Archbishop of Canterbury 'doubts God exists'

[GrandmasterP]

The full article is here:

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-29255792]http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-29255792[/url]

 

His frankness seems to have been widely welcomed - clearly people seem to like it that he is not putting himself on a pedestal of certainty.

 

But I can't help thinking that this man is the head of the Anglican church - the spiritual leader of an estimated 86 million souls worldwide!

 

How can it be that he has not gained a bit more spiritual confidence?

 

How can it be that the modern Christian leaders are still trapped in the sterile intellectual dichotomy of existence versus non-existence of God?

 

Then we gain a glimpse of the Archbishop's methods of prayer...

 

 

 

 

So it seems that interspersed between the pounding of his feet and his heart, and his heavy breathing and the dodging of pedestrians, the snatches of mental monologue he hears in his head is his idea of prayer?

 

Can anything more vulgar be imagined?

 

Anyone who has made even a semi-serious attempt at prayer/meditation soon understands that it requires the very highest levels of concentration. Silence and solitude are incredibly useful aids to this. But the Archbishop thinks it can be something to be squeezed in to his daily jog!

 

And at the same time he all but confesses that his God is some kind of helperouter, someone to call up whilst out jogging for a bit of advice!

 

Only the spiritually immature would call upon God in this way. To understand God is to to understand that there is a part of us that is perfect and whole and loved regardless of our daily problems. It is by focussing on our spiritual selfhood that our daily problems attain manageable proportions.

 

But the spiritually immature are still very much wrapped up in all the hubbub of the world. Quite frankly, they want real world solutions to the problems without for a moment imagining that the problem is themselves and their overestimation of the inessential.

 

He admits that all this 'is not probably what the Archbishop of Canterbury should say.' No doubt he means that it is politically reckless to admit doubt.

 

But he should be able to say what he wants, and it is surely better that he admit his immaturity rather than attempt the appearance of holiness.

 

But there is one brutal truth that remains. A good deal of his ´deacons, priests, chaplains, lay readers, alter-servers and everyday church-goers will instantly recognise in this speech the tell-tale signs of spiritual immaturity. They will doubtless have passed through, and resolved, perhaps long ago, the same kind of crisis.

 

How on earth does he maintain his spiritual authority. His words are nothing other than the admission that the skills that brought him to the head of the Anglican Church were merely administrative.

I suspect that you are not overly familiar with the Church of England.

It's a very broad and inclusive church.

There are atheist and agnostic clerics alongside very high Anglo- Catholics, extremely low Evangelical Protestants and all shades of belief and none in between.

They'll have women Bishops soon too and not before time.

Being a State church anyone born in England is, by right; entitled to membership should they so decide.

Hence the CofE has always included the " High and Dry, Broad and Hazy and Low and Lazy."

One of my QiGong sessions meets in the Parish Church Hall, the vicar's a personal friend and his wife is a former work colleague.

The Archbishop's comments are typically Church of England.

Anyone wanting something less amorphous had best look elsewhere to other denominations.

Edited September 19, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[GrandmasterP]

Rev. Don Cupitt a CofE priest and founder of the 'Sea of Faith' network is perhaps one of the most prominent atheist priests in the Church of England.

Don's a (retired) philosopher too.

More from Don here...

http://www.sofn.org.uk/sofia/110cupitt.pdf

 

I see no contradiction whatsoever with being a member or priest in the CofE within anything that the CoE atheists and agnostics claim.

If more clerics were as honest it could be a slightly happier world.

Edited September 19, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[9th]

Im not sure why people would be so surprised at this. Modern priesthood is little more than a charitable business, like social workers or counselors - or purely political in terms of socio-economic reform and so forth. Spirituality doesn't really enter into it at all. Neither does self-cultivation. You wont become more "spiritual" just because you subscribe to a mythos wholeheartedly and buy into the belief system that supports it.

 

Actually, I think this is a bit reductionist. There is no monolithic Christianity just as there is monolithic Buddhism.

There ya go.

 

The most explicit classical aspect of Buddhism is 95% practical, and in fact Siddhartha deliberately sidesteps metaphysical speculations and theoretical exposition quite a bit. He often flat out refuses to answer questions posed in this way and redirects to the fallacy of "views" altogether, in some fashion.

 

Of course by the time the pali canon was written down, there had been centuries of development amongst numerous schools of "Buddhist" thought, which often conflicted with another, hence the mahayana and hinayana. So of course there are plenty of additional and variously relevant expositions as well.

 

Christianity was way, way, way more fractured and diverse, most notably due to the preponderance of numerous schools of thought which eventually all fell under the banner of "gnostics" which itself was simply a designation from an outside detractor (St. Irenaeus). The various sects themselves had extremely detailed views and terms of their own.

 

To assume there is some sort of "universal" buddhist or christian mythos is just really oversimplifying the issue to an intense degree. However, it is understandable... given the general situation and so forth.

 

Mystical Judeo-Christian teachings tend to present human beings as a mix of higher and lower natures. The animalistic nature tends to pull one down, while the spiritual nature leads one higher. Human beings are, after all, made in the image of God, so to say that the essence of a human being is sin is a bit simplistic. Humans stand between heaven and earth and can perform as a channel so that divine energy can manifest on earth.

 

And this philosophical outlook of clean/unclean is shared (perhaps even sourced) in the Orphic texts and traditions, as well as the neo-pythagorean (or platonic), which themselves in turn shaped early mystical christianity to a very large degree. Orphism in particular developed from the seasonal greek mysteries: neolithic traditions which lingered on for thousands of years, involving group rituals and nature worship as well as personal purifications. Of course the key to the mysteries was the kykeon, a sacred brew whose recipe remains secret to this day. And the practice of these mysteries just so happen to coincide with the Vedics use of Soma and the Persians use of Haoma. From the mediterranean to the mid-east to the far east, there was a great deal of synergy in ancient times.

 

I think its important to understand just how much traditions of self-cultivation of any sort will stand on the shoulders of those who have come before them. Buddhism in particular did not invent the idea of nirvana, or karma, or meditation, or compassion, etc. In fact the main thrust of Siddhartha's efforts was in repudiating the extremity of methods and exaltation of self which comes from intense efforts of self-purification, as well as the fundamental neutrality of all beings (in opposition to the caste system) - however the methods and ideas he refers to were already existent long before. His teaching is reactionary, revolutionary, evolutionary - not prototypal.

 

I have speculated before that the confluence of known historical data surrounding Mahavira the 24th tirthankara of Jainism, and Siddhartha the Buddha is eyebrow raising to say the least. Unfortunately due to humanity's penchant for sacred cows, only a rare few people would even entertain the possibility of considering such notions. Suffice to say there is at least some sort of real connection, as evidenced by the texts themselves. Its also worth noting that in the texts, Siddhartha continuously referred to himself as "the tathagata", not "buddha". You may wonder what is the point of this, but since the vast majority of buddhist thought is practically a direct reformation of jainism, I feel that its a topic quite worthy of investigation.

 

The main point I would like to make is that the connections between traditions (both historically and geographically) inform the directions they take as they develop. Ancestry is vital. Most of us already understand that it is not beneficial to assume simple ignorance of events equates to the basic underlying mystery of all things. Remember - the deeper your roots go, the higher your branches will climb.

[liminal_luke]

I´m a big fan of petitionary prayer. Oh sure, it´s shallow and dualistic but isn´t it nice that there´s a prayer style perfect for ordinary people who just want a little help getting through the day. Even mystics occasionally need some divine assistance, and I think there´s something reassuringly human about that.

 

Liminal

[Jetsun]

As Carl Jung says religion is a defence against having religious experiences, so it is no surprise that these high priests and ministers have no perceptible direct experience of God.

[Captain Mar-Vell]

...

Great post by 9th, thanks man! I want to hear your "Tathagata" theory...

 

dustyb wrote:

Yes to the bold, but I'm still not sure that, apart from a propensity for producing pretty things, Catholicism contains any real spiritual jewels.

 

Thomas Aquinas?

 

Yes, I was raised Catholic.

...

Edited September 20, 2014 by Captain Mar-Vell

[C T]

As Carl Jung says religion is a defence against having religious experiences, so it is no surprise that these high priests and ministers have no perceptible direct experience of God.

Thats a bit harsh.

I dont think its our place to make such an observation unless we have evidence to substantiate the observation.

 

Many realised masters possess the often witty knack to be very self-effacing. Im not saying the Archbishop is one, but we never know. For the sake of conjecture, it could well be something that had been tormenting him; by making a sort of public confession could be his way to bring him closer to his God. Its highly likely he would have given much thought to the matter before making such a significant public statement, one which does not take a lot of imagination to see the kind of raising of eyebrows usually associated with such declarations.

 

If his motivation is to be as truthful as possible, then i think he is experiencing his God in that truthfulness. Sure, his critics will gleefully hammer on about the perceived weakness(es) they see in him, but then, critics will always be critics. They will even scrutinise and bad-mouth his choice of socks if they get the right angle going.

[Protector]

Maybe they don't have experiences with god because it doesn't exist

 

JUST THROWING THAT OUT THERE

[GrandmasterP]

The Church of England is a very English institution and, in order to fully understand how it 'works' one really needs to be either English or at least resident in an English parish and in contact with the church.

Whilst very few of us attend church regularly all of us in England live in a CofE Parish and, apart from in cities and a few very big towns; our local representative council and contact with local authority is the ( statutory and entirely secular) ' Parish Council' on which the incumbent ( parish priest) may or may not be an elected member.

The CofE is our 'State' church, bishops sit by right in the House of Lords and the Church has its own courts of 'ecclesiastical law'.

As such it is very different to any other 'denomination'.

Belief seldom comes into it, it s far more about 'being' than it is about belief.

Nine people out of every ten in the village by us , if asked; would say...

" I am Church of England." And point to 'their' parish church.

Ask them when last they attended it and , depending on season; nine out of ten will say Easter or Christmas or mention a recent family baptism, wedding or funeral.

Our parish church here is 10th century Saxon and built on earlier foundations.

The parish we are moving to has a relatively younger Norman church.

That's how deep our roots and connections to the parish system are in England.

It's part of who we are if we are English.

Edited September 20, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[Jetsun]

Thats a bit harsh.

I dont think its our place to make such an observation unless we have evidence to substantiate the observation.

 

Many realised masters possess the often witty knack to be very self-effacing. Im not saying the Archbishop is one, but we never know. For the sake of conjecture, it could well be something that had been tormenting him; by making a sort of public confession could be his way to bring him closer to his God. Its highly likely he would have given much thought to the matter before making such a significant public statement, one which does not take a lot of imagination to see the kind of raising of eyebrows usually associated with such declarations.

 

If his motivation is to be as truthful as possible, then i think he is experiencing his God in that truthfulness. Sure, his critics will gleefully hammer on about the perceived weakness(es) they see in him, but then, critics will always be critics. They will even scrutinise and bad-mouth his choice of socks if they get the right angle going.

 

It seems pretty obvious from all that is said and written about by most of these priests and bishops that most of them have little experience of being at one with god as a intimate lived experience. It is not meant as a condemnation of his character, he seems very sincere and truthful and for him to have doubts is probably very healthy, yet for the head of an entire Church to be in that situation is a poor reflection of the lineage of that Church to provide the sort of spiritual growth many people are looking for.

 

What would be the implication of a head of a Buddhist lineage to come out and say he had no experience or confidence in 'Buddha nature'? you would probably say it is good to be truthful but he shouldn't really be in charge of guiding others. Yet the problem with that Church of England is that there probably isn't anyone better because there isn't a great deal of contemplative or meditative methods contained within its structure. If you remove such methods all that usually happens is that all the spiritual knowledge gets turned into intellectual concepts and beliefs while also serving to reinforce and cement social conditioning, so the religion creates the barriers to the religious experience rather than facilitating it.

 

Not that I am down on Christianity as a whole, there is a history of mystics who are unrivalled in their poetic descriptions of life and God and if you examine places like Mount Athos you have a whole succession of Christians having continual religious experiences and union with God. There are others like the spiritual exercises of Ignatius of Loyola which provide ways to help grow out of conditioning and limitations. But the point of the larger churches the main reason why the Roman empire took it under its wing is to control people, to control their sexual energy and condition them, not to empower them or show them their full potential. Even though the Bible continually repeats that God and the Kingdom of Heaven are within and already exist right now, the main Churches continually promote the idea that it is outside of ourselves and we have to earn it or beg for it.

[GrandmasterP]

Interesting point and post.

Why do you think that belief matters at all?

It has struck me time and again over on DW and sometimes on here too that some posters seem to hold on to an entirely evangelical protestant world view of religion and seek to apply that to whatever faith path they join or see fit to discuss.

As if 'belief' mattered and somehow had to be either defended or promulgated.

That's for converts, those are always the most zealous.

I find it as puzzling as do my Tibetan chums when discussing some of the excesses of their non Tibetan heritage converts.

( For example, ethnic Tibetan Buddhists are deeply suspicious of and puzzled by vegetarians).

If one is born into a religion and culture that is one thing, and it will tend to define one's worldview.

Someone opting into one's religion and culture 'from outside' will of necessity bring with them some baggage or mindset that is quite alien.

Hence on DW all the time and on here sometimes we find argumentative or proselytising ' Buddhists' when both those activities are entirely alien to any ethnic Buddhism anywhere in the world.

Similarly we have non English posters who seem to believe that the Archbishop of Canterbury must somehow have to believe in their version of 'God' and/or ecclesiastical polity.

The issues such as those might be are not with the 'host' community be that Buddhism or the Church of England, the issues reside north of the neck of the posters airing said issues online.

It's their way of saying....

" I am thus hence SO SHOULD THIS BE THUS."

Quite frankly, that's just silly.

But it keeps them busy posting and arguing and that's what they seem to enjoy.

 

Edited September 20, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[Apech]

Point 1) Church of England = Conservative Party at prayer ... can't remember who said that.

 

Point 2) many English academic and other so called Buddhists import Protestant religious theory into Buddhism and end up as Stephen Batchelor or John Peacock etc. While others bring their Catholicism. Its very hard to shake childhood indoctrination try as you might.

[GrandmasterP]

Point 1) Church of England = Conservative Party at prayer ... can't remember who said that.

Tom Paine ( a convert to the Whig Party in what became the USA after some fuss or other) coined that one as " The CofE is the Tory Party at prayer."

Tories were Redcoat/ Crown supporters and the Whigs were for American Independence.

 

 

Point 2) many English academic and other so called Buddhists import Protestant religious theory into Buddhism and end up as Stephen Batchelor or John Peacock etc. While others bring their Catholicism. Its very hard to shake childhood indoctrination try as you might.

Absolutely and in doing so re-imagine 'Buddhism' into something quite other.

In exactly the same way as our Dzogchen ( for one example) boosters do on here.

Buddhism as Southern Baptist-style preaching ( bellowing).

 

 

Oops...

Some of my reply is in the grey 'quote' box and some outside.

Edited September 20, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[GrandmasterP]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100206311/justin-welby-v-david-cameron-the-anglican-church-is-now-the-labour-party-at-prayer/

 

The CofE is now, allegedly- " The Labour Party at Prayer" according to this ( admittedly Tory) newspaper.

 

Edited September 20, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[Jetsun]

Interesting point and post.

Why do you think that belief matters at all?

It has struck me time and again over on DW and sometimes on here too that some posters seem to hold on to an entirely evangelical protestant world view of religion and seek to apply that to whatever faith path they join or see fit to discuss.

As if 'belief' mattered and somehow had to be either defended or promulgated.

That's for converts, those are always the most zealous.

I find it as puzzling as do my Tibetan chums when discussing some of the excesses of their non Tibetan heritage converts.

( For example, ethnic Tibetan Buddhists are deeply suspicious of and puzzled by vegetarians).

If one is born into a religion and culture that is one thing, and it will tend to define one's worldview.

Someone opting into one's religion and culture 'from outside' will of necessity bring with them some baggage or mindset that is quite alien.

Hence on DW all the time and on here sometimes we find argumentative or proselytising ' Buddhists' when both those activities are entirely alien to any ethnic Buddhism anywhere in the world.

Similarly we have non English posters who seem to believe that the Archbishop of Canterbury must somehow have to believe in their version of 'God' and/or ecclesiastical polity.

The issues such as those might be are not with the 'host' community be that Buddhism or the Church of England, the issues reside north of the neck of the posters airing said issues online.

It's their way of saying....

" I am thus hence SO SHOULD THIS BE THUS."

Quite frankly, that's just silly.

But it keeps them busy posting and arguing and that's what they seem to enjoy.

 

 

Where you are born and your culture which is largely dictated to by religion basically provides the blueprint for your psychology, so for me even though I hardly ever go to Church and have read far more Buddhism and received more Buddhist teachings than Christian ones I know that psychologically I am Christian, which basically means that I have somehow assimilated deeply embedded beliefs about being sinful or original sin, which then leads to the drive for redemption or to prove that I am worthy. As a child these are the models of what it means to be human that we adopt if we grow up in this culture, they are imprinted in us with the force of survival energy, so if 20 odd years later I then put on a robe and do a few hours meditation a day and call myself a Buddhist it isn't going to shift these deeply embedded patterns very easily, it can just be a way of trying to avoid facing up to the reality of them. It is more ideal to find solutions to our spiritual issues from our own culture, which is why I would prefer the Priests and Bishops to have embodied experiences of what they talk about, because I know it is available to them.

[GrandmasterP]

Certainly within the Church of England someone could find a path to suit them.

It is just so broad.

'Oil' Welby the Archbish plays the Jesus Prayer for example and that is Nembutsu plain and simple.

There's ritual for ritualists who like bells, smells and dressing up.

Hesychasm and an orthodox tradition for those who enjoy beards and bass baritone.

There's the Community of Solitude for those inclined to Hermitting

All sorts

Edited September 20, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[9th]

I want to hear your "Tathagata" theory...

 

Its mostly an observation, indicating just how much obvious stuff people overlook in their quests to solidify their particular world-view. Fixation is a function of the mind which localizes consciousness, its far more mysterious and preternatural than most would give it credit for. Its a bit like the ocean we swim in, and as such is taken for granted or unnoticed entirely.

 

The only theory I have about that term is that perhaps Siddhartha meant for it to indicate his teaching, and he might have been trying to help people give some sort of name for his ideas. Perhaps he was intending for people to describe his group as "Tathagatists" who practice "Tathagatism". Its just a curious thought - honestly I dont know what the intent was, but I do think the term should have far more significance than it does, and the lack of investigation surrounding it is quite telling. Most scholars cant even agree on a translation.

 

 

 

In the past two centuries, as the tathāgata’s dhamma was being recovered and translated, well meaning Christian amateur translators with Sanskrit backgrounds tried, in vain, to resolve the mystery surrounding the meaning of that name.

The Sanskrit variant of the term tathâgata was rendered in English as: ‘faring or behaving thus’, ‘so conditioned’, ‘such’. The Pali variant, spelt tathāgata, was interpreted to mean: ‘thus gone’, ‘thus come’, the good missus of Rhys Davids translating it (no doubt to suit her and hubby’s Anglican need) as: ‘He who has won through to the truth’, and which is sheer awful nonsense.

By all accounts, the Tathāgata was a very intelligent man. So, being smart, he expressed the essence of his expedient means in his name (and which is why makers of shoes tended to be called Shoemaker, or Schumacher), as he would do later on with his robe (Pali: civara). The Tathāgata did not call himself Buddha; nor did he call his dhamma Buddhism.

It is generally agreed, even by non-buddhists, that tatha (possibly an adverb) means: ‘that’, possibly ‘thus’. In Pali, gata means gone. So, if the two are put together it means ‘that or thus gone’.

Obviously, what the name meant when the Tathāgata first used it was obvious to everyone. The Tathāgata didn’t define its meaning; nor did anyone every question its meaning. 19th century etymological reconstruction of the name led to an impasse, namely the question, ‘Gone where?’

There has, however, never been uncertainty about the meaning of Tathāgata for those who have truly understood the dhamma. Tathāgata did not mean ‘thus or that gone’ but ‘gone thus or that’. In other words, ‘thus or that is gone, become extinct, ceased, annihilated.’

In short, the name Tathāgata expresses Gautama’s essential insight, achieved during ‘awakening’, and which would serve as modus operandi of his expedient means, namely that the notion (and reality) of ‘thus’ or ‘that’ had been eliminated (that is to say, because ‘thus’ or ‘that’, and which included ‘this’, were an’atta).

In other words, Tathāgata means: gone (extinct, ceased) is ‘thus’ or ‘that’ (to wit, ‘thus’ or that’ are ‘neti, neti’, or 'not this, not this').

When Gautama took the name Tathāgata he became the Zero Man, i.e. of ‘no fixed abode’, never again expressing a fixed position (or opinion) on any ‘thing’.

[C T]

It seems pretty obvious from all that is said and written about by most of these priests and bishops that most of them have little experience of being at one with god as a intimate lived experience. It is not meant as a condemnation of his character, he seems very sincere and truthful and for him to have doubts is probably very healthy, yet for the head of an entire Church to be in that situation is a poor reflection of the lineage of that Church to provide the sort of spiritual growth many people are looking for.

Are you inclined to take what you gather from the media to be factual all the time? I don't. For me, the usual reaction to sensationalistic news would be a maybe/maybe not approach. If i subsequently come across information which can be regarded as trustworthy, then that makes a difference in forming future opinions, otherwise, i'd opt for giving the benefit of the doubt most of the time.

 

You mentioned above that having doubts, for him, is probably very healthy (note: very), yet, that was followed by a contradictory remark. I would like to think that perhaps he gathered the courage to face the actual mindset of his 'flock' in this current time, and being the leader of the Church, could be his way of saying, "Lets not kid ourselves, and beat around the bush." What caused him to make such a statement can only be speculated upon, but it could be one very good attempt, if he can pull it off, to reconcile a particular hypocriticalness (as indicated in GMP's post) that is utterly prevalent right now within his Church. He may already have strategies in place for this reconciliation to take shape before he even made that controversial statement (in the OP). If he didn't, then he is a fool. Even an uneducated guy like me can forward-think a bit, let alone such an educated religionist.

 

What would be the implication of a head of a Buddhist lineage to come out and say he had no experience or confidence in 'Buddha nature'? you would probably say it is good to be truthful but he shouldn't really be in charge of guiding others. Yet the problem with that Church of England is that there probably isn't anyone better because there isn't a great deal of contemplative or meditative methods contained within its structure. If you remove such methods all that usually happens is that all the spiritual knowledge gets turned into intellectual concepts and beliefs while also serving to reinforce and cement social conditioning, so the religion creates the barriers to the religious experience rather than facilitating it.

I don't know the workings of the CoE enough to say if they have a well-positioned structure for contemplatives and meditators to hone their penchants. To say its totally deprived of such a structure comes across as unlikely. I'm sure there are some church representatives who do keep abreast with current spiritual and religious trends, besides attending to their administrative duties. Some situations naturally draw out the spiritual side -- for example, in the presence of dying and death, and bereavement counselling, which i am sure would commensurate with the positions as church leaders. Of course there will be some who would perform their duties without any real empathy or conviction, but the key point to remember is that ultimately if the grieving families find some solace from the presence of a minister at a difficult time, then at least, one could say a spiritual experience has been concluded, albeit not the kind more evolved 'spiritual experts' would acknowledge as having any substance. But this is missing the point, isn't it?

 

Not that I am down on Christianity as a whole, there is a history of mystics who are unrivalled in their poetic descriptions of life and God and if you examine places like Mount Athos you have a whole succession of Christians having continual religious experiences and union with God. There are others like the spiritual exercises of Ignatius of Loyola which provide ways to help grow out of conditioning and limitations. But the point of the larger churches the main reason why the Roman empire took it under its wing is to control people, to control their sexual energy and condition them, not to empower them or show them their full potential. Even though the Bible continually repeats that God and the Kingdom of Heaven are within and already exist right now, the main Churches continually promote the idea that it is outside of ourselves and we have to earn it or beg for it.

I agree about the motives of the Roman Empire with their unsavoury agendas. I think at that time it was devised as part of a perverted movement to establish greater control and retain the powers already within their grasp. Maybe its for this very reason that history have recorded the utter brilliance of those who went on to become great philosophers, scientists and inventors of that era, against the odds. This goes to show that out of great oppression comes greater individuals who thrived in the face of it, so it is not entirely without merit. Ultimately, i feel strongly that any quest undertaken, be it spiritual or otherwise, boils down to singular effort. What the individual is willing to sacrifice to achieve something.

 

While we can blame the power-hungry lords of the past for the atrocities which you claim have suppressed the sort of opportunity that would have nurtured a more spiritually-enduring legacy, i believe it is still up to the individual to carve his or her own way in, regardless what history has carved out -- after all, spiritual evolution is a sort of personal battle we each must encounter and work upon in order to transcend. Upon reflection, im wondering what the current mindset of the people will be, in relation to religious views, if the Roman Empire had been less oppressive then.

 

 

I enjoyed reading your reply. Thanks!

[Nikolai1]

A few posts back I described the path, for all spiritual seekers, to be a movement from the sense of being a self living in time and space, and moving towards a selfhood that is free of such limitations and sees time and space, individuality and mortality as an illusion. From the small ego, to the divine principle is the journey described by all world religions.

 

It follows that the person who is still very much focussed on time and space will be focussed on those particulars (intellectual, behavioural, ethical) that are peculiar to his time and space.

 

As we transcend our own limitations through spiritual growth, we become able to recognise the idolatrous attachment to things in time and space wherever we see them, no matter what the individual's race, culture, religion.

 

Thus it follows that a quiet retiring Anglican vicar, tucked away in the green pastures of the Mendips, untroubled by heavy parish duties, and with no remaining vices except his Christmas sherry and his tattered book of cricket stats, could, by being a devout man of prayer and contemplation, offer authoritative spiritual direction, wherever his superiors send him. In Bombay, his pure and attentive burning of the cow dung, and the meditative blending of the ash with his spittle will impress the brown-faced devotees as he smears the vibhuti on their forehead. Padding into the Japanese zendo in his self-darned socks, he will instinctively seize the kyosaku from the monitor and know at a glance who should be struck and who should be spared. Displacing the squaw at the left-hand side, and with the pipe in his hand, he will sit cross-legged and his peaceful words will soothe the bellicose Chief and his counsel of reconciliation will be listened to and the next day followed.

 

By cultivating ourselves, we give ourselves the authority to cultivate mankind!

 

It is true that once our spiritual needs become genuinely ignited, and transcendence of selfhood begins, there are as many paths as people. But all the world religions concur on three ever converging approaches: devotion of the heart, the truth-seeking of the mind, and the self-emptying of pure contemplation.

 

The devotee in loving adoration surrenders themselves willingly to their God, and wants nothing more than to become nothing in themselves so that the will of their Beloved can express themselves more purely through them. They do not, as our good Archbishop did 'a few days ago', find themselves jogging across the common, waving their water bottle in admonishment at the heavens saying ''this is all very well, but isn't it about time you did something, if you're there,"

 

The seeker after truth yearns to understand God with their head, and they will try everything, think everything, read everything in order to fulfil their thirst. They will talk the heavens away in the process, and when those family and friends will listen no more, they go on to the internet and stay up late writing long messages to complete strangers at the other side of the world. And they find answers eventually! They learn that from the earliest days of Judaism, God was understood to completely transcend any of our known categories of thought. The read that desperate attempts were made to instill this in the common mind, which is all too ready to reify things. To give God a name was forbidden, the transcendental nature of God was symbolised in every synanogue by what was contained in the sanctum sanctorum, the holy of holies. What was it? Empty space. They get excited when they hear that once in the Bible God agreed to define himself to Moses. So we rush to the Book of Exodus and find only this. 'I AM THAT I AM'.! Although the impossibilty of defining God either for or agianst is a central theme in Christian theology through the centuries, the lucky few find their way to Buddhism, where the dangers of impaling oneself on one of the twin horns of things 'existing' or 'not-exisitng' is given central place in the teaching, and the need to somehow find a middle way is absolutely impressed on us. What the authentic spiritual truth seeker does not do is openly say he doubts, as the Archbishop does, that he sometimes doubts of God exists, as if the questioned could ever be settled.

 

And finally the contemplative, the hero who battles steadfastly with his intransigent thinking mind in order to allow God the silence and space to, if only for a moment, reveal himself in however a still, small voice. Such a person does not for a moment mistake his inane grumblings while out running with Prayer. He would not cheapen the word by associating it with such banal behaviour.

 

No doubt, a Church, like a nation, gets the leader it deserves, and if the Anglicans as a whole do not recognise a problem with their leader then maybe we shouldn't criticise. But it shames a shame, and an absurdity, that this is the man whose every word, written or spoken is recorded by a team of scribes and presented on websites, newspapers and pamphlets as 'spiritual counsel'. It seems a shame that of those Anglicans worldwide whose spiritual needs are urgent and genuine get served first, as a matter of form, the words of a leader who is clearly in a more retrogade spiritual state than themselves. It seems a shame that we have a figurehead whose poems about the death of his old Mum would certainly get a publishing deal, while the Anglican African (where most Anglicans live) will only get enlightening counsel if there hapens to be a wiser person on his village or the next village.

 

We don't have to be English to say all this...all we need is to be human beings with compassion for the spiritual welfare of other human beings.

Edited September 20, 2014 by Nikolai1

[forestofemptiness]

But doesn't this:

 

It follows that the person who is still very much focussed on time and space will be focussed on those particulars (intellectual, behavioural, ethical) that are peculiar to his time and space.

 

Also apply to this?

 

 

The devotee in loving adoration surrenders themselves willingly to their God, and wants nothing more than to become nothing in themselves so that the will of their Beloved can express themselves more purely through them. They do not, as our good Archbishop did 'a few days ago', find themselves jogging across the common, waving their water bottle in admonishment at the heavens saying ''this is all very well, but isn't it about time you did something, if you're there,"

[GrandmasterP]

I'd much prefer meeting character A than bumping into character B out on the common.

Water bottle or no water bottle.

People shouting at the sky in public places are generally best avoided.

Edited September 21, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[Nikolai1]

Hi forestofemptiness,

 

Love is a spiritual achievement, whatever form it takes. But for most people, who are still stuck at the idea of themselves as individual selves in time and space, love is only felt for specific objects, be it people, possessions, countries.

 

It is a earth-changing leap when the lover discovers that there is a object of love, though not seen by the senses, that is omnipresent and whose love for you is deep and never fading. Love for mere people, we now see, was nothing other than a preparation for this higher, truer love.

 

Lovers of God, whose spiritual life is experienced through the ineffable emotions, don't tend to think and discuss what they feel at any great length. As far as I can tell, persons of this type are pretty much completely lacking on The Tao Bums, as you would expect (though I'd be interested to hear from any!)

 

I think its also true that people who take the intellectual approach, which is the main merit and virtue of Buddhism, find the besotted lover of the Divine pretty hard to understand. It's tempting to dismiss them. But when you think about it, the warmth and the peace and the beauty that all seekers find before long can easily be likened to love.

Edited September 21, 2014 by Nikolai1

[Nikolai1]

Hi GMP,

 

I'd much prefer meeting character A than bumping into character B out on the common.

 

So glad you warmed to my good friend, the Reverend Theophilus Pudding. I'm very fond of him myself.

 

Yet, alas, all is not so well with him. This very afternoon he got some pretty black looks from the Bishop, when offering his collection of South Sea Island fertility statuettes as a prize in the Harvest Festival Raffle. It seems anatomically correct and politically correct aren't always the same thing.

[C T]

I think its also true that people who take the intellectual approach, which is the main merit and virtue of Buddhism...

This statement is incorrect, but i'll leave it as that, fearing another round of tiring, unproductive to-ing and fro-ing, not to mention the appearance of opportunistic buzzards whenever discussions of this nature were to be convened.

 

While the pursuit of intellectual understanding is part of the Buddhist path, to say that such a pursuit is its mainstay is missing the mark altogether.

[Nikolai1]

Actually we probably agree more than you think. Buddha's teachings were intellectual, philosophical. But the fruit of the teacing is as much of the heart as the head