and Suzuki his meditation, perhaps because there is no real harm in ritual. In fact, it can be very enjoyable. For “realized” people, everything is allowed, and nothing needs to be eliminated. At least, so I've been told. Steve

You are welcome, Rodge. I'm not sure I can speak for Progressive Christianity as a whole, in fact, I'm sure I can't. But, I would say that you're views are decidedly progressive and Christian. To the extent that Progressive Christianity is engaged in inter-religious and inter-faith dialogue, I'm sure you could find a fit. It might be a subset of either, such as "inter-experiential dialogue", or an exploration of subjective religious/spiritual experience. Anyway, it's just a thought for consideration. Steve

There are a number of hypotheses, usually produced by theologians and philosophers, regarding the nature of human free will. Depending on which one you like, it's possible to make a relatively coherent argument for your favorite. Normally, I would say that the notion of free will/free choice (take your pick), involves some understanding of conscious, volitional action on the part of an agent. There have been some interesting scientific investigations into this. Some of these seem to indicate that what we believe to be conscious willing on our part is rather an unconscious action which, in retrospect "feels" conscious and volitional. If anyone is interested, they can start by "googling" Benjamin Libet, a researcher at the University of California. His experiments in this area have apparently been duplicated by other researchers. Another interesting finding regarding this is that we apparently have sufficient time to negate our unconscious potential action prior to the action itself. For this reason, the theory is sometimes referred to as "free won't"! So, I'm wondering, if "free will" is an illusion, is "free won't" an illusion as well? For my part, the jury is still out on this question. In fact, it has been out for centuries. But, I would say that at least in some cases, what we take to be conscious, volitional action is nothing of the kind. Steve

Very well said, Rodge. I actually agree with all of your conclusions ( in your response to my last post), and that is somewhat unusual for me! So, I think you might have a talent for this. You are respectfully convincing without being judgmental. I agree that personal, subjective "spiritual" experience is valid subject matter for religious discussion. Whether you call it the "unitive state", like the Christian mystics, "peak experience" like the secular humanists, "emptiness", like the Buddhists, or whatever it is a Fundamentalist believer might call it, it is all food for thought. Steve

I get what you are saying, Rodge, and I don't disagree. The word that makes me squirm a little is "truth". But, if we define that as agreed upon facts, or observations, I can go with it. So, it seems to me that when the judgment about some attirbute of an object, either physical or mental, comes to our mind, we enter the realm of the subjective, because there is no "fact" we can point to that would be agreeable to everyone else. Unfortunately, I think that peoples' subjective beliefs and experiences are rather intractable. I think there is even some scientific research indicating beliefs are "hard-wired" into our brains. If that is the case, anyone questioning another's subjective truth, will probably be in for a real nasty experience. I think it would be very hard to avoid, but I applaud your own efforts in this regard. Steve

I'm not sure I understand your distinction between "objective" and "subjective", Rodge. I'm also not convinced that there is any real distinction between them. Perception, as humans know it, depends on an object appearing (or maifesting iteself) in the field of perception. It requires both the perceived and the perceiver. One is dependent on the other, and neither appears independently. If I am walking with someone, I might say to them: "There exists a red rose". My companion, in all likelihood would agree with me, and if I asked others to confirm it, they probably would. Since I have verified my observation with others, independently of my own perception, can we not say this is "objectively true"? Still, this conclusion requires others to agree, by convention, what "red" is and what "rose" is. While this may be objectively verifiable (or true), because I have confirmed it with other "objects", outside of myself, it really says nothing about the "ultimate" nature of the red rose. We agree to such things by convention, then label them as part of a kind of "contract". Remembering the contract, next time we see a "red rose", we will believe it to be objectively true. While this is all merely my opinion, I think it makes some sense. Ultimately, however, it does nothing to solve the "God" question. Steve

Point taken Jen. I assume that everyone understands we are dealing with opinions here, so I see no need to qualify everything I write. People are always free to disagree with opinions. That's one of the reasons we share in a public forum, to bounce things around. Steve

"Let's take SteveS55's theory that because a belief system is ancient, it is a hindrance. "We miss it because we are distracted by entering the realm of discursive thought, and ancient belief systems." Perhaps you are saying that there are elements of ancient belief systems which need to be let go or have been misinterpreted which are distracting us, or perhaps you are saying that Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, and Christianity are invalid ways of experiencing God." I don't mean to be flip, but yep, that's pretty much what I'm saying, fatherman. But,I don't think belief systems are an invalid way to "experience God" because they are ancient. They are invalid because they are "belief systems". The positive thing about all efforts to "experience God" is that they end in futility, which is exactly where one needs to be to "experience God". Steve

I can relate to what you are saying, Joseph. There really is nothing to search for. I think Tolle would agree that everything is contained in the present moment, or the “NOW”. Not only can we not search, but we cannot escape either! I recently read “Behold the Spirit” by Alan Watts, and his premise is very much the same. But, his hypothesis is that most people are unable to experience the presence of Now (God, Truth, Reality, take your choice of words or symbols) because of pride. Those who search for “God” are overly presumptuous. Thinking they can force themselves to understand, they miss the entire display. The truth is much simpler. It presents itself in the unabashed nakedness of the Now, a fact that is both surprising and shocking. We miss it because we are distracted by entering the realm of discursive thought, and ancient belief systems. Neither of these allows us to be present in the moment. So, yes, your words are probably offensive to some, as undoubtedly mine are as well. Steve

No need for apologies, Derek. No harm done. I too have grown tired of the ism's and ology's. They are a starting point, at least they have been for me. But, some people attempt to "transcend" these belief systems and reach some kind of a synthesis. It's kind of like the saying about leaving the boat behind when you have reached the other shore. I have taken rides in many boats, and there are probably more rides to come! Peace. Steve

Perhaps "higher level thought" is a poor choice of phrases, but some words and phrases just become "pounceable" when written or spoken. I always thought Michael Jordan played basketball at a higher level than anyone else, Jeff Beck played guitar at a higher level, and Albert Einstein's thinking was at a higher level of accomplishment than most other people. Maybe those analogies leave something to be desired, but if we were to always stick with quantitative assessments of things, we could only say these individuals were statistical anomalies. What I'm getting at here is more along the lines of innate capacity for certain types of accomplishments, obviously enhanced by intensely practicing that which already comes very naturally. But, its "all good" in so far as what appears to us.....it is all somehow perfectly appropriate in its own right. As far as the use of "illusory", well, that's a word often used in Buddhism, but it may not be captured quite right in English. By "illusory", it is not meant that some object is not there, or that it only exists in one's mind, Clearly, what we conventionally refer to as "reality" or "existence" appears to us. It is the nature of what appears to the perceiver as that which is perceived, that is called into question. But back to rebirth. The hypothetical speculation that humans and animals may exprerience rebirth is only relevant if it becomes "personal" to us. So. it is "I" that experiences rebirth, it is "my" rebirth, and so on. It is this belief in an inherent, enduring concept of a grasping "self" that desires something for the "I", something that is beyond physical death, such as heaven, or a god realm. Without that self-obsessive concept, rebirth is just something that is part of our conceptual awareness, and leaves without any remaining trace of hope or fear. If existence is contngent, as the Buddha claimed, then birth and death are nothing more than a continuation of the cyclical nature of dependent origination. The way out, from a Buddhist perspective, is to break the chain of ignorance, which is the illusory view of a "self" which grasps objects as inherently real and substantial. Incidentally, this doesn't have to be a "Buddhist" view of things. I think many non-Buddhists come to this realization given the right circumstances. Steve

At higher levels of Buddhist thought, the "middle way" refers to what Aristotle referred to as the "excluded middle". So, in Buddhism, there is neither birth nor death, neither existence nor non-existence. All is illusory, and simply the magical display of the primordial ground. There is an ineffable quality here and a mystery that can't be penetrated, except perhaps by the practice of Zen over countless eons (a really long time). Or, if we are lucky, it may happen in this very life. Questions of rebirth become irrelevant. It was a belief long held in Indian culture at the time of the Buddha, and he was certainly a product of this environment. What made him different was the concept of "anatta", or non-self, as opposed to the Hindu tradition of his time. Whether one takes rebirth as literal or metaphorical, I believe both miss the point. The middle path is the path of the excluded middle, or the pathless path, where mental elaborations are just that and no more. It is said by Buddhists that the "victorious ones": have reached the realization of the "emptiness of inherent existence". Apparently, at that level, without a "self", questions such as rebirth, etc. are rather mundane. Steve

I think that is an excellent question, Martin. I think that prayer, as a spiritual practice, must be directed at or to a "personal spiritual entity". So, it would be rather absurd to pray "to" "the Ground of Being" (with all due respect to Paul Tillich). I also think that whatever that personal, spiritual entity happens to be is left to the imagination of the person doing the praying. Images, rituals and worship are all important to a spiritual person, and I don't think they need to be eliminated because of the ineffability of the things we are trying to talk about, like "God", etc. In my own prayer, I have pretty much left intact a lot of my earlier prayer practices, without the inevitable internal criticisms directed to myself that they might seem "silly" to other people. I have done this in spite of my experiential movement away from old belief systems. Good luck with your dilemma! Steve

Until Christians come to grips with what "Christ" actually "is", there will always be confusion and debate. Steve