It seems that much has been made about our religious differences throughout history, and that kind of intolerance continues to be seen in the present day and age. I continue to be baffled that it concerns people halfway around the world whether or not I am accepted as the legitimate heir of the dharma lineage through the Buddhist and Eastern Catholic successions. I am equally mystified by members of my own community, who waste precious thoughts and energy trying to convince others (and me) that I am the most recent incarnation of this person or that.
All of this preoccupation with things external, and with complicated theologies, mythos, rituals and legends does very little, if anything, to alleviate suffering.
One of my greatest influences, as a contemplative monk, has always been Thomas Merton. Although he died before I had a chance to meet him personally, one of his Benedictine brothers was, in fact, my refuge guru and spiritual mentor through the first sixteen years of my life, and Abishtektananda-ji often told me stories about his brother from Gethsemane Abbey. One of the things that Merton wrote in his journal particularly struck me this morning, during my period of lectio (spiritual study):
“Either you look at the universe as a very poor creation out of which no one can make anything, or you look at your own life and your own part in the universe as infinitely rich, full of inexhaustible interest, opening out into the infinite further possibilities for study, contemplation and praise.”
(Journal, July 17, 1956)
That summarises very nicely the way that I believe one should approach their spiritual practice (sadhana). Sadhana is about looking within, not without… examining one’s own part in the universe, as it opens to further infinite possibilities and potential for healing, for service and for compassion.
On one of the discussion groups with which I interact, there was an interesting post on the similarities between the Druid path and Buddhism. Someone commented that from their perspective, Druidism had more in common with Hinduism, citing a few misunderstandings of the essential teachings of both paths, and looking at a literalist view of “what Buddhism teaches”. Their intention was not mean-spirited or intolerant at all, and was more of a conditioned response, undoubtedly reinforced by some of the beliefs of the more religious schools of Buddhism, rather than secular Buddhism or Buddhist philosophy.
In fact, if one looks at Buddhism, Hinduism, Druidism and Celtic spirituality, one would find that the four paths are extremely synergistic and fundamentally alike. It is a misconception that Buddhism is alone in its belief in “no-self” (emptiness). The purest and most original forms of Hindu dharma only use the metaphor of the soul (atman) as a means of illustrating the same thing that Buddhists teach with different metaphors. To pretend that there is any difference between the Hindu’s belief in transmigration of the soul, and the Buddhist belief in reincarnation of one’s “habits” is patently absurd. Similarly, it is arrogance and ego which cause Buddhist literalists to imagine that the Buddhist canon contains literal stories of the life of Buddha Sakyamuni, much less his actual words. (And always amuses me that these same fundamentalists will be quick to dismiss the stories in the Bhagavad Gita about Krsna, or tales of Greek, Roman and Celtic gods and goddesses.)
Life is a spiritual journey. We need not turn to complex theologies, ancient stories, mythos, ritual or traditions for spiritual growth. These are often useful tools to support the journey, but they are not part of the journey organically. The spiritual journey is our everyday life… our everyday experiences… right here, right where you and I are now. No academic background is needed. No religion is needed. No salvation is needed. No knowledge of particular scriptures, prayers, rituals or practices are needed. Everything you need to advance along the spiritual path already exists completely within you.
One man, clearly suffering from a number of unhealthy psychological and spiritual issues, spent weeks imposing his particularly warped take on a time-honoured spiritual path, creating chaos and discord with every post. When confronted about his distorted and misleading posts, he began to rant and rave about such nonsensical things as “absolute truth” and showed tremendous disrespect for those whose demonstrated study of the things he pretends to understand (including me) was distasteful and quite pathetic.
This preoccupation with absolute truth, whether an abstract idea, or something we force into concretised form, such as gods, goddesses, tantra or liturgies, scriptures or prophecies, is rather unhealthy and not terribly useful. The late pope, John Paul II, embarrassed learned Catholic theologians, and distanced the Roman Catholic institution from true ecumenism, when in his book, Crossing the Threshold of Hope, he wrote: “If [Christ] were only a wise man like Socrates, if He were a ‘prophet’ like Mohammed, if He were ‘enlightened’ like Buddha, without any doubt He would not be what He is. He is the one mediator between God and humanity.”
John Paul II demonstrated his ignorance and intolerance in that statement, like so many fundamentalist Christians, imagining that Christianity provides the only way to achieve this unhealthy need for “salvation”, and implying that all other spiritual paths are of no use. In fact, Rabbi Jesus, my Teacher, was only a wise man like Socrates, a prophet like Mohammed, self-realised like Buddha Sakyamuni. Nothing more. Nothing less. In order to believe that he served in some sort of imaginary role as mediator between humanity and their god, one has to embrace a belief in the god-concept as a “person”. Therefore, such statements foster religious intolerance, separatism and do nothing to foster compassion, understanding and bridge-building.
I consider myself to be a very devout disciple of Rabbi Jesus. I also consider myself to be a devout disciple of Buddha Sakyamuni. I have no idea whether any of the written myths and legends about either of these two great teachers are even remotely true. In fact, I have no factual or historical means of proving that either of these two men existed at all. But that neither proves nor disproves that they lived as great sages and teachers. For me, no book is “sacred”, because books contain ideas and idea are always subject to change… therefore they are impermanent. All phenomena are impermanent, and therefore cannot be worshipped or turned to for salvation, liberation or “a way out”.
While my detractors love to point out that I do not believe in the metaphoric “personal” god of the Abrahamic religions (whether one calls it G-D, God, Yahweh, Jehovah, Allah or El Shaddai), it would be incorrect to call me a “devil worshipper”, since I don’t believe it any literal supernatural beings. Period. I find such things as gods, goddesses, and such to be very useful metaphors and representations of intangible ideas, aspects of enlightenment, etc. And even the liturgies, pujas and prayers used by various cultures and spiritual traditions can be beautiful and rich, when approached with the proper disposition and understanding. One woman called me “Luciferian” in her blog last week, and she is certainly not entirely inaccurate. I do consider myself to be, as I said before, a disciple of the one who was referred to in the original Greek and Latin translations of the Christian scriptures as Lucifer – a reference to Rabbi Jesus himself, which later became misrepresented as some mythical “demon”. Again, it is sad that the greatest defenders of the fundamentalist faith seem to know the least about it!
My god is Love. I believe as many of the traditions, including the Christian tradition, Buddhism and Hinduism teach, that Love is the Eternal Principle. Some might express that (as we find in the Johannine Gospel) as “God is Love”, while others (like Sakyamuni) might say, “Love is the Eternal Law.” It makes no difference. My only god is Love Itself.
My religion, therefore, is Compassion. More accurately, I have no religion, but my spiritual path is the Path of Compassion. I see religion as being something that is apparently useful for many people, and which can serve as a fair safety-net for those who feel better imagining such things exist. However, when one truly embraces compassion, the need for a safety net goes away, because one recognises that every step is taken in groundlessness… and where there is no ground, where ya gonna fall?
My path or tradition is Service. Not service to “my own”, not service to “some” but service to every being that suffers. If there is one person excluded from being served, then all the service in the universe is in vain; because the objective of service is to alleviate suffering. If we exclude one person from being helped, then our commitment to alleviate suffering is bullshit.
For some, the traditions, superstitions and myths of particular religions work for them. But tales of miracles, walking on water, rising from the dead and virgin births don’t impress me. Perhaps Thich Nhat Hanh said it best, in Living Buddha, Living Christ, when he wrote: “The miracle is not to walk on water. The miracle is to walk on the green earth, dwelling deeply in the present moment and feeling truly alive.”
That is my path… my mission… my passion.
Tell me about yours!
No comments:
Post a Comment