Explore
Gaia Soulmates
 Advertising keeps Gaia free! Interested in sponsoring us?

Knowing what you don’t know

Posted on Oct 25th, 2009 by Sean : Dharma Monkey Sean

An excerpt from Karen Armstrong’s new book, The Case for God, is included in this month’s Ode magazine. In it, she makes the argument that New Atheism, a school of thought that has gained popularity through the writings of people like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, doesn’t have the grounding in science that some would like to think.

Dawkins, she says, has argued that mankind’s propensity toward religion is “an evolutionary mistake.” I’ve read some of Dawkins’ works where he has described our shared religious impulse as an accidental by-product of evolution and, as Armstrong quotes him, a “misfiring of something useful.”

From The Case for God:

 

Dawkins is an extreme exponent of the scientific naturalism. For Dawkins, like the other “new atheists,” religion is the cause of all the problems of our world; it’s the source of absolute evil and “poisons everything.” These individuals see themselves in the vanguard of a scientific/rational movement that will eventually expunge the idea of God from human consciousness.

But other atheists and scientists are wary of this approach. The American zoologist Stephen Jay Gould [believed] everything in the natural world could indeed be explained by natural selection, but he insisted science wasn’t competent to decide whether God did or didn’t exist, because it could work only with natural explanations. Gould had no religious ax to grind; he described himself as “atheistically inclined agnostic,” but pointed out that Darwin himself denied he was an atheist. Atheism didn’t, therefore, seem to be a necessary consequence of accepting evolutionary theory, and Darwinians who held forth dogmatically on the subject were stepping beyond the limitations proper to science.

But the new atheists will have none of this. They adhere to a hard-line form of scientific naturalism that mirrors the fundamentalism on which they base their critique: Atheism is always a rejection of and parasitically dependent on a particular form of theism. Like all religious fundamentalists, the new atheists believe they alone are in possession of truth; like Christian fundamentalists, they read scripture in an entirely literal manner.

 

 

That last sentence underscores what I believe is the real problem.  Isn’t is so easy to think that what you believe — or even what you see — is the truth?  We’re all guilty, in one way or another.

Thousands of years ago, we looked to the heavens and within our own minds and wondered the eternal questions: How?  Why? What’s Next?  We used what we had to try and understand that which eluded us, and in doing so, we found what we thought were our own personal truths.  Many of us still ask these same questions today.

Some could argue that, if this ability to place our faith in the unseen — be it within or in some omnipotent power — were so detrimental to humanity, evolution should have weeded it out by now.  And for all I know, as wars rage around the globe while we amass stockpiles of weapons capable of annihilating our species and fundamentalists use terror to twist the teachings of wise men, maybe that’s where we are headed.

But the only thing I think I can be certain of is that no one knows the absolute truth.

Perhaps the underlying source of our problems is that evolution has given us the ability to rationalize our individual truths as The Truth.  Do people go to hell after they die for not accepting Jesus as their personal savior, or for worshiping another god?  Does the man who drives a car laden with explosives into a packed market spend eternity in the company of virgins?  Is there some part of me that moves on after this body ceases to function?

I don’t know the answer to these and other questions, and yet, so much of my day-to-day life is based on the assumption that I do.  Amplify this assumption by 6.8 billion people, and suddenly, things get very complicated.

The point where science and faith intersect is murky at best, but assumptions of truth should probably be left to scientists, who have established a method for separating that which is real from that which is unknown. As science and faith continue to work together, as is the case with organizations like the Mind and Life Institute, maybe we’ll find some answers.  Until then, humanity is best served by leaving the absolutes in the laboratory.

 

Clipped from my blog: www.dharmamonkey.com/wp

Access_public Access: Public What do you think? Print views (29)  

Compassion in action

Posted on Aug 22nd, 2009 by Sean : Dharma Monkey Sean

With world headlines fixed on the return to Libya of convicted terrorist Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi, I have watched these last couple of weeks as deep sorrow over the loss of 270 innocent people has turned to anger, rage and hate.  A court action, allegedly on the grounds of compassion, has generated profound animosity that is, perhaps, as deep as the sadness from which it sprung.  Gouging the wounds of the surviving families is television footage of Al-Megrahi’s jubilant return to Tripoli.

I consider myself fortunate to have never experienced the depth of loss and helplessness that comes from the senseless death of a loved one.  So it is easy for me to sit back and remind myself that we should feel compassion and loving-kindness for everyone involved in the tragedy of Pan Am Flight 103 — including the perpetrators.  This is, I guess, an area of my spiritual practice where I am relatively untested, though I have been able to find room in my heart for forgiveness of those, especially in my own family, who have committed hurtful acts against me and the people I have loved.

I also have the example of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, with his sincere, public forgiveness of the same Chinese Communists who very nearly destroyed Tibet and forced its government into exile, all while torturing and murdering millions of Tibetans since the 1959 uprising.  This, to me, is the ultimate act of compassion.

Survivors of the Mumbai attacks stand with Kia, center.  From left are Patty and Phil Duncan, Ben Radtke and Master Charles Cannon

Survivors of the Mumbai attacks stand with Kia, center. From left are Patty and Phil Duncan, Ben Radtke and Master Charles Cannon

Another example of compassion in action comes from journalist April Witt’s well-crafted narrative of events during the 2008 terror attacks in Mumbai.  Her story, in tomorrow’s Washington Post Magazine, follows a group of spiritual pilgrims from Virginia who were in the Oberoi as terrorists put the hotel under siege,  murdering 32 innocent people, including a father and daughter on the pilgrimage.  Despite losing her husband and a radiant 13-year-old daughter named Naomi, Kia Scherr does not harbor the anger seen in light of Al-Megrahi’s release.

“We must send [the terrorists] our love, forgiveness and compassion,” she said at a news conference after the pilgrims from the Synchronicity Foundation returned home from India.  ”As Jesus Christ said long ago, ‘They know not what they do.’  They are in ignorance.  And they are completely shrouded and clouded by fear.  And we must show that love is possible and love overpowers fear.  So that’s my choice.”

The story featured photos of the pilgrims who survived the attack, including Kia.  After reading the story and seeing the power of compassion in action, I guess it isn’t surprising that it appears as if light is literally emanating from the group.  They are an example for all of us, a testament to the power of forgiveness in aiding the so-called human condition.

Photo credit: Matt Eich/Aurora Select, via washingtonpost.com

Clipped from my blog: DharmaMonkey.com

Access_public Access: Public What do you think? Print views (44)  
Tagged with: compassion, forgiveness

Many American names for god?

Posted on Aug 17th, 2009 by Sean : Dharma Monkey Sean
Lord Shiva

Newsweek’s Lisa Miller, one of my favorite religion writers, takes a different look this week at the 2008 Pew Forum survey data that confirmed America’s status as a “Christian nation” is on the decline.  Perhaps, she speculates, America is becoming a Hindu nation?

Well, not really.  But she notes, against the backdrop of sacred words from Hinduism’s Rig Veda, that America’s collective spiritual philosophies are quickly coming around.

 

For example:

●  Sixty-five percent of Americans believe that “many religions can lead to eternal life,” including 37 percent of white evangelicals,
●  Twenty-four percent of Americans believe in reincarnation (from a Harris poll in 2008), and
●  More than one-third of Americans choose cremation, up from 6 percent in 1975

If it’s yoga or kirtan, Jesus or Parshvanath, or Catholic Mass versus a Buddhist retreat, it’s all the Truth in America, which is the way it should be.

Sure, the Founding Fathers were probably only thinking about different denominations of Christianity when they penned the opening sentence of the Bill of Rights — or maybe all Abrahamic religions at best — but the intent was that America would be free of both religious persecution and a sanctioned state religion.  Funny how we’ve strayed from that in these last 20 years…

“That which is the One Truth, the seers teach in many different ways” (Rigveda I:164.46)

Clipped from my blog: Dharma Monkey
Access_public Access: Public 1 Comment Print views (17)  

“Death with dignity” as a fundamental human right

Posted on Aug 16th, 2009 by Sean : Dharma Monkey Sean

With America’s “crazy tree” in full bloom over public discussion of health care reform (and everything else we’re afraid of in a society that is facing it’s biggest economic downturn since the Great Depression), the question of end-of-life counseling has been forced into the spotlight.  While some have managed to intentionally (and preposterously!) mangle the notion of palliative counseling into the advent of purpoted “death panels,” I am hopeful that we can take a step back and contemplate the larger question: what type of spiritual help do we (or should we) provide to the dying?

In Sogyal Rinpoche’s Tibetan Book of Living and Dying, he makes a strong case that end-of-life care is a necessity.  In the chapter titled “Spiritual Help for the Dying, he writes:

“Spiritual care is not a luxury for a few; is it the essential right of every human being, as essential as political liberty, medical assistance, and equality of opportunity.  A real democratic ideal would include knowledgeable spiritual care of everyone as one of its most essential truths.  Wherever I go in the West, I am struck by the great mental suffering that arises from the fear of dying, whether or not this fear is acknowledged. …In Tibet it was a natural response to pray for the dying and to give them spiritual care; in the West the only spiritual attention that the majority pay to the dying is to go to their funeral.  At the moment of their greatest vulnerability, then, people in our world are abandoned and left almost totally without support or insight.  This is a tragic and humiliating state of affairs, which must change.  All of the modern world’s pretensions to power and success will ring hollow until everyone can die in this culture with some measure of true peace, and until at least some effort is made to ensure this is possible.”

What is wrong with a government — with our government — sanctioning this type of deeply personal care, perhaps even elevating it to a unwritten right?  People obviously have different notions of what happens at the time of death, but generic counseling not associated with any type of religious or spiritual tradition is available.  At my Grandma’s hospice, which was run by a Protestant group that made no attempt to hide the fact, the materials provided to our family made no mention of God or Heaven, but instead tried to prepare us for the physical and mental states that Grandma would experience in her final days.

Clearly, the public dialogue on this subject has been twisted in order to meet the self-serving political needs of a group I can’t even begin to understand.  And it’s regretful that, in order to try and focus the debate, the powers that be have taken end-of-life counseling off the table as a discussion point.  But, as Sogyal Rinpoche so bluntly puts it, “What does it really mean to have the technology to send people to the moon, when we do not know how to help our fellow humans die with dignity and hope?”

Clipped from my blog, http://dharmamonkey.com/wp/?p=705


Access_public Access: Public What do you think? Print views (15)  

Prayers for peace in the Internet age

Posted on Jun 21st, 2009 by Sean : Dharma Monkey Sean


Iran-Green

As a child of the 1970s and early 1980s, the only exposure I ever received to world events took place during a five-minute segment on the evening news. The American TV broadcaster ABC would always place a red band in the top left-hand corner of the screen with the name of the foreign news location where the story was taking place. It seems sometimes as if the only memory I have of world news during those years is from Berlin, Moscow and Afghanistan.

In 2009, I can read in real-time about events unfolding on the streets of Tehran, Mogadishu and Lhasa. Within seconds of an event taking place, video flashes across programs like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. And the news is still rarely ever good.

For the last week, I have followed a perfect stranger’s experience on Twitter. I only know him or her as @change_for_iran, a self-identified student participating in the nation’s Green Revolution. When I realized earlier today that this person stopped posting to Twitter, I started searching for real-time news out of Iran. Within 30 seconds, I found a video of a young woman bleeding to death on the streets of Tehran, allegedly at the hands of the Basij, a pro-government militia.

I flinched at first, but then made myself watch all agonizing 30 seconds of the video of a precious young woman dying. In the comments below the image, people argued back and forth whether the video was made today, or if it was in Tehran or Esfahan. To all of them, I simply ask: Why does any of it matter?

Human beings have certain fundamental rights – human rights – including the right to self-determination, and yet, with something as seemingly novel as Twitter, the entire planet can watch as a young lady bleeds to death, all because she stood up for her basic rights. We, as humanity, should be outraged.

And yet, there’s reality. So many of us, myself included, are caught up in the whirlwind of our daily lives, distracted by the new restaurant down the street, or by a new version of the iPhone, that we literally lose sight of the fact that we are interconnected. We simply cannot see that, when one of us falls on the streets of Tehran, or suffers under the military baton in Lhasa, or loses a fight to drugs and gang violence on the streets of Washington, D.C., every one of us suffers.

Somewhere today, a parent is wondering why her daughter has not yet returned home, fearful, perhaps, of that green piece of cloth tied around the young girl’s wrist. And at some point in the future, the man who pulled the trigger and the man who ordered him to do so will have to come to terms with the blood on their hands.

The girl and the men involved in her death are my brothers and sister; I can only pray and ask for prayers of compassion and loving-kindness to prevail.

Photo credit: The New York Times

Clipped from my blog, http://www.dharmamonkey.com/wp

Access_public Access: Public What do you think? Print views (64)  

The wicked power of ego

Posted on May 5th, 2009 by Sean : Dharma Monkey Sean

Clipped from my blog: http://www.dharmamonkey.com/wp/?p=652

Every seeker longs for that moment of ultimate realization -- the great ah hah! moment that makes the difficult path worthwhile. After seven years of searching inside and seeking knowledge from without, I think I’ve had my moment, only to realize that I was my biggest stumbling block the entire time, and will likely continue to be so.

The intersection of circumstances that have led me to this discovery are strange, and yet, they represent the day-to-day drudgery that is my thought process – a heap of screaming monkeys locked inside my head, determined, I had always thought, to keep me focused on everything except the here and now.

Well, I was wrong. Those monkeys are part of me, and their goal has always been to keep me from realizing the fact that my ego is wickedly strong.

Ego. Ego. Ego. It’s all I could think about last night as I tossed and turned, reliving every stupid, ignorant, dumb, illegal, inconsiderate and selfish act I’ve ever undertaken. It’s as if my ego has a separate consciousness, nudging me along my spiritual path (because I/it felt that this was the correct path), all while purposely throwing up barriers to keep me from noticing the power it holds over the forward direction of my life.

Ego.

It started with unmet expectations in my current job – what I had always thought was my dream job. There was resentment and anger, and a feeling of “this isn’t what I signed up for” that constantly gnawed at me, just below the surface. I’d catch a glimpse of my ego, and tell my mind to settle down. I’m fortunate to have a job right now, I’d think, and it’s stupid of me to be anything but grateful because I’m earning a decent salary. Then I’d dive in head-first to my work again and stop trying to figure out where the feelings were coming from. This made the ego happy, and so the pattern would continue for months, going round and round like the proverbial vicious cycle.

A few weeks ago, as I struggled to come to terms with these feelings (again), I happened upon a chapter in “Awake at Work” called “Practice ‘No Credentials.’”

“Workplace credentials – our titles, college degrees, qualifications, symbols of status and authority – can sometimes help get the job done and sometimes just get in the way.”

It goes on to describe a very typical situation here in Washington – people who define themselves by their job title or occupation – and how this practice can actually hinder your ability to do your job and your ability to be truly present and mindful as you work.

“Try as we might, we cannot create a seamless, reliable version of ourselves out of our career or job. And when we expect otherwise – when we expect work to deliver something it can never deliver – we become frustrated and uptight: exaggerating achievements, glossing over failures, sugarcoating mistakes; feeling arrogant, slighted, embarrassed or smug.

"By practicing ‘no credentials,’ we are willing to examine these feelings candidly, gradually unraveling the blinding effects of clinging to our credentials. We learn to let go of job titles and pretense and shift our attention to being authentic, to being who we are, where we are, at work.”

I’ve pondered this over the last few weeks, actually catching myself when asked, “What do you do.” Try responding with “I work in (industry)” rather than “I am (job title)." More than likely , you’ll be asked a follow-up question. “Oh, where? And what do you do there?” The very question of “What do you do” is like offering candy to a baby – or in this case, to your ego.

I guess this made my mind ripe for the next dose of reality, which came in the form of Sogyal Rinpoche’s “The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying.” I’ve felt pulled into the book, as if Rinpoche is directly answering the questions that have been lingering in my mind for the last few years. And last night, I reached the chapter on ego.

“Two people have been living in you all your life. One is the ego, garrulous, demanding, hysterical, calculating; the other is the hidden spiritual being, whose still voice of wisdom you have only rarely heard or attended to. As you listen more and more to the teachings, contemplate them, and integrate them into your life, your inner voice, your innate wisdom of discernment, what we call in Buddhism “discriminating awareness,” is awakened and strengthened, and you begin to distinguish between its guidance and the various clamorous and enthralling voices of ego. The [karmic] memory of your real nature, with all its splendor and confidence, begins to return to you.

"You will find, in fact, that you have uncovered in yourself your own wise guide. Because he or she knows you through and through, since he or she is you, your guide can help you, with increasing clarity and humor, negotiate all the difficulties of your thoughts and emotions. Your guide can also be a continual, joyful, tender, sometimes teasing presence, who knows always what is best for you and will help you find more and more ways out of your obsession with your habitual responses and confused emotions. As the voice of your discriminating awareness grows stronger and clearer, you will start to distinguish between its truth and the various deceptions of the ego, and you will be able to listen to it with discernment and confidence.”

I reached a point where, while reading these teachings, I set my book down, closed my eyes, and immediately feel into a state of deep thought where, for the first time ever, I was able to push my ego completely out of the way. Each time I tossed and turned during the night, the word “ego” formed on my lips as I rummaged through memories of everywhere my ego has taken me in 37 years – not a pretty trip when one is trying to sleep.

It was and continues to be profound, and I have no idea where this new perspective is going to take me, or if it will even continue.

But I’m hopeful, because I think only good can come from this.

Access_public Access: Public What do you think? Print views (65)  

Absent-minded mindfulness

Posted on Feb 21st, 2009 by Sean : Dharma Monkey Sean

Absent-minded mindfulness

Clipped from my blog, www.dharmamonkey.com

Not too long ago, my yoga teacher had one of those ah-ha! moments in the shower. She was shaving her legs, had no idea that she was shaving her legs, and then realized she had no idea what she was doing. She shared the experience during class that evening as an example of the disconnect between mind and body that plagues many of us.

It is classic Thich Nhat Hanh – you wash the dishes not to get them clean, but to wash the dishes. The point is that we should always strive to be in this very moment, not absorbed by the end-goal of our actions, but instead engaged in this specific, exact frame of reality. All too often, our lack of mindfulness causes us to lose this frame, and then the next, and so on, until we are missing out on the here-and-now, which is the only thing we really have in the first place.

But what happens when we not only lose track of mindfulness, but we also carry out actions without a clear sense of intent? Are the two related?

Last weekend, I spent the better part of two hours preparing dinner, cutting up fresh ingredients and carefully measuring spices and liquids, to celebrate Valentine’s Day at home. As I neared the point where dinner would be ready to go on the table, I burned myself after dropping a chicken breast in hot oil, which gave me quite a wake-up call. Looking back, I see that I was charging gung-ho into the actual cooking without any thought for how I would finish an entrée and two side dishes at the same time, so that everything could go onto the plate fresh and hot.

The more I think about it, I am conscious of the fact that I had absolutely no clear intent for preparing that meal. I literally did not think about what I wanted to accomplish, or how I wanted things to turn out: the task was suggested, and I blindly walked into it. Althought I wanted to cook dinner and enjoy a good meal with my partner, I was simply going through the motions rather than putting any amoung of th0ught into my actions.  I was literally absent minded.

When I make decisions – good or bad – I sometimes think of outcomes, but rarely ask myself why I choose to take the action at the onset. And yet, the more I turn this over in my mind, it seems that having the proper intention, or even knowing what my intent is in the first place, seems like such a basic component of mindfulness.

Access_public Access: Public What do you think? Print views (57)  

Miracles? Or random, everyday life?

Posted on Jan 24th, 2009 by Sean : Dharma Monkey Sean

Clipped from my blog, http://www.dharmamonkey.com/wp

Much has been said recently of the role of faith and God in the crash of a US Airways flight in the Hudson River. In today's Washington Post religion section is a story of the survivors of Flight 1549 who attribute the fact that they are alive to Divine Intervention.

In the days following the crash, I turned the question of miracles over and over in my mind. Are they real? What makes one person (or plane load of people) miracle-worthy? And don't other people deserve them? I have to think about the passengers of American Airlines Flight 77, including a group of D.C. school children on a field trip, who needed the same type of miracle before hijackers crashed that plane into the Pentagon.

It seems the distribution of these miracles is terribly unfair, and perhaps even unjust.

As part of my own journey, I have come to accept that no one is responsible for my personal "here and now" except for me. While the individual backstories of how I arrived at this very moment in time are intricate and complicated, they are, for better or worse, mine. Period.

I am the first to admit that one of the toughest parts of my spiritual journey over the last six years has been letting go of the security blanket that comes from being able to silently (or publicly) plead one's case with an omnipotent, all-powerful supreme being. The disillusionment that accompanies years and years of prayers for Middle Eastern peace - or decades of begging God, Jesus, the Holy Mother and St. Martin of Tours to help your mother kick her drug and alcohol habits - can be sharp enough that it forces you to ask some really difficult questions about life, including the issue of miracles.

As a child, I held a strong belief in miracles, because that's what the world teaches a small boy. When my puppy Cheeto was run over the day we brought him home, my dad and I prayed that he would somehow be OK. We prayed for a miracle that never came.

But as an adult, when the person I loved most lay in a hospice bed, I didn't pray for a miracle; instead, I asked the universe and all the holy things within it to envelop her in love and comfort so that she might have a smooth, quick journey out of this life. And for once, my "prayers" were thankfully answered.

I don't pretend to understand how this world works, other than the fact that I am solely responsible for me. I know that the impact of my actions in each individual moment creates ripples that move in all directions, and my ability to spread love or hate today will dictate the path that I walk tomorrow, in this life or the next.

That's not to say that the people who survived Flight 1549 were all incredibly nice people, or that people who do not get the miracle du jour are all mean and unfriendly. There are mysteries about our existence that none of will ever understand, and just as I got in my car last night, drove home, and walked through my front door, the 155 passengers of Flight 1549 boarded a plane bound for Charlotte, though they left the plane a little earlier than expected.

That's not a miracle. That's simply life, though this time it had a happy ending.

Access_public Access: Public What do you think? Print views (67)  
Tagged with: Spirituality, karma

Moral shades of gray: the Charter of Compassion revisited

Posted on Dec 6th, 2008 by Sean : Dharma Monkey Sean


Clipped from my blog, http://www.dharmamonkey.com/wp

A recent conversation here on this blog about an effort to create a counterpart to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that focuses on compassion as the single unifying factor among the world’s religions got me thinking: What exactly is universal among all mankind?

We are all united at a biological level, that is certain. With that fact in mind, is it possible that humanity shares a common set of morals?

There are any number of institutions in today’s world that are dedicated to the notion that good is, for lack of a better word, good. Churches, courts and social groups promote an agenda of helping; national chapters of the Red Cross or Red Crescent are able to mobilize massive financial aid and other relief services during times of catastrophic disaster, often crossing cultural barriers that have stood for centuries, if not millennia.

So, logic would follow, “good” clearly exists. Or at least some commonly held understanding that when there is suffering, humanity’s common good is served by relieving that suffering.

The question in my mind about the Charter of Compassion arose when someone in that discussion a month ago noted that there are sizeable swaths of people who commit what they believe to be good acts, when in fact, those acts may not be recognized as beneficial by society at large. Putting militants and radicals aside, what of conservative Christians in the United States during the last decade who honestly felt – in their so-called heart of hearts – that the bombing of an abortion clinic could be justified by the fact that the act would allow more embryos to develop into babies?

While abortion is a hot topic in contemporary American society, it seems like a good touchstone for me to try and formulate my thoughts on this question about the existence of a common set of morals, if for no other reason than it cuts straight to the core of people’s deeply held personal, cultural, societal and religious beliefs. Although I rarely discuss the topic of abortion with friends or strangers (who really does?), I can’t ever recall coming across someone who was either ambivalent or blasé about the subject.

(As a side note, when attending a Southern Baptist church as a teenager, the question was frequently posed by youth ministers and Sunday school teachers, presumably to perform an instant litmus test on the spiritual development of the young people.)

My answer when asked in Sunday school is the same answer I would give today: I am opposed to abortion, especially when used purely as a method of birth control. I’m sure my perspective today, as a 37-year-old self-identified progressive liberal, is based in large part on my upbringing in that small conservative Southern town, though even without that influence , I know that starting at a very young age, I have always felt that life, no matter what form it takes, is an incredibly precious thing.

It seems, therefore, that I share a moral point of view with the most ardent of right-wing evangelical Christians, though I wouldn’t necessarily equate the termination of an early-stage pregnancy with a strict definition of murder (and I believe strongly in a woman’s right to choose). And that, to bring the previous discussion of shared moral values as they relate to the Charter for Compassion, is where shades of gray start to come into play. While on the surface I’d hazard to guess that most people around the globe share the view that human life is something worthy of protection, the exact way that each of us interprets that moral imperative, as individuals and as a range of societal units, varies to such an extent that our original intent is lost. This leads me to believe that the protection of human life isn’t so much a moral imperative as it is a subjective set of decision points that eventually play a role in shaping each person’s world view.

This, of course, is disappointing. In high school, when I read William Golding’s Lord of the Flies, the first discussion question my English teacher posed on the subsequent essay exam was whether or not we felt, based upon what we read in the book, that human beings are aggressive by nature. I answered an overwhelmingly optimistic “no,” if for none other than the fact that Ralph and Piggy, polar opposites in so many superficial ways, held out until their respective ends, preferring the rational order of an establishment (which promoted the Common Good) to the chaotic nature of an anti-establishment, where the good of the individual is almost always served.

What then is the common thread among the world’s diverse religions and those who follow them? Is there, as the Charter for Compassion proposes, a universal Golden Rule? Or is it simply that in each case, our founding teachers – Jesus, Buddha and Mohammad among them – had a sense of optimism and purity of intent that set them apart from the masses?

I have studied the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama and Jesus Christ, trying to remove the cultural baggage that colors our 21st century interpretations of their words. And in doing so, I see men whose hearts transcended the shades of gray that we encounter when we ponder “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” For Jesus and Buddha, there were no exceptions – the meek, the wicked and the down-trodden were afforded the same comforts. There was no convenient forgetting of genocides happening a world away, or looking the other way as the actions of one group destroyed the fortunes of another. If all of these men had not been operating in a higher, purer mental state, their followers would have vanished shortly after their own deaths.

If I am to live at my fullest spiritual capacity, then I have to call on the true intent of the wise teachers who came before me and recognize the importance of compassion as the one common thread that runs through all the great acts of history and the people behind those acts. The baseline assumptions of the Charter of Compassion, which strike me as the smartest advice one can take into their spiritual life in this confusing world, have never been more important than they are today.

From charterforcompassion.com:

The Charter does NOT assume that all religions are the same; that compassion is the only thing that matters in religion; or that religious people have a monopoly on compassion.

The Charter DOES affirm that compassion is celebrated in all major religious, spiritual and ethical traditions; and that the Golden Rule is our prime duty and cannot be limited to our own political, religious or ethnic group.

Therefore, in our divided world, compassion can build common ground.

Access_public Access: Public What do you think? Print views (79)  

Compassion = Hope = A Brighter Tomorrow

Posted on Nov 17th, 2008 by Sean : Dharma Monkey Sean

In last Saturday’s Washington Post, Karen Armstrong, a respected expert on comparative theology, reminds us that compassion is the cornerstone of each of the world’s major religions.

All the great religious sages insist that compassion is the chief religious duty.  The first person to do so was Confucius, who, five hundred years before Christ, was the first to formulate the Golden Rule: "Do not do to others what you would not like them to do to you."  It was the central "thread" that ran through all his teaching and should be practised "all day and every day."  Every single faith has evolved its own version of the Golden Rule, which requires us to look into our own hearts, discover what gives us pain and refuse, under any circumstance whatsoever to inflict that pain on anybody else.

Such beautiful, simple words to describe an equally poetic approach to life and faith, and yet, so much of contemporary religion has strayed from this most basic of concepts.

Fundamentalists, it all too often seems, are focused not on leading a compassionate life, but on passing judgment on those who don’t conform to their narrow worldview. They seem to forget Jesus Christ’s own admonition against judging others, instead selectively following those tenants that suit their present situation. What’s worse, their “mainstream” brethren, who far outnumber those on the fringes, often stand by while the spirit and intent of Christ’s teachings are warped by those who take some Biblical teachings literally while ignoring others. (Reference the 55-year-old Northern Virginia minister who, shortly after his wife died, stood before his congregation and said that, according to the Bible, he was the high priest who had to take a virgin bride from among his flock. He married a 20-year-old parishioner a week later, yet he told the parents of a 16-year-old to either throw their son out on the street for wanting to leave the church or face being excommunicated themselves.)  

There is hope in the progressive elements of modern religion, though they are painfully small in number. Out of 41,800 United Methodist congregations, only 221 have taken the step of saying they believe in the full inclusion of gays and lesbians in the life of the church – that’s one-half of one percent of all congregations.  There are 158,000 Unitarians in American, compared to 16.2 million Southern Baptists; Buddhists like myself number somewhere between 1 million and 4 million.

My guess is that things, on the whole, have changed very little from those days thousands of years ago when Jesus, Buddha and Confucius walked the earth.  People judging the behaviors of others gave the great teachers the opportunity to talk about and demonstrate compassion -- to put action behind their words for others to see.  What has changed since then is that fundamentalists now have the means to have their message carried far and wide, which makes the mainstream toleration all the more frustrating.

And yet, even in this situation, I have to recognize that the Golden Rule comes into play.  "Judge not lest yet be judged" works in both directions.  As a Buddhist, as a progressive, and as a humanist, I have to feel genuine compassion for those who would seek to marginalize me or discriminate against my community, and I must get into the habit of always responding to those who would condemn (or those who otherwise standby in silence) with heartfelt loving-kindness.

Now -- and especially now -- is the time for compassion.

I know many of the people who read this blog understand where I am coming from, and I would encourage those people to engage in an international dialogue called the Charter for Compassion.  Help make the case in a way that can persuade others to embrace a shared responsibility for fostering mutual respect among all people.

(Clipped from my blog, http://www.dharmamonkey.com

Access_public Access: Public What do you think? Print views (155)  
Page 1 of 81234»
Showing 1 - 10 of 72 Results