This sounds a New Age type of phrase but it is also something real and important for the fuller development of spiritual awareness.
Human consciousness does not stand still. It is not the same as it was 2,000 years ago or even 200 years ago. It changes. In some ways it deepens while in other it appears to contract but always the central drive is growth. Those who think there is some ultimate pure state beyond time and space and movement, and this is where we should be heading are setting themselves an artificial boundary. The fact is even the Buddha is not the same as he was at the time of his Nirvana. His consciousness will have grown. That is not to say there is not a state of pure conscious awareness in which subject and object appear as one and, as the Heart Sutra of Mahayana Buddhism puts it, form is emptiness and emptiness is form, but this misses the fact that life is not just being but being and becoming working together to make something more. It is not one thing but two things that, through their interaction, make a third thing. The oneness may exist but so does the difference. This is how creativity works and how freedom expresses itself in expanding the horizons. It makes for a dynamic universe.
People have different ideas of what the spiritual is. It might be believing in a religious doctrine with the aim of salvation. It might be following a religious path with the goal of fitting oneself for heaven. It might be training the mind to become more aware or turning to mystical practise to attain higher states of consciousness or the state beyond states. Pagans seek God through nature and its powers, dualists look to divine transcendence and monists focus on the immanent. All these approaches have validity on their level but they each attend to a particular dimension of the spiritual, even the latter which might claim to be encompassing everything though its diminishment of the created world and created beings belies that claim.
As I see it multi-dimensional spirituality encompasses two things. It expands the idea of what the spiritual is. It irradiates the mind with ever-greater amounts of light so revealing higher vistas on the one hand and deeper insights into what is already known and perceived on the other. It makes the familiar new by opening it up to what it only hints at as a cube does a square. This is fulfilling the law and the prophets. The new builds on the old but totally transforms it.
Then it is more inclusive. It rejects nothing except sin and untruth, both which it does reject unequivocally. Spirit is good, matter is good, all is good and all works for the good but all has its place and that place must be known. If something is taken out of place then good becomes ill. If something is neglected, the rest is incomplete. If something is over-emphasised, it loses its virtue. It is good to go beyond appearance to seek reality. It is better to realise that appearance is part of reality. It is even better to see that the world of appearance is not just the facade or 'play' of reality but actually adds to it.
At the present time the human mind is generally closed in on itself, only able to do one thing at a time and when it studies something it does so from outside that thing through experiment and analysis. There will come a time when the mind will have flowered to the extent that it can encompass many things simultaneously without diminishing attention on any of them. It will also be able to know a thing by entering directly into it. By focusing on a particular thing the mind will absorb itself into that thing and know it from the inside as though becoming it. This will be a spiritual state so there is no question of any violation of the thing's integrity in the case of conscious beings nor disturbance of its equilibrium. An example would be that you look at a stone and know the entire history of that stone and are also able to inwardly resonate with its psychic state. I did warn you about the New Age aspect of this idea!
Multi-dimensional spirituality may lie in the future but we can make steps towards it now by opening our minds up to the possibility of it and even by experimenting with its mode of cognisance. Through focused attention and directed thought we can begin to lay the first foundations on which it will eventually be built though as with any spiritual endeavour love, humility and imagination are essential if we are to build according to the divine order and not descend into magic meaning in this context a materialistic mind exploring and trying to exploit the spiritual world.
Just a clarification on the form/emptiness and being/becoming comments: You seem to believe that buddhism is somewhat static, as opposed to dynamic, with an over-emphasis on being and a neglect of becoming. One of the things that can initially discourage anyone who delves beyond the surface of buddhist thought is the stress it places on becoming. There are so many practices aimed at realizing that reality is not static and nothing is self-contained. Buddha's original declaration after his awakening had to to with "inter-being": nothing exists apart from everything else and the "emptiness" teaching is not about nothingness or one-ness but about the insight that all beings are interacting and, to use a familiar trope, "no man is an island." Despite their differences, one point of coalescence between Christianity and Buddhism is that we should love one another because we are everlastingly part of one another, sharing this world and creating it either through love and compassion or hatred and greed and delusion.Vedanta emphasizes the static self or changeless being, and this is where it departs from both Buddhist and Christian understanding.
ReplyDeleteYou're right edwin but then I have always felt that despite Buddhism claiming to incorporate what we are calling the world of becoming it doesn't really. Not in the fullest sense.
ReplyDeleteAnd I don't think the fact that we are part of one another is a reason to love in the Christian sense though it works for Buddhist compassion. The point of Christian love is surely the uniqueness of the individual which is not recognised or not properly recognised in Buddhism.
I will also repeat my theory that Mahayana Buddhism is the result of a spiritual influence from Christ in his universal mode that effectively "Christianised' original Buddhism to a degree.
Like William, I have come to believe that Christian Love is (our ought to be understood as) something like the opposite of being part of one another; Christian Love is the 'cohesion' of separate selves, separate beings.
ReplyDelete(Love is not necessary when things are actually one, and only apparently different.)
I take it further, perhaps, than William - in that I think we never were unified as one self; but that the 'history' of reality (of creation) is this bringing-together of these separate selves by love.
More exactly I think we were unified once by a single consciousness, of which we were un-conscious - we were immersed in it, hence unfree. The direction of spiritual evolution is to recognise our separation of selves, and then freely to choose love and a new and conscious cohesion.
It is possible to completely uproot evil. It is possible to completely cultivate good. Given that I affirmed this, I also have to affirm that the journey will come to an end.
ReplyDelete> That is not to say there is not a state of pure conscious awareness in which subject and object appear as one
This is not true. You cannot be aware of everything at once. There is a station of conscious where either the entirety of the subject or the entirety of the object is covered, yes. It is one or the other.
An addendum to my previous point. In that station of conscious it is also possible to abide in subject-object. If you got there through breath meditation, you will be able to cover the entirety of the breath, the air in your lungs, food pipe, stomach, intestines, etc.
ReplyDeleteThis class exists, but if you are abiding here, you are not abiding in the subject or the object. It is not both of them at once, it is different from both of them.
The phrase "part of one another" was not used in an ontological sense, to suggest that we are all made up of some amorphous goop forever bleeding into each other with no distinct boundaries. As I understand it, Buddhism maintains that we exist in relationship; that we come to know ourselves through relationship and to shape the world through relationship. That is what is primary and primarily dynamic. As for Mahayana Buddhism's debt to Christianity, there is no historical evidence: one can choose to believe it, but I am not sure what practical value it might have. The unicity of the individual we have discussed before, and your last answer, I believe, located it in freedom. Freedom is one of those words, like love, which is used promiscuously. Usually, it indicate freedom from something, which makes it a negation, more than an affirmation. But individuality would seem to require some definite, positive marks of identity. Bruce's notion that we were all once part of some unconscious consciousness from which we have been progressively emerging I have met before in Steiner. It's an interesting idea, but like much of Steiner's thought, it rests on whether one wants to believe it rather than on anything conclusively demonstrable.
ReplyDelete@edwin - "it rests on whether one wants to believe it rather than on anything conclusively demonstrable. "
ReplyDeleteWell, it's metaphysics, not science - if that's what you mean! There is no evidence for metaphysics, ever, by definition.
If you go back to the Buddha, as you should if you are talking about Buddhism, then relationship is not the primary thing surely? Nirvana is what Buddhism is all about. Anything other than that will come from other influences though I am not saying that the Mahayana was influenced by Christianity but by Christ or the Christ influence operating on a spiritual plane. This obviously is conjecture and can't be proved by conventional means. I don't insist on it (as if I could!) but I do believe it.
ReplyDeleteThe fact of the matter is that Buddhism rejects individuality whereas for the Christian that is fundamental. I don't see how you can have love in Buddhism if it means what it says. Compassion, yes, but not love. This is one of those cases where something tries to have its cake and eat it too.
As for freedom, that is not principally freedom from but freedom to. But really I would say that the individual is an irreducible thing so not really definable in terms other than itself
> If you go back to the Buddha, as you should if you are talking about Buddhism, then relationship is not the primary thing surely? Nirvana is what Buddhism is all about.
ReplyDeleteBy following the teachings of the Buddha you can get:
1. Fame, Gain & Offerings
2. Habits (Virtue)
3. Stability of Mind (Concentration)
4. Knowledge & Vision (Supranormal power)
5. Release of wisdom/concentraton
Release is the heartwood of the teaching.
> The fact of the matter is that Buddhism rejects individuality whereas for the Christian that is fundamental.
These questions pertain to the development of stations of consciousness. There is the station of consciousness where there is:
(1) multiplicity of form & multiplicity of perspective (where sensuality leads to)
(2) multiplicity of form & singleness of perspective (where good-will leads to)
(3) singleness of form & multiplicity of perspective (where compassion & sympathetic joy leads to)
(4) singleness of form & singleness of perspective (where equanimity leads to)
What are the approved buddhist pursuits? 2-4.
What are the disapproved buddhist pursuits? 1
Where is the Buddha at? His consciousness cannot be placed at any location. Ditto with the one whose release is complete.
Love is 1 or 2. Most people say it is 1. But I know that you do say that, as you say love means aligning your love with God's love.
I consider the practice of good will entirely in line with the early texts. Or at least, as in line as the other practices of compassion, sympathetic joy & equanimity (and also the first - fourth jhana).
Obviously, I do not share your opinions on the supremacy of love over the rest. I consider the others entirely acceptable practices.
In fact, as far as stability of mind (concentration) goes, the one pursuing equanimity or the fourth jhana, provided he is not biting more that he can chew, provides the best results.
So what is nirvana? It's the release of wisdom & the release of concentration.
Why is it that I lose the wisdom I have gained? Many are the times where I realized that anger is harmful to myself & others. As long as I have the wisdom, anger does not arise. Yet wisdom keeps getting obscured and I keep getting angry.
Why is it that I am not able to stabilize & concentrate the mind whenever I want? Some days, it is a finger-snap. In other days, I have to fight much longer. What keeps me from getting concentration whenever I want?
It is in fixing these problems that is the essence of the Buddha's teaching.
I keep repeating this point, but you don't acknowledge it.
@William - It is, perhaps, a related distinction that Christianity sees itself as qualitatively different from Buddhism; but not vice versa. Apparently many Buddhists don't see Christianity as essentially distinct - except by errors of emphasis or misunderstandings.
ReplyDeleteBut Christianity is itself often self-contradicting. Or, at least, there are assertions that require Not to be understood, but to be accepted in a mystical fashion. However, what can be accepted as a mystery by some, may be a fatal stumbling block for others - which is why it may be valuable to acknowledge different ways of explaining the same basic belief - such as Jesus's divinity.
All Chrstians must, I think, regard Jesus as divine and in some way essential to salvation; but how this is *explained* differs a lot among even the most serious and devout Christians (leaving aside the rest).
I am happy to tolerate such differences, and indeed welcome them as different paths to the same truth; and I regard it as a terrible tragedy that the Christological disputes of the early centuries of the church began a practice of fixing on one official explanation, regarding the others as heretical and heresy as evil, hence in need of suppression (by whatever means is effective).
The spiritual wars between the Monophysite (nowadays called Oriental Orthodox) and the main bulk of the church led to worse persecution than Christians later suffered under the new religion of Islam - such that the Oriental Orthodox (Copts, Syrians etc) historically preferred living under Islam (or Zoroastrianism, in Persia) than under the mainstream Christian church of Constantinople and Rome. And as such they survived for 1000 plus years - until some have been recently almost obliterated by the interventions of the US/ UK/ EU ("Arab Spring").
If that is not a damning indictment, I don't know what is!
BSRK, I certainly appreciate your comments, firstly for the fact that you make them on a blog such as this and secondly for the comments themselves. However, I'm not sure what there is to acknowledge. I fully accept the validity of the Buddha's teachings and have even applied some of them to my own spiritual path. I love the Buddha and I love Buddhism as one of the noblest and wisest human achievements. I deeply respect pretty much everything about Buddhism in all its varieties.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, I also believe that Christ opened up a new way in that he showed how to sanctify the self rather than negating it which is what Buddhism does which can hardly be denied however much we hear explanations to the contrary. In Christianity the individual self is ultimately glorified albeit only when it has aligned itself with God. It therefore makes sense of creation which, as far as I know, Buddhism does not do. Why is there something rather than nothing is a supremely important question that is just not addressed in Buddhism. So although I do not dispute that the Buddha showed the way to a high spiritual state of being (let's not quibble about the use of the word state!) I think that Christ revealed a greater truth. The Buddha demonstrated the highest man could reach on his own but Christ was a revelation from God and showed God's purpose for creation. For me this is a much more exciting and fulfilling prospect but I do understand the position of those who do not share that view - even if I think they are ultimately mistaken!
Bruce, your first paragraph is important. I understand the Buddhist position because I shared it at one time. It comes I think from not really understanding the spiritual depths of what the Christian revelation really means. And also because mainstream Christianity can seem quite superficial.
ReplyDelete> However, I'm not sure what there is to acknowledge
ReplyDeleteI mean that the truly important thing about Buddhism is that one can release wisdom from it's hindrance forever. Once can release concentration from it's fetter forever.
> I do not dispute that the Buddha showed the way to a high spiritual state of being (let's not quibble about the use of the word state!)
By a high spiritual state of being do you mean released wisdom or released concentration?
> therefore makes sense of creation which, as far as I know, Buddhism does not do. Why is there something rather than nothing is a supremely important question that is just not addressed in Buddhism
Something: Whatever sights there are, Whatever sounds there are, .., Whatever ideas there are
Necessary & Sufficient for Something: what's called form (intention form, attention form, contact form, feeling form, perception form)
Nothing: The absence of sights, sounds, .., ideas
The path of practice leading to knowledge & vision of something, necessary+sufficient for nothing & nothing: The eight fold noble path
> @William - It is, perhaps, a related distinction that Christianity sees itself as qualitatively different from Buddhism; but not vice versa. Apparently many Buddhists don't see Christianity as essentially distinct - except by errors of emphasis or misunderstandings.
ReplyDeleteLet me see if I understood you. There is a good destination that is accessible to Christians but not to Buddhists. And furthermore, those in this good destination are immortal. Is that the crux of the distinction between Christianity & Buddhism?
If there is a place that Buddhists cannot know & see, than Buddhist knowledge & vision is defeated. In fact, even Buddhist release is defeated, given that knowledge+vision of the Buddhist cosmos & knowledge+vision of Buddhist release are tightly coupled at the level of completion.
ReplyDeleteNo Russel's teapot for us.
"If there is a place that Buddhists cannot know & see, then Buddhist knowledge & vision is defeated. ". Not necessarily. A lot of these debates exist only on the intellectual level and perhaps on the level of practice. But it is the heart that matters and each individual is judged according to that. I am sure Buddhists and Christians whose heart inclines in a similar direction will meet in a world in which distinctions between earthly groups will not matter so much.
ReplyDelete> But it is the heart that matters and each individual is judged according to that. I am sure Buddhists and Christians whose heart inclines in a similar direction will meet in a world in which distinctions between earthly groups will not matter so much.
ReplyDeleteYes, this is true.
Regarding Bruce's comment: the notion that metaphysics is demonstrable in the same way the natural science is demonstrable is not and was never my point. But certainly it is not beyond reason and, therefore, subject to critical examination. To reject this and make of metaphysics an unarguable,"primary thinking" or "intuition" would lock us into idiosyncratic fortresses or the kind of fideism that characterizes Islam. Regarding William's comment that buddhism is about nirvana: it assumes that nirvana is well defined in everyone's understanding and that it somehow subordinates the interconnectedness of all beings to a state of nothingness or mindless bliss. Nirvana cannot be reached without the realization of what is generally translated as "inter-being", or relationship. Mahayana Buddhism stresses the non-self teaching, which maintains that consciousness is always shifting and has no immovable center or unchanging locus. It rests on the logical works of Nagarjuna. I don't see offhand how Christ's influence can be traced in these works. I am greatly attracted to Christian revelation and have spent much of the past two years studying the Textus Receptus (the generally accepted Greek text) of St. John's Gospel. The Christ in this Gospel is markedly different from the figure in the synoptics, who never claims to be God or equal to the Father. It presents some difficulties which cannot be glossed over. I have read Bruce's commentary on the Fourth Gospel and find his arguments in many cases unconvincing, i.e. Jesus was married to Mary of Bethany and the text was written by Lazarus, his brother-in-law. I have also followed your blog for some time dating before the breakup of Albion Awakening. It always struck me that your notion of Christ and Christianity differed significantly from that of the other contributors: Bruce sees Christ through Mormon theology and John Fitzgerald presented himself as an orthodox Roman Catholic. Your own faith was much more elastic than that of your colleagues. But if all of you base your beliefs in intuitions that are unarguable, i.e. metaphysical in Bruce's use of the term, it would seem that intuition is grounded in personal preference, conditioning, temperament, etc. and cannot be a basis for any kind of community. I've had these thoughts for a while and thought I may as well give them expression.
ReplyDeleteEdwin, when I talk about the influence of Christ I chiefly mean the increasing emphasis on the Bodhisattva as a religious ideal. I'm not talking about Nagarjuna. It's been a along time since I read him but I do remember that I was not at all drawn to him and felt he was an intellectual philosopher intent on making an intellectual philosophy with little real spiritual feeling involved. A personal opinion.
ReplyDeleteJohn, Bruce and I don't see things in the same way in all senses, not at all. That was always understood but we do share many attitudes and the differences hopefully gave the blog a wider compass while the similarities, again hopefully, gave it a unifying thread.
I would never say anything I wrote here was 'unarguable' even if it does come, much of it, from intuition. But I do feel the points I have made about the Buddhist goal and the Christian one are valid and that the latter does go further in that it alone makes proper sense of creation and created beings, giving full value to all parts of life rather than near non-importance to some of them.
My teachers told me that one should always be careful to distinguish between intuition and wishful thinking. Few of us at the present stage of human development are able to be completely free of the latter taking it to include conditioning, temperament etc, myself included. But we have to try. The main thing though is to love God. Philosophical niceties are not so important.
@edwin - I would never say unarguable - please set that aside. We need, I think, to stop thinking (for a while) about the problem of convincing other people.
ReplyDeleteThis matter of 'argument' is a separate matter from each of us reaching solid ground about our own beliefs; reaching the bedrock of what we actually do currently believe in practice; and then discovering whether this unconscious belief of ours is something we can or should consciously embrace, or else whether it should be rejected.
Indeed, the constant concern about how we are going to convince other people, is something that poisons the whole spiritual search from the get-go.
It would be better (it is better) to do it by oneself, take responsibility for oneself alone; not talking about it with anyone else - certainly not trying to persuade anyone else.
These things are hard enough to put into word, but putting them into persuasive words is even more remote from the primary experience, and actually persuading someone is not a matter we can control (nor should we).
Hi William,
ReplyDeleteI have been looking for a way to email you personally, but it looks like you don't supply that info on the blog. You may remember that I left a comment some months ago, saying that I had read your book about your family member. I have now been reading your Meeting the Masters book, and would love to ask you a private question about that, if you are willing to indulge me.
Of course, Matthew. My email is william.wildblood@gmail.com
ReplyDelete