tariki

I'll be off in a moment but just to say that revolutions are just that, "revolutions". Everything comes back to how it started. I love Four Quartets by T S Eliot, who seems to know of the Christian mystics and the way of the Buddha. In Four Quartets Eliot speaks of coming back to the place where we started and KNOWING IT FOR THE FIRST TIME. Which, combining various ways found in both Christianity and Buddhism, points to the end of all revolutions. Thanks for the conversation.

Hello again, I was recently reading a biography of Charles Darwin. Between arriving back from his voyage on the Beagle and writing "The Origin of Species" he spent quite a number of years studying barnacles, labelling each and every type. Who would ever have thought that there could be so many, so much variety? Darwin never quite got to calling each barnacle by name but he grew to love them and the knowledge and insight they gave from close study. After the writing of "The Origin of Species", and seeking to lay low from the controversies the book raised, Darwin turned to earthworms, growing to love them and their ways in turn. So perhaps there is a time and place for everything. There is a story from the Buddhist tradition, where a group of monks were transporting a valuable and virtually priceless scripture from one monastery to another across a great mountain range. They were caught out once by a huge storm and needed to spend the night out in the open. They burnt the scriptures in order to keep warm. In my opinion judgementalism can begin anywhere. Derek

Hi Jack, as I see it there is no need to seek for an "identity". Why label ourselves?. Each of us is unique. Labels can easily become the beginnings of judgement of others, and for ourselves the constrictions that curtail the truth that sets us free. All the best Derek

Hi Martin, I just googled RSV LEATHER BOUND and it seems available. But I may be wrong. Derek (does Google come leatherbound..........or is there some sort of conspiracy......... )

Hi Martin, as an "ordinary person" who often lives in an unholy mess you might wish to ignore my post, but I'll make an attempt to pass on the questionable benefits of my own experience. I've found its more to do with how we iive "down here" than how we try to address "him up there". One Christian mystic, Meister Eckhart, said that the only prayer we need to say is "thank you", which in Eckhart speak would morph into a choiceless awareness - that is, rather than saying thank you to some things and not others, just "thank you" to each and everything. Acceptance is, paradoxically, the catalyst of transformation - it is not passive, but becomes an active engagement with the world and all around us. When we speak to who ever is beside us we speak to "God", and in accepting them we accept God. There is no need for prayer as such. Our whole life is "thank you".

Hi LusciousAutumn Took a quick peep at the above recommendation. Thankfully I no longer identify with "religion" in any way. As others here have said, it is "rebirth" that is needed, which itself calls for the "seed to fall into the ground and die". Signs are that it can happen on an individual basis. As I see it seeking to pump life into outworn forms is no way forward. Nor creating simplistic dichotomies and then seeing "truth" on one side only. I would not recommend it. Thanks Derek

As i understand it, Grace is that in which we live and move and have our being. This is known or not, recongnised or not. It is a "given", to open to. It is the causal basis of "salvation". If the causal basis is deemed to be our "choice to believe" there then comes the potential for division, conflict, judgement and "works". The Catholic monk Thomas Merton has spoken well on this......... The reification of faith. Real meaning of the phrase we are saved by faith = we are saved by Christ, whom we encounter in faith. But constant disputation about faith has made Christians become obsessed with faith almost as an object, at least as an experience, a "thing" and in concentrating upon it they lose sight of Christ. Whereas faith without the encounter with Christ and without His presence is less than nothing. It is the deadest of dead works, an act elicited in a moral and existential void. To seek to believe that one believes, and arbitrarily to decree that one believes, and then to conclude that this gymnastic has been blessed by Christ - this is pathological Christianity. And a Christianity of works. One has this mental gymnastic in which to trust. One is safe, one possesses the psychic key to salvation...... It would seem to me, if one recognises the Word of God as that which lights ALL who come into the world, as that through Whom ALL things are made (as said in St John's Gospel) then the "presence of Christ" spreads far wider than mere allegiance to, and acknowledgement, of the Biblical word and any "requirement" claimed to be found therein. The message of Grace can be found in all faiths, at all times, in all places.......for those with ears to hear and eyes to see. And such is a gift, pure and simple.... Faith does not arise within oneself The entrusting heart is given by the Other Power ......as said by the Pure Land "saint" Rennyo. So one must look for the subtle "works" of ones own heart, which issues in any claim of "faith", when such "faith" divides us from others in implied judgement and condemnation.

I thought the following might be relevant, just a cut and paste from a post I made on another forum............ More often than not Grace would be associated purely with a Theistic context, as an attitude of mercy given by a Supreme Being to Humankind. "Saved by Grace". As that which is "on offer" and will be bestowed to any who "ask" and "believe." Yet Grace figures deeply in Pure Land Buddhism and Buddhism is considered by many - rightly - to be non-theistic. There is a wide spectrum of understanding within Pure Land Buddhism. From those who understand Amida as Him/Her up there (or out West) who bestows "salvation" upon all who call upon Him/Her, and the Pure Land as a place we go to after death; to those who see Amida as a personification/representation of Reality-as-is and the Pure land as THIS world, NOW, when seen and lived in by an enlightened being. And all points in between. Mentioning the "all points in between", I can bring in some ideas of Thomas Merton, the Catholoic Trappist monk, who spoke of the movement between an "I-Thou" relationship with the Divine to an experience of oneness, where the sense of "self" is lost, a movement from acting in conjunction with grace, to acting spontaneously from grace. Which in the "Eastern" way of speaking, is the way of wu wei, effortless working purely as the good. Or as is said In Pure Land Buddhism, being made to become so of itself. Again in the eastern way, this time from Ch'an (Zen) the story of the choosing of the Sixth Patriach is relevant. A contest was held of all the wannabees. One wrote a verse that said in effect that the mind was a mirror, and one must continually wipe it clean. A second wrote a verse that spoke of there being in fact no mirror, so what was there to wipe? The second guy claimed the prize! For he recognised that "enlightenment" was in fact not a product of any progress, of seeking to clean the mind, but of a realisation that Reality is a given, always ever present. That acts of "merit", any works (to use a Christian phrase) are more like switching the deck chairs around on the Titanic - yes, such can make the day and the way more comfortable and scenic, yet ultimately of no purpose. So it can be seen that even in a non-theistic context, what can be known as Grace is present. Present in as much as the enlightened state is to be realised/acknowledged/seen...........not achieved/attained/earned. Such can explain such lovable verses in the Bible as "All our righteousnesses are as filthy rags" and that even the very best of them will "stink in God's nostrils". Yes, indeed they do, if Enlightenment/Grace is the bottom line! Obviously it can be asked just how we go about "realising" this, and it is a good question. One can only say "walk on", recognising the paradox that we can only at first seek to achieve/attain/earn yet seeking at all times to open our hearts to the working of Reality-as-is, which is Infinite Compassion, seeking the good of all eternally. In the "eastern" context, much of this comes under the orbit of "non-duality", which often sets the alarm bells going for theists.......yet often theists who very often seem unaware of the teachings of Christian mystics such as Meister Eckhart and St John of the Cross, both of whom are seen as "dharma brothers" by various zennists. Just to forestall those who might argue for the "simplicity of the gospel" as opposed to all such attempts like this to bridge the gulf between theFaiths........as Ken Wilber had said....."The fact that life and death are not two is extremely difficult to grasp, not because it is so complex, but because it is so simple." Indeed, so simple that a "little child shall lead them" and the wise are led empty away. My apologies for going on about this, but in Grace we find the thought, the word, the reality that has the potential to unite all people of Faith, though perhaps not people of all beliefs.

Reading through this thread made me think of a small anecdote found in the book "River of Fire, River of Water" by Taitetsu Unno. It is told by Koshin Ogui, of when he returned home to see his mother. ........ I recalled meeting with my mother on my recent trip to Japan. I hadn't seen her for five years. As soon as I opened the door to the house where I was born, there she was standing right in front of me. She didn't say anything much, but she held my hand and with tears in her eyes, she said, "You came home." Isn't that nice, to be welcomed without any justification, whether I believe in her or not. I realize that I have always been living in her love. I am grateful.

Hi southernwonder, I can see the problem if you live within the Biblebelt, the constant reinforcement of beliefs you fear are correct. I have suffered from depression (though not caused by any fear of anything as such) and after breaking away from a strict Fundamentalist sect - with their warnings of dire consequences ringing in my ears - have had a long battle with hell fears and vindicitive Gods. Here are some words for the heart, written by Mother Julian of Norwich....... If there be anywhere on earth a lover of God who is always kept safe, I know nothing of it, for it was not shown to me. But this was shown: that in falling and rising again we are always kept in that same precious love. The word is love. If you eventually feel strong enough for some mental work ( ) you could try one of the many books that teach Universalism, such as "Patristic Universalism" by David Burnfield. From a deeply biblical perspective, in deep fidelity to Christ, Burnfield argues a very good case for the Universalist position, that eventually ALL will be gathered into the love of God. All the best.

I just happen to be reading some sort of analysis of Four Quartets, the poem by T S Eliot. There is a passage in the introduction that seemed to capture my own approach so well that I feel bound to quote it here. The author is speaking of Eliot's use of various doctrines of various faiths. ......Eliot feels no compunction in alluding to the Bhagavad Gita in one section of the poem and Dante's Paradiso in the next. He neither asserts the rightness nor wrongness of one set of doctrines in relation to the other, nor does he try to reconcile them. Instead, he claims that prior to the differentiation of various religious paths, there is a universal substratum called Word (logos) of which religions are concretions. This logos is an object both of belief and disbelief. It is an object of belief in that, without prior belief in the logos, any subsequent religious belief is incoherent. It is an object of disbelief in that belief in it is empty, the positive content of actual belief is fully invested in religious doctrine. There we are. My own belief in the Word is mediated via Pure Land Buddhism and its teachings. Others can choose differently. And I truly find that the expression of the Word in other Faiths help my understanding of my own. Just to add to this. To read of the lives, and to read the testimonies, the words, of others of various Faiths as they seek to give voice to their actual experience of "enlightenment", or being found have been chosen, or the actuality of grace......to hear them express the selfsame thing but couched in varied words, supports and helps me see the reality that is often hidden from us in this world. As I have sought to say before, in Christian terms, the "work of Christ" goes far beyond our own experience or beliefs. And rather than fight such a thought, it should be cause to rejoice. Interfaith dialogue is frowned upon by some, their opinion I assume being that if one has the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, then why enter into dialogue with another "truth"? However, for those interested, the Buddhist concept of "sunyata" (or "emptiness" ) is seen to be in correspondence with the mysticism of those in the Christian Tradition such as Eckhart and Jacob Bohme, in as much as their understanding of God is that as the "ineffable".......the "groundless". The tragedy is, that to mention "mystic" to some is to suggest the bending of spoons and suchlike, if not Ouija Boards and suchlike.....Rather than to see it as a rich source of Christian revelation of the Divine, by those who have sought the experience that belief can only point towards. One interesting dialogue took place between the Christian Theologian John Hick and the zen Buddhist Masao Abe. In this dialogue, Hick acknowledged that even within the monotheistic faiths the experience of God differed......the Jewish experience, the Christian experience of the Heavenly Father, the Muslim experience of Allah. And these themselves differed even more radically with the Buddhist and Hindu forms of religious experience. And yet each of these great spiritual traditions seems to be more or less equally effective as a context of the salvific transformation of human beings from self-centeredness to a re-centering in some manifestation of the ultimate. That they apparently produce essentially the same human transformation - though taking varying concrete forms within different cultures - suggests that through these traditions the same ultimate transforming reality is affecting us. This is because - as is suggested by John Hick - our human experience is always culturally conditioned. Or, as an ancient Hindu text says..."Thou art formless; thy only form is our knowledge of Thee"

As I understand it, there are certain expressions of the Christian Faith (for instance, the Eastern Orthodox) that teach what could be called "Original Blessing". This in as much as the "image of God" in which we are made was not totally destroyed/erased by the "sin of Adam". This in contrast to the idea and teaching of St Augustine, of the Western Tradition, who was the one who introduced the doctrine of "Original Sin". It seems to be the case that a predisposition to either the one or the other will often dictate the interpretation of the Biblical text by each believer. For me, it is healthier to have the faith that the "ground" of all reality, the Hidden Ground of Love, is eternally ours as pure gift. Rather than believing that we are totally estranged and divorced from such, and such will only be re-instituted/repaired when we "accept Christ". In other words, salvation is more a recognition of that which IS, not a change of the Divines attitude towards us, i.e, from only the promise of love to love itself, or as more commonly understood among some, from wrath to love. "Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today and forever"

Ha ha! I never realised that Kansas was much like England..... Welcome!

HI again, As I see it, the word as text is just the pointer to the Living Word. Too often we think that Christ was only manifest during His earthly ministry, yet the divine manifest Christ is from all eternity ( as suggested by the Prelude to St John's Gospel) For me, seeking the reality of Christ within any theology born of pouring over the Biblical word as text is a second best to seeking Christ in each and every moment, in each and every human being we meet.

Speaking generally, I would not distinguish between an inerrant Bible and one with errors. I have found the contrast - at least for me - is between the Bible as text (or words) and the Bible as the Living Word. It seems to me that all faiths have an "ejector" button that seeks to throw us out of the word as text and into the Living Word. For Christianity, it would be found in such words as "The letter kills but the spirit gives life". "They search the scriptures daily for in them they think they have eternal life, but it is those scriptures that testify to Me." (John 5:39) The Living Word can be found anywhere.

If I understand Calvinism correctly, it asserts the pure "Sovereignty of God" in respect of those elected to salvation. This corresponds very much with Pure Land Buddhism, where one of its "founding fathers" Shinran taught that the reality of Grace requires nothing from the side of human beings, including the act of faith, as the CAUSAL BASIS for salvation. Unfortunately, rightly or wrongly, Calvin believed that the Bible taught that not all are so elected, unlike Pure Land Buddhism (and Christian Universalism) which is explicitly Universalist. So as the old song goes......."just take what you need and leave the rest".....

Here is a link to a relevant article, well worth reading, reflecting upon and being inspired by. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lance-bass/the-first-thing-my-mom-di_b_4556471.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices

I would recommend "Patristic Universalism" by David Burnfield. If you look it up on Amazon you will find reviews and details. All the best Derek

Many thanks for all the replies. I am off now for a few days visiting my daughter, partner and grandchildren and will have no access to a computer.

Often a contrast is drawn between the "western" approach to God as a Person and the "eastern" impersonal/non-theistic approach. Thus a lot of Western religion centres around the relationship between our own "persons" and the Person of God, while the Eastern appears to concentrate more on being "one" with Reality. My own experience has led me to the conclusion that much of this supposed contrast is caused by the total confusion as to what we mean by a "person". As a starting point I would observe that if we, as we so often seem to do, identify ourselves purely with the empirical ego, and then identify the empirical ego with the "person"..........when we then say God is "personal" (or a person) we are in fact asking for big big trouble. Some have observed that the empirical ego is in fact the source and centre of every illusion......and not just the Buddha! As Thomas Merton has observed, and I agree with him, "suffering, as both Christianity and Buddhism see, each in its own way, is part of our very ego-identity and empirical existence." So we have "person" and we have the "ego self", we have who we see ourselves as being, and there is what we perhaps truly are. Any thoughts?

Hi Michael, Welcome! Derek

Hi, I sympathise. My own distaste with certain Christian beliefs has been part of the reason I have now ended by identifying as a Pure Land Buddhist. When I post now, on various forums, I do so in the context of Interfaith dialogue. More often than not, in engagement with Christians I seek to say that the "work of Christ" extends beyond Creed or any particular Theology, and even encompasses the whole world of Faith, "eastern", "western" and all points between....... This has earned me the titles "Anti-christ" , "son of satan", the "voice of satan" and "anti-christian bigot" (these from the past year, the names from further back are now fortunately beginning to fade from memory. Given your own problems with "hell" I would recommend the following......"The Inescapable Love of God" by Thomas Talbot, and "Patristic Universalism" by David Burnfield, both of which argue convincingly for the Universalist option, the latter especially being extremely rich in Biblical support.

Hi Steve, As far as Merton is concerned, I tend to like his Journals and Letters rather than his books (with some exceptions) Though his books are never didactic in the extreme sense of the word, nevertheless I love more the more haphazard freedom of the Journals and letters. Which in a way points to my own approach to ideas of the self and any attempt to reconcile one thing with another..........haphazard... Having said that, it does seem to me that more often than not Christianity seems to address the redemption of the self. And as I understand it, Buddhism does not so much claim that there is no self to redeem, and certainly not that "it" must be got rid of, but that what is must needs be clarified by "wisdom/insight". I accept that the whole subject is complex, far too much so for my own poor brain at times, which is why I gravitate towards the Pure land tradition where much of this brain searching is left to Amida (or, as a Christian would say, grace) Thanks

As I see it there can be a movement in experience from an "I-Thou" relationship to one of "Not I, but Christ lives in me". Merton - again..... - captures another side of this movement.......... The innocence and purity of heart which belong to paradise are a complete emptiness of self in which all is the work of God, the free and unpredictable expression of His love, the work of grace. In the purity of original innocence, all is done in us but without us, in nobis et sine nobis. But before we reach that level, we must also learn to work on the other level of 'knowledge' - scientia - where grace works in us but 'not without us' - in nobis sed non sine nobis." (From a dialogue between Merton and D T Suzuki, "Wisdom in Emptiness" from the book of essays "Zen and the Birds of Appetite")

Just to clarify, I see "relationship" as being very much at the heart of Reality-as-is. As is often said (if various Buddhist forums are consulted...... ) non-duality means "not two" but does not mean "One". Perhaps Merton can explain better........ The self is not its own center and does not orbit around itself; it is centered on God, the one center of all, which is everywhere and nowhere, in whom all are encountered, from whom all proceed. Thus from the very start this consciousness is disposed to encounter the 'the other' with whom it is already united anyway 'in God' At least, I see it as explaining it better...............