In my Finnish blog I often refer to one particular friend of mine, a straight male and Christian. I have known him for 20 years, and he has always been the one I often have a hard time with. Always. Only him and no one else. So, we've had conflicts over the years, nothing has really changed in that respect, but since I left Christianity, it particularly seems to trouble him, and that in turn is a pain in my neck. Things have escalated really bad this time, and it's been a year already! About year ago, he sent me an e-mail, a long list of questions. First, let me just say that as a Christian, he is an esotericist, who believes in reincarnation (just like I was too); Yet, simultaneously, he is morally extremely conservative (as much as I am liberal). Those two things sometimes seem to be in conflict, and it's not just my opinion: I can see it in his personality, and how it's affecting him. He has actually lost relationships among more traditional Christians in the past, because of his personal beliefs. (And I'm not saying there aren't esoteric movements, which are very conservative: I once belonged to one myself. But usually they are more open, accepting, and free, than many mainstream Christian denominations.)
Have you replaced one religion with another?
When I came to Christianity, I actually consciously replaced one religion (Gnosticism) with another (my previous post, New Revelations, touches that briefly). Over 10 years later, I renounced Christianity, and when my partner suddenly died, I had no religion at all. There was nothing to be replaced. Then I awakened to Buddhism through inner, mystical experience, and as I studied these things I realized, this is how I'm pretty much already thinking.
Finnish Lutheran Vicar, Voitto Viro - bold seeker for truth - wrote in the 1970's: "It is right to accept this attitude: If you show me the truth, that will convince my spirit with greater absoluteness than the truth lightened by Jesus, alright then: My spirit binds me to be loyal to that truth, which bestows the deepest freedom."
I have been wondering why we no longer talk about these things, but when I was pondering his questions, I already began to get tired.
He has repeatedly said that I "used to read and study a lot", but apparently he thinks I don't anymore, as I read and study different things. And he can't even see that himself. He thinks he's only praising me for my past, when at the same time he's playing down (or completely ignoring) my present. I never exclusively studied Christianity, and now that I'm through with that, it seems superficial that it would matter if you believe in certain claims or not. It's only bookish.
To talk about "deep stuff" for the sake of talking, that's superficial too. He once said he no longer knows what I believe in. Why should he? For me, faith is a private matter. It's hard for me to share my deepest thoughts with anyone, because I feel nobody can understand. Nobody has walked the same path as I have. And why talk about doctrinal questions on theoretical level in the first place? Isn't it a question of life?! The most relevant can never be expressed in words, or shared with anyone: You have to experience that by yourself, and experience is individual for everyone. Isn't it a main point to accept one another, no matter what. It's not supposed to be a competition, where the point is to defeat another one with clever arguments.
Understandably, I feel frustrated when asked questions I have already answered thoroughly in my blogs. I express myself best in writing, I'm not a good speaker, so I rather don't discuss these things with anyone. I have also touched the problem I see we always have had: When I try to form my ideas of religion - or "spirituality" - into words, it's like writing a poem. But often I see that for him it is like solving a mathematical problem: completely different approach, as if we spoke two different languages. He has told me how important science and especially mathematics has been to him, even as a seeker for truth on the spiritual path. For me, I think art is closer connection to Spirit. So, our greatest difference is not a content of thought, but the whole process how we come to our conclusions. I have always trusted more in my heart, even though I do highly value persons who read a lot, and especially diversely (and he's not one of them!). But it's not enough. Knowledge you learn from a book is not your own, it's borrowed, until you have experience of it (Gnosis). If you say you know something of spirituality, based on your experience, another person can have equally strong experience, that led them to completely different conclusions. Then it only sounds arrogant to emphasize your own knowledge. Many Christian believers act like that, and it makes repulsive impression. "Truth" is very narrow and small if it is some doctrine or idea included in specific religion.
Seen afterwards, I have walked my way very consistently, step by step: Obviously, I haven't seen at the moment where it was taking me, but every phase was necessary for me, and only for me. There was providence all along. In my perspective and experience, it is odd if a person does not change, and their world view does not seemingly evolve. It is stagnation.
We have never agreed on many things, to think anything else is just illusion. I have learnt long time ago what I can't say to him, and avoided those things. It is also true that we used to have a connection, but it was nothing said, it was shared spiritual practice that united us. Silence speaks louder than words: words can only separate, silence is unifying. It was natural when we had a formal "group" for few years. We gathered together on regular basis, to pray and meditate. It is more difficult when we meet informally. I have tried to make it clear that if you want to discuss deeply, you should also practice/quiet/meditate for counterbalance. Maybe it's just me who has a need for that.
I don't think it's wrong that I'd rather talk about these things with someone like-minded - that is, another Nichiren Buddhist - so that we could compare our experiences, and support one another, maybe even practice together. However, nobody's mind is exactly like mine: As an independent practitioner, I have a freedom of choice. Buddhism, just like Christianity, is not one gray monolith. Nichiren Buddhism is a kind of its own, and even among that there are several distinguished schools. Practice is one unifying factor. I couldn't have converted to Buddhism for example in its Theravada form. Added to that, I have my whole spiritual history behind me (see the introduction page of this blog).
Have you often gone through a crisis, that caused your view to change?
Yes and no. Some crisis may have forced me to change, and it has been a long and painful process, but also sudden inner experience may have changed everything all at once: This is how I became a Buddhist. I was "reborn", so to speak. The most essential thing has never changed, it has only become strengthened and cleared: There is something precious within, "Christ in us", Buddha Nature.
Are you a Buddhist?
Why this question? How is it not clear to him? I try to think he probably didn't mean it that way, but repeatedly I have a feeling as if he's questioning me. That's another reason why I don't like to talk about these things especially with him. Maybe it's because he tries to analyze everything. I base everything on experience, reasoning is secondary.
What do you think about NDE? (Near-Death Experience)
I have told him my opinion sometimes. For whatever reason, NDE is very important for him. Maybe he should live a little first. I think it is real per se, yes, and there are a lot of universal characteristics about it, but also characteristics that arise from person's own mind. Tibetan Book of the Dead speaks about this. I always get suspicious the more specific these stories are; Either the Afterlife is described resembling this world, in materialistic manner, or people are meeting entities from their religious sphere, like Jesus. I think death has a lot in common with dreaming, it's not without reason these two have been parallelled in the old days. But it's not meaningful to focus on Afterlife in this life. And to read others' experiences is not the same as to experience it. Already as a child in the 1980's I read about Raymond Moody's research, and before heart surgery in 2019, I did read a book by Anita Moorjani, and that one I liked: especially because she does not come from Western, Christian culture, but Indian Hindu family, and was raised in Hong Kong. Her experience lacked characteristics I find suspicious.
Do you think Jesus was a historical person?
No serious researcher doubts the historicity of Jesus, neither do I. It doesn't mean more than that. I only want to know Jesus the Man. Like Osho said: "Because you are in the situation of being a Jesus; Christ is just a dream." Christians worship mythical Christ, and don't listen to Jesus. Nevertheless, there is indeed Mystical Christ, and it is within each and every one of us, call it by whatever name; That's the only Christ St. Paul in his epistles is pointing at.
Is the truth a subjective matter to you?
As Wikipedia article explains, "truth" is not as self-explanatory idea as my friend seems to think. It's very vague concept. I have never understood how casually he uses it, apparently presuming that everyone else will understand it the same way he does.
Have you always been personally for some orientation or something else?
I don't understand his question. I have always fully been what I have been. That's why change may be painful, even if they are birth pains.
Is religion or any worldview only a collection of subjective opinions you can change completely?
Views are man-made. Buddhism does not plead for Divine origin. In fact, I find something that resonates with myself in thoughts of Protagoras, a Greek philosopher (490-420 BCE). See Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Emphasis on Something. Don't take it to mean too much; I haven't profoundly digged into his philosophy.
What does science mean to you? Is your idea of man compatible with modern science? What about the world view?
I have not especially made myself familiar with science. Does the earth rotate the sun? If he wants to know if I am materialist, then no. That's the short answer.
Have you preserved anything from Christianity?
Not consciously. But everything I have ever been, is somehow always with me. You can not get rid of it completely.
What about the things Christianity and Buddhism agree on? I have been glad about the commandments. They are so similar to Christianity. Do you live according to Buddhist commandments/morals/precepts?
This is finally a topic of great importance. There are no commandments in Buddhism. It's not a teaching of morals. Even I misunderstood that when I used to observe Buddhism from outside as Christian, and actually thought I could grasp other faiths as well.
"The Buddha questioned many of the assumptions existing in his society, including moral ones, and tried to develop an ethics based upon reason and compassion rather than tradition, superstitions and taboo. Indeed, in the famous Kalama Sutta he says that revelation (anussana), tradition (parampara), the authority of the scriptures (pitakasampada) and one's own point of view (ditthinijjhanakkhanti) are inadequate means of determining right and wrong." (Buddha Net)
It's not even about right or wrong, it's about what is skillful or unskillful. Even to five precepts there are more than meets the eye. My favorite example is sex: Christianity sees a horrible sin, apparently worse than killing, which is quietly approved, and therefore human sexuality needs to be controlled by religious authority. Buddhism does not value marriage or procreation that much, even monogamy is not always so self-evident. I hate moralism in religion, and my friend is a master of that.
I don't see real similarity between Christianity and Buddhism. Approach is very different. Do I live accordingly? Still: They are not commandments. I support Lotus Sutra. Nichiren Shonin wrote:
“The five characters of Myoho-renge-kyo, the heart of the essential teaching of the Lotus Sutra, contain the benefit amassed through the countless practices and meritorious deeds of all Buddhas throughout the three existences. Then, how can these five characters not include the benefits obtained by observing all of the Buddhas’ precepts? Once the practitioner embraces this perfectly endowed wonderful precept, he cannot break it, even if he should try. It is therefore called the precept of the diamond chalice”
What kind of idea of man do you have? Do you have a spiritual idea of man?
Idea of man? Spiritual idea of man? I don't know what to say. I'm not sure what he means by that. Perhaps different aspects of man according to Anthroposophy, because that's what he has read up on. (I used to think like that too.) Spirit and matter are not opposite to each other, apart from each other.
What do you think about God?
I rather don't use that name burdened with such strong mental images. There is this excellent video (6 min) - Is there God or not? What did Buddha say?
Perhaps it won't give a kind of direct answer one wants to hear, but perhaps it will make it clear what sort of question one is really asking...
Next quote is from the novel, The Gardens of Light, by Lebanese author, Amin Maalouf. It's about Prophet Mani, founder of Manichaeism (highly recommendable!). Since I only have read it in Finnish translation, I had to re-translate a quote myself (original text is French):
People think they worship Godhead, even though they only have seen images of it, whether made of wood, gold, alabaster, or presented in painting, or words, or ideas. The one who refuses to see God in images presented to them, may be closer to His true image than others...
When someone says they love God above all, they are actually saying they love their own concept of "god". I don't think you can even form an idea of the Ultimate Reality, and put it into words. If you say, "God exists", there is this idea and there are words; it's not "truth". You are only scrabbling blind. Not everything you put together is useless, though, like teachings of Buddha; Some of it may be quite applicable while living in this material world as bodily being, but it shouldn't be mistaken as end in itself. The Ultimate Reality is beyond human understanding.
This list of questions seemed more like a test than discussion, and personally I didn't find them relevant. They reminded me of Buddha's parable when he was asked metaphysical questions of the nature of Cosmos...
It's just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide him with a surgeon, and the man would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble warrior, a priest, a merchant, or a worker.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the man who wounded me... until I know whether he was tall, medium, or short... until I know whether he was dark, ruddy-brown, or golden-colored... until I know his home village, town, or city... until I know whether the bow with which I was wounded was a long bow or a crossbow... until I know whether the bowstring with which I was wounded was fiber, bamboo threads, sinew, hemp, or bark... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was wild or cultivated... until I know whether the feathers of the shaft with which I was wounded were those of a vulture, a stork, a hawk, a peacock, or another bird... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was bound with the sinew of an ox, a water buffalo, a langur, or a monkey.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was that of a common arrow, a curved arrow, a barbed, a calf-toothed, or an oleander arrow.' The man would die and those things would still remain unknown to him.
See Wikipedia: Parable of the Poisoned Arrow.
This year (2023) my friend offered to send me his writing about his "Theology". I refused. For once, I was honest and straightforward about my feelings, and it was received favorably.
But then he asked me if I have locked in what is true. HE asked me! I could ask him that very question, but I haven't, because I realize how arrogant it sounds like! He might as well continue that he knows what is true. If he remembered what kind of spiritual way I have walked, he should know that I am the very opposite of that!
If anything, I can thank him for substance he has provided me to perfect my thoughts about these matters, brighter and clearer. While it's true that I identify as Nichiren Buddhist, approve of its basic teachings, and follow its tradition in my practice, I do have my own philosophy, formed by itself through life. Sometimes it's said that Buddhism is not a religion but a philosophy. I think that is one-sided view, probably favored by secular Westerners. I think it depends very much on practitioner, and their School. Buddhism is also a religion. My approach is clearly more religious one than philosophical, and Nichiren Buddhism is perhaps closer to religion than some other Schools, as I see it. Whereas my philosophy seamlessly encloses a religion I practice, it's not emptied by it. My spirituality consists of manifold aspects, since man is manifold creature.
All the time we pass each other with our words. Repeatedly I have tried to bring up what I think is the most relevant, first suggesting subtly, and later emphasizing, and yet I feel it is ignored, and instead he's clinging to details. Is there already an insurmountable abyss of understanding between us? We are both equally hopeless in this discussion, which is not discussion at all, but arguing. It starts to repeat itself, and leads to nowhere. I don't think he does it on purpose, but he offends me time and again. It doesn't require too many words. I'm aware of my own tendency of malice, and I don't know if I can always avoid it (or if I even want to).
This is why I don't want to belong to any organization, or go to some group meetings. I just walk my own way, wishing to treasure my own spiritual life in peace. Is it too much to ask? My way is not his way, he doesn't need to understand. That's how I should have answered in the first place. Everything else was unnecessary. Too many words. Unfortunately, I also happen to love words. But often less is more. It's obvious that he's not actually interested to know my truth: he's only looking for affirmation for his own assumptions. Therefore, it's useless to expect that I should be interested: The rest of my life is too short to be wasted on things that mean nothing to me. I've already seen Christianity.
I don't think he even understands how tired of this I am. I feel he's interfering with my privacy, and he's extremely biased: his list of questions gave it off. Last year I avoided him for months, and he probably didn't notice. He would hardly notice very soon if I just ceased communication entirely. I don't know why I bother so much, and don't just let it go its natural course. Nothing's permanent anyway. It must be the weight of 20 years of acquaintance.
But all this because of religion? I guess it is important for him, but is it worth it? If only Creed had united us in the past, then it wouldn't matter, for it is superficial, but I don't think that's all. And it's about 10 years already since I left Christianity. Why so suddenly it's such a big problem?
I expressed my frustration in harsh words. Far too long I have kept it to myself. Maybe it was hasty, I'm not sure, but I'm actually relieved now that it's all out in the open. The rest is up to his response, or lack thereof. We will see. I'm done for now. I only pray for the best result for both of us, and I don't really know what that is... My most urgent thought, as weird as it may sound, was: Will there be one person less at my funeral. Almost like his absence wouldn't leave a hole in my life, and I'm not sure it would... we have met so randomly in recent years anyway.
I know I'm not a friend for him. He doesn't need enemies when he's got a "friend" like me. I don't respect his beliefs and values, and he often seems to bring forth the worst in me... I wonder if I see too much of myself in him (and don't like what I see)? I would never confide in him (but who would I confide in, though, unless a professional), and I don't even want to hear about his hardships, because they are always the same, year after year, and I can't say what I think because he wouldn't receive it well. Yes, he was there when I really needed, when my partner died; he was the one who gave me his time, more than anyone else: That was true friendship, and I doubt if I was able to do the same. However, some good memories are not enough to carry on, so why even try? Is it because it's happened before; I have lost many people I once considered friends, and even by choice. It's been almost too easy to move forward, and leave people behind. But maybe I have been wrong to assume that if I lose connection with myself, I lose connection with other people, and therefore I should go inward. Maybe it is the other way round: I lose connection with other people (and more comprehensively, with Life itself!) if I withdraw too much, instead of reaching out towards others.
When we had our group meetings (2009-2012) every other week for couple of hours at the local congregation, other people took part randomly, mostly it was just the two of us, but it worked just fine, and that's what I miss most - deeper connection we had, most likely owing to shared spiritual practice, regardless of doctrines and thoughts (even though I also considered myself a Christian at that time). I was lucky to have a friend, who got involved in my whims with same earnestness, because it was also clear that not many people understood what I wanted to accomplish.
We started our meetings with tea and free discussion for an hour, another hour was for spiritual practice. We tried various methods. I don't think it matters how you practice, it's the main point that you do. Today I would choose a method which is not tied to one religion. There can be meaningful spirituality and sense of community, without reading the Scriptures and praying to God, among people from various backgrounds, and still there can be symbols and rituals that bring them together. I have watched live streams of worship services of Unitarian Universalist Unity Temple, and I like it a lot. It's not in conflict with Buddhism, there is room for that as well. (In Finland we have association too, but they have dropped "universalism" out of their name, and are just "Unitarians" now; also, based on their website, they seem to be solely attached to Jewish-Christian tradition, and that doesn't appeal to me at all!)
Drink your tea slowly and reverently, as if it is the axis on which the world earth revolves – slowly, evenly, without rushing toward the future. Live the actual moment. Only this moment is life.
~ Thich Nhat Hanh
Could we just agree to disagree. We are not interested in same things, so that's not a foundation to build on. This is a paradox: Connection and sharing is possible, also and specially without words. That's what I want to believe in. We should not communicate through e-mail anymore. Internet kind of splits your personality: who you are online, is not who you are in person. If something can not be said face to face, it shouldn't be said at all. The most refreshing meetings between us have been those, when we have just chatted this and that. I have an image in my head, of Jesus and Buddha drinking tea together. I imagine they would have got along just fine.
 |
| From Hikaru Nakamura's manga/anime, Saint Young Men |
No comments:
Post a Comment