The Precious Jewel

"Don't covet the leftovers of others while losing the precious jewel that hangs around your own neck."  --Zen Master Bassui

Prayer versus practice: As many others before and since him, the Zen Master Bassui wrote
"A monk is one who leaves the house of delusion. He is a liberated person. One who recites prayers from the sutras and performs various formal practices but does not have an alert mind and creative mind may well experience happiness and prosperity in his next life; if however one whose mind remains in this dull state, and who commits evil acts... will finally in his own body sink into hell."
So for this reason "foolish prosperity" can be called the enemy of all time."

A liberated person may not always recite invocations from the Sutras and may not perform memorial services, but all those who have contact with this one will eventually become believers in the teaching of liberation... That's why even in the teaching sects, the true purpose is studying the commentaries of the sutras and practicing the teachings set forth to attain Buddahood. paraphrased

Why so? the Simple mind asks. It seems that the Master seeks to instruct in the difference between belief and faith. Many of us see religion strictly in terms of belief. We are instructed and do seek to self-instruct in the tenets and the sutras of any given sect. We seek merit and we seek to learn prayers, yet Bassui insists that the one who is liberated may not always aspire to master these things and yet attain Buddhahood.

How so? It is because as Bassui also observes that belief without the conjunction of faith is insufficient to "leave the house of delusion." One must live those beliefs in a real, concrete way, the way of experience and then faith enters one's practice as community. The community of believers is Sangha. This practice life is as important as any idea one might read. It is "a precious jewel which hangs readily available about each person's neck."

Two + Two Equals Five

"Death is a dogma. It can't be debated or explored rationally. Those who do, don't seem to return to quantify it."  --Simply thinking

Relatively speaking, in the realm of mathematics, preciseness can be relied upon, science too. There is the "scientific" method; we all have been more or less indoctrinated with it from our school years. That in the world which is measurable, quantifiable can be sure; it can be said to be true. So there are absolutes in life.

By mathematical, demonstrable methods, because we can see actual objects, count them, the sum of two and two is known. It can be argued for a "truth." The rising and the setting of the sun, the seasons of the earth, they too can be argued for as "truth." Many readers will quickly, instinctively argue that two and two is four! Why? Because it's true!

What is truth? Is it my way or your way? Is truth what a powerful person says it is, or do I decide, choose my truths?
The Webster dictionary defines truth simply as: the state of being, the body of real things, events and facts. Its more archaic definition interestingly is: fidelity or constancy.

G.K. Chesterton who wrote on many philosophical subjects early in the last century reprises again in The Complete Thinker, the words and ideas of Chesterton edited by Dale Ahlquist. Alquist quotes Chesterton, “Thinking means connecting things.” He writes of Chesterton that 'he wants to know and to connect everything.'
 Instead today we, "want religion kept out of politics. We want it kept out of economics. Well, we want religion kept out of everything! But we have also separated meaning from art, and art from beauty. We have separated health from human dignity, and have separated the family from the home. We have separated the big questions from the little questions and neither is getting answered very well." Chesterton argues that it is today, 'the current failing of man to engage in thinking clearly.'

Things then aren't going very well for the "oneness" under this scenario, now are they? There is, instead, more and growing dichotomies, dualities and increasing egos to match. "You have yours and I have mine," is a prevalent mindset. When much of life is "relative," we, each of us, may fall into the notion that we are the dictators of ourselves, the centers of our own universes. Our feelings, transient as they may be, become the arbiters of existence in the worldly realm. If it feels good, makes us happy, well then--do it!

Without "natural law", the slippery slope that is life becomes entirely negotiable; there is no good or bad. So why isn't the sum of two and two five? How can anyone say that's wrong??

 "Every man has a different philosophy; this is my philosophy and it suits me" – the habit of saying this is mere ego. A universal philosophy is not constructed to fit a man; a universal philosophy is constructed to fit a universe. Each person can no more possess a private belief than one can possess the sun and moon privately." --Chesterton

*In other words,
John's truth is relative, while Bob's truth is absolute; therefore John accepts Bob's truth. Bob does not accept John's truth.
OR: It's true for everyone that nothing is true for everyone.
In logical/mathematical terms:
If A, then B.
If B, then not/negative A.
Therefore, if A, then not -A.
This form of argument is called a hypothetical syllogism, a statement of deductive logic which here proves false, because one cancels the other out, though many believe it in its simpler, verbal forms. To put it in mathematical symbols:
 x=y, y=z, therefore x=z.

Think about that.

*To review the truth or falseness of this type of statement, see the classic text on the subject, Copi's Logic.

What Part of Me Believes That?

"Sometimes we are startled. Where did that come from? I didn't know I felt so strongly." -- Robert Johnson, writer, Jungian psychologist

As a student and one associated with the late Carl Jung, Robert Johnson carries on Jung's work. Jung, unlike many of his generation, was one who believed that the base root of most all personal problems is not functional, some described such as "toxic", "games," "setting fences and boundaries," but rather spiritual challenges or crises that are not limited solutions or positions; instead they are potentially limitless and as unique as the persons who pose them. These other terms have no place in the spiritual world; they are 'pop psychology' and not terribly helpful. Sometimes they are denigrating; often they indicate power seeking by the one who utters them. The Simple mind avoids thoughts like these because people are greater than the sum of their mistakenness and sometimes confusion.

We can learn by examining our issues closely. What is it about me that feels this way? Why do I think that? What part of it sets off this (intense) reaction in me? Robert Johnson takes up a small part of this issue writing, "We remember getting worked up in a conversation and blurting out some strong opinion that we didn't know consciously we held." And we are startled by this sudden revelation not only to those listening but in our self equally! There is this sudden surge of emotional energy and maybe we suddenly find we are being our self, because what constitutes our self is the totality which necessarily includes our unconscious pronouncements. These "hidden parts of our self have strong feelings and want to express themselves."

Sometimes the hidden or unconscious part of our self is zany, sometimes its out of sync with social norms; sometimes it's embarrassing, violent, or humiliating when these facets of the self, parts of our personality, abruptly emerge. Other times, points of talent or strength arise, suddenly surprising us with their skill and clarity. As we grow, we may conclude that we are a different kind of person than we previously thought. Complicating matters, our qualities both positive and negative, emotional and intellectual may or may not arrive at precisely the most appropriate moments. This can leave us feeling strongly for or against someone or something and having the intellectual thought, Why? We may not yet understand.

Into the mix, our self definition is called into play; we are challenged by it. The unconscious is a huge energy system. Like others have famously observed the heart has its reasons, and the reception of its images and messages can be deeply informative to our spiritual and growing selves.

Culture Needs Eastern Wisdom

"The horizons of the world are no longer confined to Europe [or the West]."
  -- A Thomas Merton Reader, essays by Thomas Merton

While some visitors here may be confounded by the name of this blog and its stated aims, be no mistake, the "raft is not the shore, nor is the wave without the water."  The winds are in the waves. This is everyday mind. Writing in his collected essays, Theologian, and great friend of Eastern philosophy and wisdom, Cistercian monk, Thomas Merton speaks to a subject increasingly important in modern life. He writes in an essay that "we have to gain new perspectives, and on this our spiritual and even our physical survival may depend... Does Christian culture need Oriental wisdom?" It is, he says, absolutely essential to introduce into our studies, the Humanities and a dimension of wisdom oriented to contemplation as well as to wise action.... It is no longer sufficient to go back over our European and Christian traditions."

Merton asks if Christian, western culture needs Asian wisdom. He asks if the current lack of Humanities education by the vast majority of educators and students leads to a great, gaping void. While many think of the Humanities to be synonymous with the Arts such as painting, drawing, music or theater, it is, in fact, so much more. This is moreover what Merton ponders. He says, "while it would certainly be rash to state this without further qualification. We may ask ourselves a few pertinent questions on the subject...
Firstly, it is quite clear that non-Christian religion has anything that Christianity needs, so far as it is a supernaturally revealed religion. Yet from the point of incarnation, of revealed Christian truth, we know how much of Greek and Roman patrimony there is in the faith. We know also of the breadth of Aristotle's use of Arabian commentators and mystics; we know of similar use of Asian philosophy and wisdom."

"Have we not been too ready to dismiss Oriental philosophy without really attempting to understand it? Do we not shrug it off? Can we be content to leave it at the level of comparative religion, like we might saunter through the Louvre in Paris comparing paintings? Do we simply study these systems from an a-priori logic, judging them false, but interesting anyway?"
To these musings Merton writes decidedly, "we cannot arrive at an understanding of any wisdom, natural or super-natural by arguing for or against it. Wisdom is not penetrated by logical analysis." The values in [Oriental] religion reveal themselves only on the plane of spiritual experience, or in the least, on a plane of aesthetic experience. They belong [also], to the natural order with deep affinities to super-naturalism, of course. A firm grasp of them leads us to both a deeper understanding of Eastern and Western values." This Merton says is vital to us in our modern, everyday lives.