Since my previous post was about Finnish Esoteric Organizations, and if you read introduction page of this blog, you know my spiritual background lies heavily in Western Esoterism (or "esotericism"), but nowadays I am Nichiren Buddhist, I thought it might be a good idea to explain in few points what is often wrong about Western Esoterism, in my opinion. They were published here and there in my Finnish blogs, and I just rounded them up for this presentation.
When I became a seeker for truth in my 20's, I was first very interested, among other things, in some "messengers of the Great White Brotherhood", namely, Elizabeth Clare Prophet and Ananda Tara Shan, who were known in Finland in those days of the 1990's, gathering followers. Already then I was wondering about the contradictions I saw in their teachings.
Also, I once took part in a course led by Denise Linn in Helsinki, named "Past lives for your help". We were supposed to see our "past lives" in meditation. I got impression some participants actually "saw" something, but I had to imagine things, and Denise herself said that's okay too.
Then I suddenly found Lectorium Rosicrucianum, Gnostic Mystery School, and even though after few years I abandoned it through hard and painful process, and later became convinced it was a cult, there was some sense about its teachings, that I have found valuable until this day.
They taught that the Great White Brotherhood never approached people personally, and never appealed to their ego. That leaves no room for "messengers", or "master-this-and-that". It was also told, that some deceased people in afterlife, who should move forward, try to extend their existence in that state by abusing the living people, stealing their life force through mediumism.
Now, in Buddhism there are also many Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, but they are generally understood as Archetypes of the Mind. By the way, Mme Blavatsky's original non-ascended masters, Koot Hoomi and Morya, whoever or whatever they were, at least according to so called "Mahatma Letters" they supposedly wrote, were without a doubt Buddhists. I can still revere Blavatsky: see, for example, "Original Theosophy and Later Versions", and "The Danger and Deception of Channeling".
Later I was involved with Anthroposophy, and it started to bother me how Rudolf Steiner inhabited the whole universe with spiritual beings. That kind of thinking seemed so medieval. And I certainly don't mean I don't believe in Spiritual World at all!
About Reincarnation Lectorium Rosicrucianum taught that you have never ever lived before, and you will never ever live again. Teachings referred to "microcosmic predecessors", instead of past lives. There is this idea in Anthroposophy, that kind of reminds of Buddhist concept: There is no personal soul that lives forever. Frankly, Christian "hope" of everlasting life seems very twisted and egoistic to me: what kind of person wants to preserve their imperfect personality forever!? It is because of fear of death. So it was not difficult to me to embrace Buddhist idea of no-self and impermanence. However, in Anthroposophy there is Spirit above soul, I am, that is not your earthly personality, but something higher, and sometimes this belief seems to lead only to highly cultivated egoism.
My transference to Buddhism was very smooth. My thinking was already gradually leaning more and more towards Eastern philosophy. I think for many believers of Reincarnation it is unclear what exactly is reincarnated. I don't even use a word "Reincarnation" anymore, because it is so misleading in Buddhist context. As Sagharakshita said: According to a strict orthodox Buddhist view, there is Reincarnation, but no one who reincarnates. I love paradoxes! Especially in religion, they are often the best way to explain something (and at the same time leave it a mystery).
How about Karma? At one point of life I was having a hard time, and then an old Rosicrucian said to me it was my karma, I had done something to deserve what was happening. I didn't mind back then, but if someone more vulnerable had been told that... Not only was it heartless, but unwise as well. It seems to me, that for Western karma believers it is often too simplified, black and white. Karma is not a mathematical mechanism.
When I was already in transition from (Esoteric) Christianity onward, I was satisfied with teachings that unified Christian concept of "sin" and karma. Through the four Gospels we are told that every deed has its consequences, either here or in Heaven. Every deed is seen and weighed, you can't hide anything. Karma simply means "action" and sin ("hamartia") means to err, to miss the mark. So, all action is erring. From Esoteric Christian point of view, I have published two posts in this blog in 2007: Reincarnation and Karma, and What I have come to learn about Karma & Grace.
Again, to credit Lectorium Rosicrucianum, it was taught that death as a victim of violence is never part of human destiny meant to take place, it's always premature. And I think Rudolf Steiner understood karma better than many Theosophical authorities. He said:
Many events we encounter in our lives do not result from good or bad past actions. Such events will find their karmic compensation in the future. If I am blameless of what now befalls me, I will find compensation in the future. The fact that nothing remains without karmic adjustment is unequivocal. However, whether a man's present experience is the effect of his karmic past or the cause of a future karma must be determined individually.
But none of us is able to see it, so we are not qualified to judge. In Nichiren Buddhism, a metaphor of lotus is used: it's blooming and seeding at the same time, a cause and effect are simultaneously present. Despite of past karma, we must focus on present: our deeds now effect our future situation, we deepen the good causes, or change our tendencies, setting the course of our life.
Buddha said that if you really try to figure out the origin of every karmic consequence, you might get mad. He didn't teach that everything happening to us is a consequence of previous karma. Buddha's teaching on karma is not deterministic, nor it is nihilism; it is the middle-way, including awareness, that effects of previous deeds are experienced all the time, and understanding, that we can always choose how to act.
About Anthroposophy, one point of disagreement for me was the status of Rudolf Steiner. His followers raise him high above averaged person, and judged by his own writings, he was not innocent for that himself. Yes, he claimed that everyone can train their clairvoyance, but practically he was - and still is - the only approved authority in spiritual matters among Anthroposophists. His every word is taken as divine truth. We see here an example of "guru" in Western context. I have rather admired people on spiritual path, who were not claimed to be flawless supermen, like H.P. Blavatsky. "Perfection" is suspicious to me, and something I dislike. This "guru-attitude" is also one thing I don't like about Soka Gakkai International: I have got inspiration from Daisaku Ikeda's writings, and I gladly receive inspiration from wherever I find it, but I refuse to focus on one teacher specifically. As I have told before, Pekka Ervast was my spiritual mentor for many years, I don't deny that, but now I follow the voice of my heart (emphasized by the fact that I'm an independent practitioner). Shakyamuni Buddha conjures up the image of golden statue in lotus position, with blissful expression on his face. He is the high ideal, surrounded by myths and legends, whose teachings were written down much later (but at least he is not claimed to be god). That's why he is also quite distant to me. I always say I'm Buddhist first, then if necessary I specify, Nichiren Buddhist. Nichiren is kind of closer to me, both in time and humanely, and he did write himself. I don't worship him, yet I would like to exchange the Buddha statue on my altar for the statue of Nichiren Shonin. But even statues basically point towards the within, just like Nichiren's calligraphic mandala Gohonzon. Nichiren himself criticized some Buddhist schools of his time for overly relying on gurus and masters.
Buddha didn't deny existence of gods, he only made it clear it is insignificant for us to contemplate here and now. Long ago I stopped praying to higher power, in hope that some fairy godbeing grants my petty wishes, changing the laws of the universe for my sake (and I must say there are branches of Nichiren Buddhism, that are seemingly prone to similar magical thinking). The Lord's Prayer used to be important to me, and I have composed an explanation of it in relation to Chakras. Interestingly enough, similar chart has been made of Daimoku (Nichiren's mantra), below...
Nowadays I often spell "god" with lowercase (and sometimes with parenthesis). No, I don't believe in god, if by "god" we mean omnipotent being Christianity (and other Abrahamic religions) portray. So I guess it actually depends on definition of "god", but I rather leave that open. The word in itself is so loaded with cultural imagination, that it is best not to use it at all. However, as many Western Buddhists tend to be Atheists - at least that's how I have understood - and although Atheism in itself simply means not believing in god, generally it is understood in broader sense as denial of everything spiritual, I don't consider myself an Atheist. In Nichiren Buddhism we have this concept of "myoho", mystical law, spiritual aspect of life intertwining with the material aspect of life, not in Western dualistic sense, but as unity. And I do believe in rebirth, if that was unclear. Buddhism didn't completely change my beliefs, rather they were strengthened and clarified.
So I have gone to the source, where many of those ideas, introduced to me in my 20's by Western Esoterism, originate from, and today I must strongly state that I can no longer accept the fact that Westerners take Eastern ideas and concepts, and mix them with their own worldview. They even take Buddha, but give him entirely different role. I mean, for instance, Anthroposophical idea of Buddha as the forerunner and preparer of the way for Christ. NO WAY! That is almost offensive to me! Let's take Buddhism as pure Buddhism, an independent philosophy, standing on its own. Of course I know it has developed differently in various cultures, forming many more or less differing schools. Even Nichiren interpreted its teachings in his own way, but still within Buddhism and in terms of its own.
No comments:
Post a Comment