Existence of a Personal God

[Photo by LokiV7]

What would it take for you to be convinced
of the existence of a personal God?"

A good friend of mine -- who happens to be a Christian pastor -- asked me this the other day. After giving it some deep thought, I decided to put my conclusions in writing.

While he was raising this question, my friend stated that it was easy for him to believe in a personal God because how can he not believe in someone he has personally met? This experience of "direct knowing" is the evidence to which I attribute the greatest strength -- if someone has personally experienced the effects of gravity, how can one convince him that gravity does not exist?

However, this form of evidence presents a very interesting paradox. How do we explain contradictory "direct knowledge"? In particular, I am thinking of people I have known in the past who had a direct experience of their patron god and matron goddess from their primary pantheon. I am thinking of my friend's experience of directly knowing a single personal God. I am thinking of my own direct experience of the interbeing of us all, how we are each empty of independent existence. I am thinking of Charles Darwin who, in his notebooks, noted that through his studies in the Galapagos, he directly realized that the Christian religion in which he was raised -- indeed, he had been pursuing studies to become a clergyman at the time -- was false; he knew that the existence of such a God was a delusion.

It's my feeling that this paradox itself lies at the core of our absolute nature. Our physical minds are finite. So while we can enhance our five physical senses and our sixth intuitive sense, our human minds simply cannot grasp the totality of all that is. Hence, we're all experiencing some aspect of absolute truth. But it is egotistical and delusional to believe that you can encompass the entirety of the absolute; it is similarly egotistical and delusional to believe that your "direct experience" is completely true and all other contradictory "direct experiences" are false. You cannot be inside another person's mind; hence, it is simply impossible to directly compare your internal experience to another's.

Returning to the original question of what would convince me of the existence of a personal God, my answer is: Nothing. My personal religious experiences of emptiness and interbeing lie in opposition to the existence of a personal God as defined by the Christian faiths. Furthermore, were I to have an experience such as my friend's of a personal god, that would simply be an experience of another aspect of truth, one that I feel lies on a lower organizational level than emptiness and interbeing.

Many people see our world and cannot fathom how such a place could have arisen without the influence of a Guiding Hand. I side with Richard Dawkins and Charles Darwin when they share their utter awe at how nature has evolved through natural selection through the eons. A personal God is not necessary for this process to occur as we've observed, so I see no need to superimpose one over life's systems.

Many people think about the beginning of the universe and cannot fathom how it could have begun without God. The problem here is one of perspective. Our experience of time is linear -- beginning, middle, end -- and we naturally think that such a linear system must apply to the universe too. But given the span of billions of years lying between us and the big bang -- not to mention the nature of singularities in general -- we cannot know for certain what preceded the generation of our universe. One could propose the idea of a God. One could also say that there never was a beginning; generation and destruction may be cycling continuously without beginning or end.

I can hear the arguments already: "But that doesn't make any sense! How could time possibly cycle continuously without a beginning or end? Everything has a beginning. Infinite time is illogical!"

My answer to that is to ask a few counter-questions: how logical is it that time has "shape"? How logical is it that time is inextricably woven into space to form a continuum? How logical is it that an electron can never possibly be said to be at any particular location around a nucleus, but can only be said to be probabilistically located at any one point at any one time around a nucleus? How logical is it that time actually slows down as one's speed approaches that of light? My point is that many of our quantum and relativistic findings defy the limited logic of our minds. I once explained the idea of Schrodinger's Cat to my dad, who simply refused to believe it because it didn't make any sense. That doesn't make the quantum laws it illustrates any less true, though.

The fact is that we cannot know the beginning of nature. We cannot know if it has a beginning at all, regardless of what seems logical. We can conjecture all we want, but such musings are ultimately fruitless and of little use. It is infinitely more important that we accept the truth we have been lucky enough to "directly know," and accept the truth that others have been lucky enough to "directly know." It is infinitely more important to engage in whatever spiritual practice applies to your "direct knowledge," and to dedicate that practice to the benefit of all others and the world around you.

Nothing can convince me that a personal God exists. In the same way, I know nothing can convince my friend that his personal God does not exist. I'd never even dream of trying.

What is Truly Skillful Teaching?

[Photo by Romain Guy]

The heart of Buddhist training, and its brilliant effectiveness, lies in the use of Upaya, or skillful means. The Buddha gave many teachings in his day to many people of different levels of ability to comprehend and put into practice his teachings. Instead of presenting set "lectures," the Buddha taught each person according to his means. Some people's mental disposition and past experiences allow them to understand and improve their practice through direct Wisdom teachings--to these people the Buddha taught at an "advanced" level, framing the teachings in terms of emptiness and our inherent Buddha-nature. For others, such an approach would leave them behind, unable to improve their, and others', lives through the Buddha's teachings. To these people, the Buddha taught in a more directly practical manner. For example, to those whose dispositions were such that they could comprehend direct Wisdom, the Buddha may have explained the manner in which karmic influences affect our lives, and how to apply wisdom and compassion in all of our actions. To those for whom such teachings would fail to point them toward their own Awakening, the Buddha may have taught them the Five Precepts to guide them in their lives.

This isn't some judgmental approach that proclaims a certain class of people as "better" or more advanced than others. Rather, it is the ultimate expression of compassion and wisdom, the BEST thing the Buddha could do for that person at that time in their particular circumstances. The Buddha taught that each of us has the ability to Awaken to the fullest extent, and out of his perfect compassion, he guided each person with whom he spoke toward their own Awakening at whatever level they were capable of benefiting.

Any honest look at the world around us, and the people with whom we live, clearly shows that there is no single approach to life that will "work" for everyone. I have many Christian friends who, in their hearts, "know" that faith in Christ is in the best interest of every single individual on the planet. However, a number of my experiences in life have directly contradicted what Christians believe is True (e.g. I have directly experienced some level of interbeing and non-self, which Christianity strictly opposes). Therefore, Christianity clearly does not "work" for me; it does not model my experiences of the world, and I find several teachings in its most holy book to be 100% unethical (the denouncement of homosexuality comes to mind). I would be forced to lie to myself and others if I attempted to follow its teachings. Note that this isn't meant to bash Christianity. In terms of skillful means, Christianity does "work" for many people and is therefore an important guide by which many people live their lives. This is simply a personal example of skillful means in my life.

1-Minute Contemplation: Is there someplace in your life in which you used unskillful means in relating to others? Maybe a friend of yours required gentle compassion and you chose to use "tough love." Or maybe you tried to forcefully persuade somebody to your view, when a more gentle "guiding" approach would have been what they truly needed to hear. Contemplate this situation for 1 minute. How might you have acted more skillfully?

Technorati Tags: Buddhism, skillful means, upaya, Christianity, compassion, love, patience

Inherent Nature, Good or Evil?

[Photo by Alexandra Moss]

In a comment here, a friend of mine wrote, "Though I do believe we are all capable of 'good,' I tend to think we are more evil than good and society forces us to sublimate it and/or different religions/spiritual praxes condition us otherwise."

What I find particularly interesting about this statement is that we really cannot know for certain if that's ture, or if we are inherently good. Maybe we're not inherently anything! And of course, what do we mean when we use the terms, "Evil" or "Good"? She noted, "I know it reflects a sad state of mind and heart." But I really don't think so. We are all making the best choices and drawing the best conclusions we can, given the evidence with which life presents us.

She quoted the book of Genesis: "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood." (Genesis 8:21) I think it's accurate to say that this is a common Christian view presented in the Bible, that we are fallen and can only be made holy (whole?) again through Jesus. Obviously, other religions hold different views (i.e. Buddhism).

I truly do find it fascinating how we all view things so differently. You can say that we are more evil than good and we have to fight for altruism to shine forth in our lives. I can say that we are all ultimately perfect, but the defilements of anger, greed, and delusion obscure it—which is a product of our own making. The thing is that, from an observational standpoint, we see the same thing! People usually have to work at being altruistic and compassionate. You say that's because inherently, we're not nice. I say that's because our innate compassion and love are just veiled through our own doing.

She wrote, "You've got to fight to be good and do the right thing. It ain't easy. But it's worth it." You sure as h*ll hit the nail on the head with that one!

1-Minute Contemplation: What is the basis of our existence? Are we innately good or innately evil? Why? What do we even mean by "good" and "evil"? Are these arbitrary definitions? Or is there some ground upon which these terms are based?

Technorati Tags: Buddhism, evil, good, religion, Christianity, Genesis, heart

Gratitude

[Image Source]

I'm especially grateful tonight for a comment on my post on Memetics that showed me that I did not clearly convey my feelings in that post about the benefits of Christianity and all religions. Their memetic structure has nothing to do with their inherent benefit to their followers; it simply provides a means to analyze the manner in which a religion propogates throughout cultures. I have since posted two comments (and welcome much further discussion!) that hopefully clarify my high regard for the religion when it is consciously chosen as fitting a person's experience.

Technorati Tags: Christianity, gratitude, memetics, memes, religion

Your Practice

[Image Source]

One of our biggest challenges is truly making our practice our own, bringing our Buddhist practice off the cushion (or your Christian practice out of the Church) into daily life. As we continue in our practice, aspects of the path come out naturally, without conscious thought—we maintain one-pointed calm in the face of work deadlines, or compassionate, helpful action arises of its own accord when we see somebody who appears to be lost, or we see a butterfly and, without a second thought, take a minute to appreciate its beauty and splendor, before continuing on our way. However, this process is on-going, and we can only devote attention to a limited number of practices at a time.

In a Dharma talk this past Sunday, our resident priest asked us how we apply our practice in our everyday lives. The responses were wonderful! One woman focuses particularly on developing patience, waiting patiently, being patient with others, being patient with herself. Another focuses on kindness, on always remaining aware of whether her responses to others are kind, and in being mindful of situations in which kindness could be extended to others. A man conveyed his practice of attention and connection; he explained that when traveling on public transportation, he practices seeing each individual person present as an individual, connecting with each of them briefly with his attention. Another woman focuses on her breath, maintaining concentration as her practice.

This Dharma talk made me aware that I try to include too many things at one time in my practice, thus artificially limiting my development in any one. One of my personal challenges is that I tend to be more interested in things, ideas, and structures, than people. Therefore, for the foreseeable future, I am making connection my practice. "What can I do to connect with this person?" "What does this person need right now?"

1-Minute Contemplation: What is your practice? How can you focus your practice for the greatest benefit to all beings? How can you improve your practice?

Technorati Tags: Buddhism, practice, Christianity, Dharma, compassion, attention, Church, Temple, connection

On Mahayana Buddhism and The Lotus and the Cross

[Image Source]

In 2001, Dr. Ravi Zacharias, a respected Christian scholar, published a book entitled The Lotus and the Cross, a small book with a creative premise—a conversation between Jesus and Buddha over the life of Priya, a dying woman in a spiritual quandary. To Dr. Zacharias's credit, he traveled to several Buddhist countries and interviewed monks to broaden his view of Buddhism as research for this book. Unfortunately, he published a book that was quite inaccurate from a Mahayana Buddhist perspective, reflecting a lack of understanding of Buddhist principles. It would be truly unfortunate if The Lotus and the Cross was a person's only exposure to Buddhism; examining the target audience of Dr. Zacharias's book, this is likely the case in many instances. Therefore, I wrote an essay entitled On Mahayana Buddhism and The Lotus and the Cross. It is my wish to make this essay available to every reader of The Lotus and the Cross, to make them aware of the strengths and limitations of that work, and to give them a more complete understanding of the Buddhist religion, written by a practicing Buddhist.

If you know anyone who has, or plans to, read The Lotus and the Cross, please direct them to this post or the essay.

Technorati Tags: Mahayana, Buddhism, Ravi Zacharias, Lotus and the Cross, critique, Christianity, Jesus, Buddha, lotus, cross

Memetics and The Parable of the Mustard Seed

[Image Source]

Jesus asked, "How can I describe the Kingdom of God? What story should I use to illustrate it? It is like a tiny mustard seed. Though this is one of the smallest of seeds, it grows to become one of the largest of plants, with long branches where birds can come and find shelter." (Mark 4:30, NLT)

In this parable, Jesus seems to be reassuring his early followers that, despite their small numbers in the vast, Pagan Roman empire, God's kingdom will experience an explosion of growth, ultimately providing the umbrella under which all people can seek shelter. As we see today, his prediction of the spread of Christianity has proven correct. How has this religion achieved such dominance in the West?

Christianity, like all religions, has spread through employing effective memes. Arguably, the memeplex of Christianity has employed some of the most efficient replicators of any religion.¹ Evangelism, common among many religions, is one meme employed ferociously by Christians. Christian missionaries travel the world, providing many needed functions to help the local people, and also spreading the word of God to all they help. There is no better means by which to spread your idea than by embedding in the idea itself the responsibility to witness to others.

As the number of Christians grew, another strategy meme naturally arose as a product of evangelism—repetition. The more Christians there were that were evangelizing, the more non-Christians heard the message. "[As] any advertising executive would tell you: repetition sells."² Repetition is also prominent in the religion's rituals, as it is in most religions. Repetition of the core teachings implants the ideas more deeply into a practitioner's psyche.

Christianity employs a division of people into two categories: saved and unsaved. Believers in Christ have been saved, and non-believers can always be saved if they commit to Christ. This dichotomy utilizes three effective memes. Saved status provides the follower with both security and belonging. An eternity of separation from God is a frightful thought to people who have chosen to consider this belief structure, and committing to Christ immediately secures one from this fate. Second, it fulfills the same role as street gangs unfortunately do to many youths today; it gives the followers the feeling of belonging to something greater than themselves. Additionally, the meme of simplicity increases replication of the Christian memeplex—it is an easy process to become saved; there is no long list of steps that must be undertaken; one must simply succumb to Christ's divinity.

One final meme I'd like to discuss is the "window of opportunity" meme. Again, any salesperson will tell you that "limited time offers," "one day sales," and "store specials" increase the probability that a customer will purchase the product affected by the offer. Christianity teaches that we have a single life to live as humans, a single life in which to decide that Christ is our savior, or not. In essence, it's a limited time offer, and if we don't buy now, the offer expires.

Many more memes than the ones I've described here have all-but-ensured that Jesus's prediction would come true—Christianity has sprouted from a tiny mustard seed into a huge, wide-reaching plant. All religions that utilize fit memes have also experienced similar growth at certain times in history, including Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, and Paganism. Memes, being cultural units of transmission, are subject to changing culture and, hence, their levels of fitness will change as the cultural environment in which they spread changes. Catholicism, for instance, has experienced difficulty in recent times with its traditional views on such things as female priests. Modern culture is beginning to place greater emphasis on the reason meme, that rules should make sense, than on the tradition meme. As a result, Catholicism suffers, as one of its primary memes, tradition, becomes a poorer replicator in the primal soup of modern culture. As long as the culture is responsive to the memes employed by Christianity, it will continue to flourish as a successful religion. As the culture changes, as all cultures do, Christianity will be forced to adapt or decline.

---

¹ The current rise of Islam raises some interesting questions as to what has changed in the culture to make Islam's memes replicate so much more effectively than in the past.

² Brodie, Richard. Virus of the Mind. Integral Press. 1996

Technorati Tags: mustard seed, meme, memetics, Christianity, replicator, religion, Jesus, Christ, parable

DaVinci Code and Symbology

[Image Source]

I went to see the DaVinci Code last night (I read the book a few weeks back). My basic impression: not as good as the book—but what movie ever is? However, it was still worth watching, although there were some serious deviations from the book that they did not flesh out thoroughly. While the book & movie are labeled as fiction, they contained enough historical references and truths for people to mistake entirely fictional aspects as true. One of my best friends, an Evangelical Christian pastor (and history major in college) has told me that people from every class of life have already quoted to him as true several events as portrayed in the book that are patently false from a historical perspective.

I think Joseph Campbell said it best, as he so often did: "One of the great calamities of contemporary life is that the religions that we have inherited have insisted on the concrete historicity of their symbols." The value of this book is not that it is presenting to us an alternative history to Christianity. The value is in showing people that the historical truth of the stories of religions are of little importance compared to their symbolism.

Religions speak to us because they answer, in symbolic, poetic form, questions that we cannot logically answer any other way. Back in the time when Genesis was written, science was not capable of determining any truths about the beginning of the universe, so religion answered that question. Today, many aspects of nature that originally required religious explanation are now modeled by science--weather patterns, meteor showers, eclipses. Does this make the old religious stories about these events meaningless? Yes, from the standpoint of understanding the events as external natural occurrences. No, from the standpoint of gaining insight into the similarities of such events to aspects of our psyches. The story of Genesis, which science has easily disproved as a literally true explanation of the evolution of the planet, still has much value through its ability to instill in Christians a wonder and awe of God and his unconditional love. Religious stories still have value to our psyches, are still necessary aspects of our mental makeup, that should work in conjunction with science, not as directly opposed to it.

Our psyches, our mental consciousness, our emotions, are things that science has not been able to explain yet. Hence, these are the topics for which religion still holds the most value. We do not truly know how consciousness works, why (if there is a why!) we have it. Archetypes abound in our minds, reflecting in our actions and thinking, and we're almost always fully unconscious of that fact. Religion provides the symbols that help us explain, and work with, such subjective aspects of ourselves. The ancient Greeks, to name just one example, had a thorough mythology to represent the archetypal substance of our minds.

Back to the DaVinci Code, the value of the book is to show people that, for a religion to have meaning, the symbology of it must correspond to one's experiences, must instill awe in the practitioner for the world around him, and provide a satisfactory explanation of his experiences that he cannot find elsewhere. The problem is that people don't seek out and enact these symbols in their lives anymore—we have too much to worry about, to much to do. We cannot just be given symbols and have that have any real value to us; we must make the symbols our own, seek out the meaning of the symbols in our lives. The value of the DaVinci Code is that it shows people that the Sacred Feminine is an archetype within us, despite some people's denials, that requires an associated symbol in our religions. In the book, ***SPOILER WARNING***, they chose not to publicly release the historical truth that Jesus' bloodline still exists. They chose to allow people to discover for themselves the need for the Sacred Feminine in their own lives, in whatever symbols speak to them, as individuals.

Technorati Tags: DaVinci Code, symbols, Joseph Campbell, mythology, religion, Christianity, Sacred Feminine, Greek Mythology, Genesis