Hostage to the Idea of Possession

"Eros makes promises, but agape keeps them." -- The Four Loves by C.S. Lewis

Often we find ourselves in places which we never have dreamed of before, places which call for our complete attention, and challenge us beyond measure. Love is one of those places; yet there is no school for love, no way to read a book to easily or painlessly learn of its nature. So we come into adult life armed with the love we learned as children within our family, the love that we may have encountered in our religious experiences, the friendships we develop in our youth, the pleasures of shared activities and hobbies with family, friends, groups or clubs. All this we bring into adult life, but romantic love, eros, we have the least direct experience of as young adults. Perhaps we witnessed the many occasions of fondness and affection our parents exchanged, a friend in high school, a romantic flush that grew for a few months and then faltered.

Bringing these early experiences into the everyday world, we find that one day, we are inexplicably drawn, impelled into a connection with one who is not our family, not quite like anyone whom we've known before, and yet we are drawn to them, to a flame that seems to burn brightly when together. A relationship develops, perhaps not like one we've known before in our young life, but then a bit like every relationship we have experienced. There is friendliness, sharing, laughter, understanding, and perhaps, a quiet peacefulness when together. But what of it? Much of our social relationships are influenced and dictated not by the individuals, but by societal norms and values which seek to define and place persons into fairly rigid categories. And society, as a component of the everyday world is rigid in conforming to the established norms. Unlike the words of poets, the mystics, and philosophers, living a love story can be difficult and confusing. We, in love, suffer strongly and frequently. In adult life, is this all of love-- it is so complicated and often painful, we think.

Poets and philosophers alike have spent many words describing the almost indescribable. They write words of love, friendship, affection, brotherhood; the writer Dante said of love, "[there was] the love that moves the sun and all the stars." It is this love, all encompassing that concerns Peter Kreeft in his book, The God who Loves You. He writes in a Christian perspective of love experiences. "Everything is a gift from God," writes Kreeft. This is, he says, incredibly simple, yet our human tendency towards complexity makes it look murky and confusing. The writer, Chesterton, said "life is always confusing for one without clear principles." Yet here is, says Kreeft, simplicity itself, shining brightly if we will only look. God is Love. What he wills for me, comes from goodness, for my own good. This, "is not poetic fancy, but sober, logical fact."

We may then view love in the light of goodness. What comes in a life may be a sign, an indication pointing the way; it means something. Our suffering in love means something, in this view. Christian thought believes that like the Christ upon his cross, our suffering is for all, for the common good--ours and others. Love then, points the way back to the divine giver. The parables of the Christ do not tell us to love humanity in the abstract. We are called instead to love our neighbor as ourself. We are not called to like our neighbor, but to love as ourself. It is to individuals that this love is directed. God's love then is personal, like a mother or a father love; it is unique because it becomes us, and giving it then, becomes its expression and cause. Love means then to share the light of the world, one person at a time with our family and friends.

Here is the part which becomes difficult for us: When we share with our neighbor, love, as ourself, we sometimes confuse the love God gives with our physical, corporal self. It's as if, in love, we have given our self literally, and not spiritually; thus in ego, a sense of possession arises. You are mine and I am yours. Perhaps even ownership, a relation which gives no heed to free will, replacing loving freely.

God is a lover. God is not a businessman or a manager taking account of all his stock. Martin Luther wrote in his treatise, The Liberty of a Christian, that what God wants is not possession nor a technical performance in life, but something simple and profound. God wants our hearts. He gives and we receive through the Spirit. A heart may not be demanded or bought; it may not be contained or caged. It is freely given, and freely received. Luther was right. This is a simple truth which liberates us from the darkness and confusion of love. In love we are free.

As adults we may first try many ways to obtain and capture a heart. Some may work for a time, but ultimately the heart of love is free and flies where it wills. It cannot be possessed. This is frightening to one who feels great desire or need for that heart. Yet thinking carefully, one may discover its source is not the person who first made its presence felt, the Beloved, but the One who gave it first in the Spirit of Love. The one who loves all, who loves freely.

The chains of possession must not be; yet at times ignorance or wickedness overcomes, and possession is confused for love. It is not. Love is free and must be. This recognition of freely given love is a love that honors, respects and lasts at least as long as the One who formed us in it. Thus as adults mature, many come to the knowledge that romantic love "reveals the beloved, and is meant to point us towards union, Oneness with God."

What Do You Live For?

"What if what we long hoped for does not come? The willingness to live for a better day."

What am I living for? Living for the joy of acquisition and power is self serving; living for the good of others is perhaps more in the Way. Yet we can seem to think ourselves to be living in the Way and yet we are not. There are those who convince themselves they are right; their ego has the answer, it is good--for me.
Do you live for freedom? In one sense freedom is the absence of restraint. There is nothing to hinder me to act as I choose. Suppose, however, that you live in a universe that for every choice I might make, the world has already determined the response, responses for which I have no control. I may remain physically free, no one has tied me down or locked me up, but I seem to lack freedom in a more durable and possible sense. While I am free to act as I choose, my choices are not free.

There is another type of freedom says the Christian philosopher and theologian, Augustine of Hippo. In the book, On Free Choice of the Will, translated by Thomas Williams, Augustine writes, "I have freedom to choose in a way that is not determined by any thing outside my control, what Augustine called metaphysical freedom. The view that human beings have metaphysical freedom is also known as Libertarianism."
Augustine is one of the great defenders of Libertarianism. He says that human beings are endowed with a power called the will. A person can direct his will to go in seemingly limitless directions. His own freedom of direction, then, can be thought of as free choice.

A person may choose for himself money, power, influence, sex, excesses of all types; these choices so mentioned have all been external choices, made by factors outside the person. If so, then a person could not be entirely responsible for them.
But it is not external factors that determine our choices. Rather it is internal states: beliefs, desires, hopes and fears. Since it is the desire, the will of a person and the character which determines one's choices, freedom therefore is not threatened.

Yet a Libertarian like Augustine would not be swayed by this. He says that in fact, human beings are rational thinking, and free choice makes them therefore responsible. Because persons have metaphysical freedom in this view, they are capable of making a real difference in the world. We may write our own "scripts." We may be truly in the image of God, the Creator, bringing something into the world that previously did not exist before us.

Knowledge, Commitment and Freedom

"Only true knowledge of a person makes it possible to commit one's freedom to the other."
--Karol Wojtyla

"Love," says Christian theologian, Wojtyla, 'consists of a commitment which limits one's freedom-- it is a "giving" of the self... to limit one's freedom on behalf of another. Limitation might seem to be something negative or unpleasant, but love makes it a positive, joyful and creative thing."

If this freedom is not engaged by the will, it becomes negative, and gives to human feeling, a sense of emptiness and unfulfilment. Yet love commits to freedom and " imbues it with that to which the will is naturally attracted-- the element of goodness. Thus the will then aspires to the good; freedom is the providence of the will, existing for and because of love; it is the way of love in which human beings share most fully in the good. "Human freedom then is one of the highest in the moral order of things," says Wojtyla. This order encompasses the spectrum of man's longings and desires; his growing pathways of awareness of the life in the spirit. But man longs for love more than he longs for freedom. In choosing, there is an affirmation of value in response to natural, sense perceptions, to sentiment. "Sexual values [as an expression of the appetite] tend to impose themselves," regardless of the choosing of the possible values of a whole person.

For this reason, a man, especially, one who has not succumbed to mere passion, but preserves his interior innocence, usually finds himself in the arena of struggle between the sexual instinct and a need for freedom, or liberty to do as he otherwise wishes. This natural instinct, this drive of Eros cannot be underestimated; it is a powerful, yet limited drive. Eros can, and often lays siege to the will itself, clouding the other values with sensual intensity. Through a perception of sentiment, however, the will may be freed of the vice-like hold of a conscious, lusting desire, of a consumer view; rather it is transformed by sentiment, and the action of the will to a longing for a person of the other sex, for a possibility of wholeness.

It is love, finally, when the will enters into the equation, providing a conscious commitment of one's freedom in respect to another person, in recognition and affirmation, providing a creative contribution of the love that develops between the persons. Thus love is between persons, existing in a space that is neither one or the other, is created, and not possessed. So then in love, in freedom, there is a conscious will for another person's good, an unqualified good, a good unlimited, that is a person's happiness.

"Life has taught us that love does not consist in gazing at each other but in looking outward in the same direction. " -Antoine de St. Exupery

We desire moreover to make the beloved happy, to please them and see to their good. It is this precisely that makes possible for a person to be re-born in love, to become alive, aware of the riches within himself, of his creativity, his spirituality, of his fertility. The person, in love, compels belief in his own spiritual powers; it awakens the creativity and the sense of worth within the individual. And yet for all its lofty abundance, human lovers must learn to translate their highest impulses into the everyday world.

Does God Need To Be Famous?

"We can still remain a free person. Free from what?" Going Home by Thich Nhat Hanh

Writing in his book, Going Home, Buddhist Monk and scholar Thich Nhat Hanh writes, musing about the fame of God, God the Father, as he calls it. He says, "there is another dimension of life that we may not have touched... it is very crucial that we touch it... the dimension of the sky, heaven, God the Father...looking again at water and waves... if we are able to touch them both, you'll be free from all these notions."

Water is not separate from the wave, insists Hanh. We are born into our "spiritual life' when we are encouraged to touch the other dimension, God, the Father. Now this father is not the usual notion of a father; rather it is used by Hanh to point to another reality. "We should not be stuck to the word 'father' and the notion 'father.' So then he writes, "Hallowed be his name,' does not really mean  a name, a mere name."

Lao-Tsu wrote that a name which can be named is not a name at all. Therefore it is important that we be careful with names. They may cause us to become trapped into notions. "Enlightenment means the extinction of all notions." So back to the water and the wave: if the wave should believe in the notion of a wave, then it will not recognize the water. Trapped into the notion of 'wave,' it can never be free because water and wave need one another to be free.

In the same way one must be very careful about the name, Buddha. Hanh observes that,  "use[d] in such a way that it helps the other to be free. Sometimes we think, "I can't really do this..." Yet we can. We really can! We can still remain a free person. "Free from what? Free from notions, free from words. God as a Father does not need fame. Does God need to be famous?" Thinking of God in this way, says Thich Nhat Hanh, is dangerous.

He concludes his talk with a discussion of the Holy Spirit. "The Holy Spirit, the energy of God within us, is the true door. We know the Holy Spirit as energy, not as notions or words. Wherever there is attention, understanding, the Holy Spirit is there. Wherever there is love and faith, the Holy Spirit is there. All of us are capable of recognizing the Holy Spirit when it is present... All of us are capable of doing so, and then we are not bound by, or slaves to notions and words; we know how to cultivate the Holy Spirit."

I Am That

"...One who is ascended has achieved [the] Christ's injunction to be in this world but not of it." --The Path to Love by Deepak Chopra


I am that,
You are That,
All this is That.

These seemingly simple statements, from the Upanishads of India are thousands of years old; together they express what Hinduism calls Moksha, or liberation. Some see Moksha as freedom in love, enlightenment or ascension. Moksha ends karmic bonds. It is a freedom to be empty, but emptiness is not nothingness.

Many persons commonly suppose "they are what they eat," and in a little way this is true but not literally. Because one likes ice cream, for example, or chocolate doesn't make one an ice cream or a chocolate; because cowboys ride horses that doesn't make them a horse either. Nor is one either male or female by the simple wearing of any particular article of clothing. The same is true with ones' profession; the job one performs on a regular basis does not define the soul or the body; so it does not create Moksha either.


So often we fall into these notions of defining ourselves in literal, unskillful ways. It's easy to do and for many the application of a label is comforting; it provides a box or a stage from which to operate our daily lives, but it is not Moksha which is without limits. Moksha initiates one into a new birth of wholeness, of fullness. It states quite profoundly I am That, you are That, all this is That. Mokesha draws one close to the Divine.

The seeking is done. You find God is within; love enfolds  into pure religious devotion. You are simply an observer, a witness or a seer to life's journeys. The moment you are able to look deep within and see that I am That, meaning you see your lightness along with your darkness, your virtues and your sins as one, equal-- everything that matters is now a part of Being itself.
In other words, I am Being, and not anything else. 'I am as I am; you may love me or hate me; I aspire to no other. I am only myself.'

You are That tells the seer that they too are part of the Creation, both sacred be-loved and the lover. Creation becomes personal.

All is That tells us that as part of Creation, co-creators, we are all intimately and divinely involved in infinite consciousness. The possible expands, and very much-- because you are so much more than what you eat.

The Human Self, One, Irreplaceble

"I would know you in order to know myself."

The word person has great significance. "Today our way of thinking about people is defined in quantity...so many thousands, millions...yet there is always one, human person indivisible." That person is unique, irreplaceable, the creation of which remains a metaphysical mystery.
Persons may be described and regarded as form, physical bodies, not unlike other bodies, both animate and inanimate. However in the individual a development takes place. The development of thought, knowledge and intellect takes place on a deeper level in the person.
All are on the developmental plane as persons. Even the least gifted person whom we may meet belongs to this great human reality of the person in development.

Is each human person really created in the image and likeness of God, the Creator? While man may not deny his link to nature, and resemblance to the world known in past times as the animal world, it is not possible to integrate all that a person possesses without recognition of the "something more" that defines him.
The something more which defines him may be called the conscience. A person is, in the view of theologian and philosopher, Karol Wotjyla in fact, conscience. The conscience provides the definitive structure which differentiates the person from other elements in the created world. It is the basis of the definitive and unrepeatable I.

A story that comes out of the World War II era, one from a Polish concentration camp, recounted by Max Kolbe regarding his own execution by a camp executioner. Both he and the executioner were human beings, each presumably with a conscience. On one hand, one is one admired and esteemed for his faith and courage in horrible circumstances; the other is a person to be rejected by others of every faith, scorned and repudiated.

The greatness or smallness of a person is first developed within his conscience. When considering this notion, we must look to the ends of its development, that is in death. Is then death the full ends of a person? Is it in fact a defining reality? The materialism of the world sees death as an end, so much so that a person's life is a steady progression towards its inevitable end in death, beyond which there is nothing.
The Judeo-Christian tradition teaches in the Tanakh or Old Testament book, Genesis, "You are dust, and to dust you will return."
But if death is really the final end, then what happens to lead one to a final heroic act of faith and courage, and another to play the part of executioner, halting a life?
What about good and evil?
The French thinker and writer, Jean Paul Sartre wrote that man aspires to that which he defines as God, "even if this is an empty word, so that it is a useless passion." Yet persons are multidimensional. They develop slowly, unevenly; they develop judgment and wisdom over time. That development is the beginnings of eternal life.
In the course of a person's development he comes to know that there is a tree, if you like, of good and evil; he finds that at any turn he may choose good or evil. This knowledge, these decisions, and actions are of value. They present a person with either the good, or the evil as value.
Indeed human life is lived between good and evil. Human beings are great because they can freely choose, they possess what Augustine of Hippo called, free will.
 Despite the will and the ability to choose, man, in knowledge, has chosen evil; he has played the executioner. In a certain sense, the ability to choose evil testifies to man's greatness in freedom.

Yet freedom calls, requires something of the chooser. It exacts a price. In evil we are cut off from the source of life, from love, from co-union with the Creator. The created are then exceeded in the bounds of the "tree."
The God of the Bible remains steadfast in regard to his creations. He does not cut himself off from them; he is more like the story of a lover seeking his beloved, the Song of Songs, his lost child. He looks everywhere for him.
His first and last thoughts are for the Beloved, his creation. The precepts of the Bible, of the Buddha, have come into the world to lead the Way to our redemption, our enlightenment, to our peace, our joy, our rest in the One.
--paraphrased from The Way to Christ by Karol Wojtyla

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."

Citizen Awake!

"We dare defend our rights! Live free or die! Wisdom, justice and moderation. Let it be perpetual!"  --United States state's mottoes

Citizen awake; today we learn that we sleep in the dust, that in our slumber there is terror in our land; that our government proposes there be enemy combatants in our house! How can this be? How can we, as citizens of the United States of America, be we patriots descending back to the founding of this nation, native born, or naturalized citizens stand restless as the elect-citizens* of our nation propose to deny the rights and duties of every citizen to some citizens? Where does the "natural law" fall herein?

At issue is the surviving accused Boston Marathon bomber, who lies critically wounded in a Boston hospital. He, a naturalized US citizen, innocent until proven guilty under law, afforded all the rights and benefits of his citizenship now be proposed that he be an "enemy combatant"?
How can this be?
Are we afraid, those of us either native-born citizens or naturalized citizens?
I am very worried, terrified even, that at the highest levels of government, citizens-elect*, think it wise to propose such effrontery against one, against all.

As has been stated here several times, the Simple Mind knows full well that religion is integral to everyday life; it is instilled in politics and government fully. Those of us living under democracy, monarchy, a designated government or state religion may easily attest to this. From this flows much else. Here in the United States, our ancestors, my ancestors, fought against tyranny, against rule from a distant shore; they preferred self-rule over monarchy. They dared to defend their rights, to live free or die. Free thinking, republican, libertarianism was the call of their generation.They called for moderation against others who would dictate without justice, without prudence.

Have we now lived so long without rulers absolute that we no longer recognize them within our own citizenry? It is and always will be for the citizens of this nation to arise and check the despotic impulses of others. For if we do not, if we neglect the meaning of the natural law upon which this nation founds itself, we may then be lost.
A citizen must not be reduced in status to an enemy combatant, no more than a man should be a slave.
 If this be the case, then no native born citizen and especially no naturalized citizen is protected from the whims and capriciousness of a government responding to illegal or repugnant acts committed within its borders by its citizenry.

Let me explain so that you may determine upon your own conscience the course of action to be taken:

In the words of one Revolutionary War veteran, Levi Preston, regarding the words of men like, Harrington, Hobbes or John Locke on the principles of eternal liberty, or freedoms accorded by the natural law: Preston is said to have remarked, "I never heard of them. We read only the Bible, the Catechism, the Almanac and Watt's Psalms, and Hymns... [We fought because] we had always governed ourselves, and we always meant to. They [the British] didn't mean that we should."

This independent thought is our tradition. Our bill of rights and our constitution stand on this position of historical, natural rights and free thinking. The 14th amendment of the US Constitution is this: 
 "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without the due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."  --section 1, XIVth amendment to the US Constitution

This Amendment is most often said to protect a person's right against government violations; our founding Fathers sought to return to a state of Common-law, laws of nature from which they believed each was "endowed with by the Creator." As John Locke wrote of the natural, common law, "God has furnished men with Faculties sufficient to direct them in the Way they should take, if they will but seriously employ them."
US Supreme Court Justice James Wilson wrote, "American common law is closer to the common law of the Anglo-Saxons... The Anglo-Saxon, like the American, held a more expansive notion of individual liberty...our common law is not a list of laws, but a way of thinking, a sensibility focused on freedom of association."

And when our government goes back on those common laws, reneges, thus claims civil laws, like imperialism, by itself, we can do nothing less than react to preserve our citizenship, our natural dignity as human beings.
For not every power government engages are just powers, powers for the common good. 
Have courage, speak against the un-legislated assumption of power by the federal government; act as if you, yourself count among the Founding Fathers of this nation.

Some call civil-law, the "ever emerging child of fantasy rebelling against facts or lessons from the past; it will not secure the future."
However, your actions may secure the common good, the rightful status of a citizen. Our Declaration of Independence empowers us:  "under absolute despotism, it is their right [the right of a citizen], their duty to throw off such government and to provide new guards [guardians] for their future security." Act now; tell your elected officials this attack on citizenship cannot be permitted.


*those persons, citizens elected by ballot.

Between Something and Nothing

"Be transformed by the renewal of your mind." -- Romans 12:2

There surely is an intersection in the cosmic world entitled Something and Nothing streets. It would surely be the road to explaining the objective use of others in a "screwtape" sort of way. But in the "everydayness" of our lives we often find that a utilitarian attitude is most often what we are rewarded for: what we produce matters more than what we use. And in rewarding our production, the beneficiaries simultaneously acknowledge their use. They use our minds, our bodies and our labor to produce what is benefit to them. If if does not serve any other good, so be it.

As author C.S. Lewis wrote, some will subvert others to the thing of their choosing. The novel, The Screwtape Letters centers around a soul snatching demon and his apprentice. What the author intends is to unmask the soul snatching techniques of the Demon and the ways in which he retains those persons for his own use.
Many times we read Lewis' words and we laugh in recognition. It seems a lot of us love 'our favorite sins' and the devil we know just may seem better than the ones we've not met. As for Lewis, what becomes clear from a study of his writings is that he held a conception of the sanctity of personal liberty. Writing about the values of freedom, he stands then as something of a Libertarian.

In western philosophy there is a distinction between positive and negative freedoms. Notions of freedom held by most of the classical liberals (early modern thinkers) are typically thought of by modern political scientists as negative due to the view that freedom was defined as the absence of coercion by individuals against one another.
John Locke (1632-1704) as one example, in his Second Treatise on Civil Government (1690) argued that liberty means to be "free from restraint and violence from others" and "not subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, arbitrary will of another man."

 Adam Smith (1723-1790) writer of the The Wealth of Nations (1776) recorded, "All systems either of preference or of restraint, therefore, being thus taken way, the obvious and simple system of natural liberty establishes itself of its own accord."
For those who viewed freedom as a sort of contract, such as Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) and John Locke, freedom is a natural right--all men are created free--deistic beliefs, with intrinsic value.
Both strands of classical liberalism define liberty in absence of the power of persons to benefit from their freedom.

For example naturalists such as John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) and Adam Smith, the arguments for freedom were teleological and usually agnostic, so freedom is valued as merely instrumental.
And now we return to the modern view of the utilitarian attitude, one who sees others for what they derive from them in a consumeristic mind set. This is the more modern of views.

"Intense, long, certain, speedy, fruitful, pure—
Such marks in pleasures and in pains endure.
Such pleasures seek if private be thy end:
If it be public, wide let them extend
Such pains avoid, whichever be thy view:
If pains must come, let them extend to few."
--Jeremy Bentham

The Divine Puppet Show

"Physical freedom means that there is nothing to hinder me from acting as I choose to act." Augustine: On Free Choice and the Will, translated, edited by Thomas Williams

As a vital current in Western thought, the subject of freedom and will are no small issues. From ancient times, the thoughts of Aristotle, philosopher, influenced theologian Augustine of Hippo to write a slim, but in-depth treatise on this subject. While only 129 pages, one is likely to read parts of it again and again. Thomas Williams makes an English translation of Augustine: On Free Choice of the Will, noting that this one discourse, more than any other by Augustine of Hippo contains all his essential points including freedom, will, human nature, deity, ethics and more.

On freedom, Williams records Augustine's thought as sorting through the many senses of the word. For example, one sort of freedom may be the lack of restraint; another may be construed: since I am not in prison, I may, for example, leave at any time. This is physical freedom. On the other hand, Augustine notes there is also a freedom which he calls metaphysical freedom. It is this freedom which his treatise mostly concerns itself.

Metaphysical freedom is said to be 'deterministic.' Determinism states that for every choice I make, there are multiple and often competing alternatives, including prior states of the universe over which I have no control. While I may be physically free, not tied up or otherwise prevented from movement, I seem to lack freedom in a more urgent, vital regard. For example, I am free to do my own choosing, but the choices themselves are not with liberty (I can for example, choose in an emergency situation to crash my car into the car suddenly in my lane speeding towards me, the lane with cars traveling in the opposite direction, or into a large tree in an effort to save myself). The freedom to choose something that is accomplished in a way so as to be un-determined by anything beyond my personal control is called metaphysical freedom.

Metaphysical freedom is a philosophical position that places human beings in a libertarian position. While this idea of Libertarianism enjoyed its heyday, nowadays many philosophers follow a more existential route, and no more consider human freedom in terms of Libertarianism. Today it is fashionable to enshrine the limits of human freedom within the physical realm. Augustine however is, and remains, a great defender of the Libertarian point of view. It is chiefly this view which he, as a theologian, brings into the Catholic Christian church. According to this view, human beings are endowed with an energy he calls, the will.

As the commander of our self, we may roam wherever; there is free choice. All options may, at times, be considered: the good, the bad, the indifferent. The will is unaffected by external factors. Only the will can itself determine to choose. This freedom allows us responsibility for our actions alone; more often however, it's internal issues which provoke our choices of will. Things such as feeling, desire, fears, and wishes are what the will factors from within. As for causal events, one cannot have control, nor over that which occurred prior to one's birth, so Augustine also and finally rejects Compatabilism and Determinism in favor of  Metaphysical Freedom alone as prime.

Due to our metaphysical freedom, we are therefore able to make real change in the world, real contact with the physical, the rule of nature. To some extent, we write our own scripts, live a life, play our own role in the "divine puppet show." So what does this have to do with Simple Mind or Zen? Everything. If we view the world as actors or as re-actors, there imputes great influence upon our social and spiritual lives; our view directs and influences our senses, responsibility and our mental states. Our fault-finding and base assumptions start here as well. It is the cornerstone of every conscious action undertaken, argues Augustine.

The Meaning of Looking at the Self with Hatred

"The root of life and death is the discriminating mind." Mud and Water by Bassui

"Looking at one's self is as intense as hatred for the enemy. What is the meaning of this?" When you awaken to your true nature, wrote the Zen master Bassui, you cut off the wheel of reincarnation. Awakening to your many virtues, you bring benefit to the lives of others also. Bassui wrote, "In the self, there is true and false. The discriminating mind is false; the Buddha-nature is true. Beginning practitioners mistakenly take things like the [ability to] emit light and perform miracles which are really the roots of ignorance, being activities of the mind, for the clear expression of Buddha nature." He further noted that as long as students of the Way "haven't eradicated their discriminating minds, all their activities and words are the deeds of karmic consciousness"; they are not in accord with the Way.

"If, he wrote,'you clearly eliminate the drunken mind, drunken rages will instantly stop, and mind and body will be calm and quiet. If you want to recover completely from your illness, then stay free when sitting, lying down or doing walking meditation. And don't rely on another's power. Just stop your wandering, look penetratingly into your inherent nature and concentrating your spiritual energy, sit in
Zazen ... then you will for the first time, attain liberation." He further explains that if one only seeks to stop his movement, to contain his spiritual energy, then his consciousness will be that of one searching after a robber and treating him like a child. That, Bassui concludes is why one must regard the self with the fresh hatred of viewing an enemy. Only then will you succeed.

A Light in the Cage

"...there is no man who is not shaken for an instant by the eternal." --I Asked for Wonder by Abraham Joshua Heschel

Writing in his book of short essays, theologian Abraham J. Heschel writes for the interest of the lay reader about many topics in Judaism that are close to his heart. Using these essays as a springboard into the mind of this giant in Jewish thought, one clearly derives a sense of his deep compassion and understanding.
He says, "The world we live in is a vast cage within a maze, high as our mind, wide as our power of will, long as our life span. Those who have never reached the rails or seen what is beyond the cage know of no freedom to dream of and are willing to rise and fight for civilizations that come and go, and sink into an abyss of oblivion, an abyss which they never fill."
He writes that in our technical age, man does not often clearly conceive of the world as fit for anything more than his own fulfillment. He remains under the sway of a former Age of Reason, considering himself rather the master of destiny, able to breed himself, breeding races of men as he chooses; he adopts a transient philosophy according to his needs and creates a religion at will. 
This Man postulates an existence of a Power "that would serve as a guarantee of his self-fulfillment," as if G-d were a partner catering to mens' whims and goals of gaining the utmost of life in self-development.
Yet, "even those who knocked their heads against the rails of life, discovered that life is involved with conflicts which they cannot solve." There is the drive of possessiveness, a substitute life for what they lack in other realms. Even religion or spiritual quest can become an exercise of possessiveness, seekers who want to acquire merits, knowledge in the mind, and medals placed upon the heart. 
This questing is muffled by the irony of time; "we are starved by self destructiveness--some even prefer to exist upon a dainty diet" within the cage than than search out the exit in order to obtain the possibility of hope in freedom."But there is no man who is not shaken for an instant by the Eternal. And if we claim we have no heart to feel, no soul to hear, let us then pray for tears, or a feeling of shame."

Self-Forgiveness: Crossing Boundaries

"Self-forgiveness is a stance of hope, of freedom." Forgiving Yourself by Beverly Flannigan

Continuing consideration of the value and practice of self-forgiveness, author Beverly Flannigan writes about a topic few even think about, understand or practice. It is an important topic in most all spiritual traditions, certainly those who engage in actions for salvation, such as in Buddhism. She writes that "mistakes are harmful, rash, impulsive, foolish acts... a mistake is morally neutral... mistakes are errors." However she distinguishes mistakes or errors from transgressions, crossing boundaries as quite different. Unlike mistakes in which no harmful intention is made, transgressions often include malicious intent and are then not neutral. Most would think of those actions to be just wrong.

Transgressions typically cross over a number of boundaries such as moral, legal, interpersonal, or social. They are not morally neutral because the intent is to deprive, to harm, to impair or injure, usually for a self-centered reason on the part of the perpetrator. Many communities observe specific prohibitions regarding transgressions; these prohibitions may be called different things, such as precepts, commandments, rules, values, but their intent is similar or the same: to observe and regard commitments, and the resulting responsibilities made by groups and individuals to one another.
They may also observe the consequences.  For example, a legal transgression may be stealing, assault, battery or throwing your junk out on an isolated country road. Communities set forth moral rules regulating the conduct of persons for the benefit of the common good, and the good of individuals; we expect to abide by them, even if we don't agree with their premise.

On the other hand, perhaps the most common boundary crossed besides legal boundaries are moral. Moral transgressions "between people are special kinds of wrong doings; they are special because when two [or more] persons form a relationship [or community], their separate ideas of right and wrong combine to form a new construct of right and wrong, unique to those two people." All manner of constructs may be forged; the net result is a working blueprint of the social relationship between the individuals. For this reason, breaking or violating these agreements typically results in a strong sense of grief for the other party[parties]."When people transgress moral agreements with friends, spouses, beloveds, they cross the barriers of their own ideas about right and wrong by lying, withholding, taking resources, so as to typically deprive the other[s] of truth, or other goods and benefits." Violations are often ultimately of a spiritual nature.

"The pain of non-forgiveness is rooted in your mistakes, transgressions, evil intentions, your own shortcomings and limitations." To forgive yourself and others is a stance of hope; it is a newness of self which results from the freedom to start again.

The Tangle of Emotions

"In this work, I search for the soul in the tangle of emotions."   --The Soul's Religion by Thomas Moore

Emotions, and the openness to the tangle of them so as to discern a sense of deep spirit, a personal sense of the uniquely formed you, is a central task in the spiritual life.
As many religious thinkers have written, it is in the opening of the self, the stillness of the mind, that what is essential arises, and enlightenment becomes possible; yet it is not as a striving or as a goal, but as the natural result of a lived life.
By experiences we learn the meaning of ourselves in the world; the oneness of all in our place is what Moore seeks to examine.

He writes that it is not intellect ultimately, but living knowledge that makes a Self. Yet, he does at times, fall into philosophical banter. That is his background and his training.
As a Roman Catholic, he came of age in the time before the "great transformation" of the Church, Vatican II, with the rise of Pope John Paul II. His experiences may be unlike others'. Despite this he offers valuable wisdom about the human mind.
He says in writing, "Care of the Soul" it was his intent to address the deep soul as found in the emotions, relationships and culture... a way to be spiritual that is honest, close to physical life and emotion... [because] the opposite of spirituality is escape... [Soul] is to be made sense of in the depths of experience, in the never ending efforts to make meaning of life, and in the ordeals that can be seen as spiritual initiations rather than failures to achieve a self.

Moore's work, he writes, allows, searches out the great tangle of human emotion, of perceptions and feelings the conglomeration of the seemingly impossible, the paradoxical, and the apparent failures that comprise a life. He recommends in response to human emotional suffering, "a shift from cure to caring."
Trying to be cured might be another type of perfectionism reckons the author. In the human life, when seen as a sort of comedy, we all fail, we all fall on our faces. Taking ourselves so seriously, we forget that it is human to fail, it is human not to be perfect.
And it is human to love, even that what we don't fully understand, even that we see as lacking, like a child; still we love, in full knowledge of imperfection. In doing so, we may ultimately learn of a holy foolishness which broadens and deepens our spirituality, making the self more resilient, more durable in the process.

One of the ways through this life process is by emptiness, Sunyata. Moore describes the empty self  not as loss but as liberation, an opening for the possible.
"Spiritual emptiness doesn't lead to resignation, or depression... it gives hope, frees us from anxiety... having to be in control." Yet emptiness doesn't work if it becomes a project, to be controlled and directed. Emptiness is an active stillness, an allowance of what is, or may be. It is the perception that an angry bull is charging towards you in an arena and stepping aside rather than confronting as it passes by. "Emptiness itself has to be empty." As a way, it is both an art and a practice.

Psychoanalysis can help in learning emptiness by "teaching how to notice..."
Moore sees emptiness as the psychological absence of neurosis. Neurosis, in his view, is what fundamentally disturbs the deep soul, the unfolding of life and its desires.
"Various neuroses such as jealousy, inferiority and narcissism are nothing more than anxious attempts to prevent life from happening. In place of a positive life experience there is anger and fear. Yet in the dissolution of fear is its opposite, and jealousy for example, transforms into passion. Fearfulness is what is desired and as yet unrealized. Moore writes of an experience from his own life. "At certain times in the past I have been suseptible to this powerful emotion [emotion=energy] to the extent that it obliterated all other concerns. It took the joy out of life... I hated being a jealous person... It taught me that my passions could throw me and that my self confidence was not as strong as I thought it was... I noticed that jealousy gives rise to many thoughts about freedom, dependence, justice and individuality... Its resolution may feel like a simple calming." paraphrased

One form of 'psychoanalysis' that can be very helpful is often referred to as Cognitive Therapy. It is based on the learning principle that a person does not need to learn all about their earliest life or the intricacies of their suffering. Rather through a short term learning and education process, usually conducted in about eight to sixteen weeks, one can learn to effectively work through the tangle of emotions, the fears and the irrational quirks we all face in our lives.
The goal in everyday life is, after all a successful, skilled functioning response to daily events. The method is accomplished by altering or 'repackaging' our habitual, customary ways of thinking; these thoughts are replaced with new thoughts or cues we are given and practice, gaining proficiency over time. The benefit is the ultimate ability to manage our imperfect, human nature so as to gain balance and a new sense of possibility replacing the old fears of inevitability. Remarkably for many it works, and for some, over long practice, it leads to an opening, and the emptiness that Moore writes of.

Mahayana and Freedom of the Dharmakaya

"When bodhisattvas think of the Dharmakaya, how will they picture it to themselves?"
--General Treatise on Mayhayanism by Asanga and Vasubandhu
The writers of this important text as related by Suzuki in his book, Outlines of Mahayana Buddhism, answer this question-- what will they think/picture, by saying that, "They will think of the Dharmakaya by picturing its seven characteristics: free, unimpeded activity manifesting in all beings; all perfected virtues eternally in the Dharmakaya; absolute freedom from prejudice, both intellectual and emotional; spontaneous emanations from the will of the Dharmakaya; inexhaustible wealth stored in the Body of the Dharma, wealth spiritual and physical; purity without stain of onesidedness; earthly works achieved for the salvation of all beings, as reflexes of the Dharmakaya."

Asanga goes on to enumerate other characteristics of the Dharmakaya. He discusses its five forms of operation, its irresistible spiritual domination over all evil-doers, its method of destroying various unnatural and irrational methods of salvation practiced by: ascetics, hedonists, and Ishvaraism.He also mentions the ability of Dharmakaya to cure minds which believe in the reality, permanency and indivisibility of the soul-ego. Asanga ultimately seeks to inspire "those Bodhsattvas who have not yet attained to the stage of immovability, as well as those who are still in a state of vacillation."

Thus the freedom of the Dharmakaya is manifold (many-fold). According to the Buddhist view, "those spiritual powers everlastingly emanate from the Body of Dharma have no trace of human elaboration or constrained effort, but they are a spontaneous overflow from its immanent necessity, from its free will." That the Dharmakaya makes no conscious struggling gestures is to say that it is within itself, without diverse tendencies, one trying to gain ascendancy over another. It  becomes then, obvious, that any struggle becomes fertile for compulsion which is incompatible within the conception of the highest spiritual reality.

Absolute spontaneity and perfect (whole) freedom are necessary attributes when describing Dharmakaya. There can then, be no coercion, either external or internal. "Its every act of creation or salvation or love emanates from its own free will, unhampered by struggle which characterizes the activities of the every-day mind." This free will, which is divine, "stands in striking contrast to other, more earthly concepts of "free will."

As the Dharmakaya works of its own accord, "it does not seek any recompense for its deeds; its every act is for the best welfare of its creatures, for they are all its manifestations, and must know what we therefore need."

simplemindzen.blogspot.com

The Struggle for Love: What Do You Live For?

"What if what we long hoped for, does not come? Willingness to risk for a better day"

Continuing in the book Bold Love, Dan Allender, Christian minister and clinical psychologist, observes many things, most especially that love as the Judeo-Christian tradition writes of it, is a "bold love, a harsh mistress, because there's nothing redeeming about a love that just blindly accepts."

In so many ways we are robbed of our birthright, of our natural beauty, present within us from infancy onward. In the Bible from Genesis chapter 3 onward, we read that God has been in a struggle against evil within our midst.
He vexes the serpent, saying, "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel." Gen.3:15

The LORD is a warrior; the LORD is his name. Ex. 15:3

This phrase is a part of the Tanakh or Old Testament story about the parting of the Red Sea. Did the sea part? Perhaps, but its symbolism of courage and determination are certainly powerful. It is this same courage and determination needed by each of us as we move forward into our lives--and our loves.
God, as the Bible amply recounts, is not willing to accept any old thing. He wishes, desires, demands us to be the creations of his heart, one with his being. In this, we are called to a love, eternal, cosmic, and nearly unfathomable.

While our perspective may be simply as small as living a better life, his desire for us is a more radical one, that we learn the love of a Creator for his creation.
No small order, and far and away from the notion of "unconditional" love, popularly bandied about these days.

Are we then to be set to fail? The task is so large. No wonder when many think of notions of God, they think of God, the enemy. The one who shows us both what we long for, and what we rather not see at all. Allender writes, "...we will be either lulled into thinking that what we currently enjoy in this life is enough, or lapse into fury for this life not being enough."

Seeking his face, we seek our own. What we love when we are with him is what we fail to see as our own. Love is between he and I; it is not either he or I.
Rather, it is he and I, what exists between us, is made freely and durable, created as the love we realize.

The light in the darkness, brilliantly shown of a love that God has known. He has held his hand for us to steady our climb, he has waited patiently as we fall; our anticipation of what is to come has at times deepened our disappointment. Yet as a kind father, his love remains our own. His love, unconditional continues to be offered and we may continue to seek.

Yet the heart deferred, makes hope a sadness. Admitting that I do not yet see clearly, that I do not yet know, makes way for the greater development of truth in clarity and freedom. I see the reason for my existence and behave accordingly.

What am I living for? Living for the joy of acquisition and power is self serving; living for the good of others is perhaps more in the Way. Yet we can seem to think ourselves to be living in the Way and yet we are not. There are those who convince themselves they are right; their ego has the answer, it is good--for me.

Do you live for freedom? In one sense freedom is the absence of restraint. There is nothing to hinder me to act as I choose. Suppose, however, that you live in a universe that for every choice I might make, the world has already determined the response, responses for which I have no control. I may remain physically free, no one has tied me down or locked me up, but I seem to lack freedom in a more durable and possible sense. While I am free to act as I choose, my choices are not free.

There is another type of freedom says the Christian philosopher and theologian, Augustine of Hippo. In the book, On Free Choice of the Will, translated by Thomas Williams, Augustine writes, "I have freedom to choose in a way that is not determined by any thing outside my control, what Augustine called metaphysical freedom. The view that human beings have metaphysical freedom is also known as libertarianism."

Augustine is one of the great defenders of libertarianism. He says that human beings are endowed with a power called the will. A person can direct his will to go in seemingly limitless directions. His own freedom of direction, then, can be thought of as free choice.

A person may choose for himself money, power, influence, sex, excesses of all types; these choices so mentioned have all been external choices, made by factors outside the person. If so, then a person could not be entirely responsible for them.
But it is not external factors that determine our choices. Rather it is internal states: beliefs, desires, hopes and fears. Since it is the desire, the will of a person and the character which determines one's choices, freedom therefore is not threatened.

Yet a libertarian like Augustine would not be swayed by this. He says that in fact, human beings are rational thinking, and free choice makes them therefore responsible. Because persons have metaphysical freedom in this view, they are capable of making a real difference in the world. We may write our own "scripts." We may be truly in the image of God, the Creator, bringing something into the world that previously did not exist before us.

He says further, "that without metaphysical freedom, there would be no evil, because evil is also a choice, but then the world might be nothing more than a divine puppet show in the absence of free choice.

If there is to be any real goodness, any new and creative acts of love, then there must be metaphysical freedom. This freedom cannot ever be taken; it is of your own free will. What do you live for?
simplemindzen.blogspot.com