dharmatalks

The Ultimate Adversary – the Ego

This Sunday, the First Sunday in Lent, adherents from the Christian tradition are reminded of a passage in the Book of Mark, which says: "The Spirit drove Jesus out into the desert, and he remained in the desert for forty days, tempted by the Adversary. He was among wild beasts, and the angels ministered to him." (Mark 1:12-13) The narrative goes on to have Jesus’ often mistranslated proclamation that the "Sovereign domain of the Divine is within you." (cf: Mark 1:15)

It’s a week in which the theme of sacred covenants and baptism also play an important part in the readings and reflections (cf: Genesis 9:8-15 and 1 Peter 3:18-22). These texts are not intended to paint a picture of supernatural beings promising not to destroy the earth, or magical rituals to free us from the karmic consequences of our transgressions. In fact, we can discern the spiritual meaning by looking at two of the parallel passages, in which the Dharma of the Buddha and Dharma of the Christ illuminate the truth behind these symbolic gestures.

In Matthew 15:19-20, we read: "Out of the heart comes evil intentions, murder, adultery, sexual misconduct, theft, deceit and slander. These are what defile a person, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile." Therefore, Peter tells us that the reason for baptism is not because the physical act washes away the appearance of dirt (which was an important part of the Hebrew tradition), but rather an appeal to our Ground of Being – something that we refer to in Buddhism as the Void or Emptiness – to release those things which cause suffering and attachment.

Similarly, some five hundred years earlier, Buddha Sakyamuni is said to have taught his disciples: "One does not become pure by washing, as do the multitudes of mortals in this world; he who casts away every transgression, great and small, he becomes a Spotless One." (cf: Udanavarga 33.13)

I have often made no secret of my opinion, shared by my patron, the late Albino Luciano (Pope John Paul I), that among the most dangerous and horrible of books ever written are the first five books of the Old Testament, attributed to the wealthy land-baron and warlord, Moses. Some have misunderstood this to mean that I favour the censorship of books, or have asserted that "what the world needs is more books, not less". All of this may be true from their perspective, and I choose to make no comment on that, since I think that what the world needs is more compassion, not more books. However, I also do not believe that just because the world would have been better off were most of the seventy-some arbitrary books that were canonised into the Christian Bible were never written, that we cannot use the misfortune of their having done so, as an opportunity to learn.

The great mystic and dharma teacher, Thomas Merton — a pioneer in the development of the Buddhist-Catholic interreligious dialogue, tells us that the sin of Adam was a false confidence, which robbed him of the mythical "paradise". His ego-decision to buy into a delusion… a lie… was what destroyed his perfect happiness, and led to the later myths of a mean, jealous and pissy Creator-God, as a means of sloughing the responsibility for his own ego-mind on a superstitious "bad guy", who was punishing him and his descendents. In Merton’s words, "All these things would only be the consequence of his preferences for what ‘was not’."

Coming back to the Gospel passage, in which we read about Jesus being tempted by "the Adversary", we again must be mindful that the writers of these midrashic stories never intended them to be taken as literal or historic events. We can, perhaps revisit the history of the later, institutional church’s decision to wilfully misinterpret such words as "satan" (Aramaic for "adversary") as a reference to a horned, evil demi-god — an act meant to discredit the tradition of the benevolent, Pagan horned-god of nature. And we can further discuss how the vast majority of scriptural passages in the Latin Vulgate, in which the word Lucifer is used, are actually references to Jesus himself, not some mythical devil. But that is a discussion for another time.

The idea, as we enter these Forty Days of Mindfulness, called Lent, is that Jesus confronted the ego-self — the "adversary" we each must confront. This ego-self, according to the narrative, tried to direct the Anointed One toward a false sense of "self-importance", superiority, and arrogance. We might not find ourselves physically transported to a desert, but can all relate to times during the day, when our own self-talk tries to distract us from compassion, toward arrogant, self-important and selfish pursuits of "power", "recognition", and "primacy".

Jesus, coming out of that experience, teaches his disciples, "The Sovereign Domain of the Sacred is within you." Unfortunately, this is frequently mistranslated, as a result of unfamiliarity with Aramaic idioms, most of which remain in use today. So we read, "The kingdom of God is at hand." Rav Yeshua (Jesus) was pointing to the truth that it was an Indwelling Essence or Love that was the source of Life, not a jealous, pissy and temperamental god, with lots of wives and a tendency to send floods and order those who didn’t please him to be killed. That beyond the illusions of separateness, they could realise that they are all One, “even as You and I are One”.

Lent is a time, then when we choose to walk with the Rabbi Jesus (Rav Yeshua) in a closer way. We have to choose to respond to Love. Lent is about trying to live in such a way that we will consistently choose to respond as Love. Today, on this First Sunday of Lent, we are invited again to all Lent to transform us. May we come to respond to others consistently with compassion. May the Love we see incarnate in the Indwelling Christ be the whole meaning of our lives.

Namasté!

- dharmacharya gurudas śunyatananda
http://dharmadudeunplugged.com

Copyright ©2008, Dharmacharya Gurudas Śunyatananda (Dr. F. Gianmichael Salvato). All rights reserved. This article may be reproduced, blogged, quoted or distributed, provided the entire blog, including by-lines, contact information and this copyright remain intact. It may NOT be altered in any way, without express written permission.

Dharma teacher, Buddhist and contemplative Franciscan monk, Dharmacharya Gurudas Sunyatananda – a retired Catholic bishop, expert in the field of personal development, and advocate of interreligious dialogue and social justice projects throughout the world, illuminates the basic and foundational principles of the teachings of Mahayana Buddhism, the Way of the Christ and Zen in a way that is both refreshing and practical. By providing the reader with the Dharma in a non-religious, non-sectarian and not ritual context, Dharmacharya Sunyatananda makes it possible for anyone, regardless of their religious affiliation, to benefit from this timeless wisdom.

Order yours today at: http://www.lulu.com/content/6258172
(And please pass this along to your friends!)

I was saddened this morning to see another instance of someone completely misinterpreting and pulling bits out of my Dharma reflections, books and online forums, in order to use those manipulated bits to promote an unhealthy, delusional and dualistic worldview.

I cannot quite figure whether it was simply a sense of wanting attention, a self-esteem issue, or a propensity for disagreement with those things which unsettle her worldview, which would cause this otherwise bright, affable and creative person to undertake such a thing. It concerns me that someone would take that kind of approach, when I have always made myself accessible through the blogs, to be able to discuss such things openly. It made me wonder if that individual chose her approach, because she didn’t really want to understand the Dharma. Doing so would prevent her from being able to come off like such a cheeky, devil’s advocate… and thus, would deprive her of attention.

For clarification, when we speak of dualistic thought, we mean the tendency to perceive and understand the world as being divided into contrasting or oppositional pairs. Likewise, it is dualistic to perceive any phenomena, including our idea of a separate "self" as existing separate from and independent of the rest of the apparent world.

When we speak of these oppositional pairs, "good/bad", "sacred/evil", "god/man", we are not concerned with our useful reference by such words, but rather by the conditioned and skewed response we have to such things. It is a gross distortion to claim that non-dualistic thought is opposed to the Taoist principal of yin and yang. The principal of yin and yang is actually one of balance. One transcends the dualistic perception of seeing one as desirable and the other as undesirable, by simply seeing things clearly as impermanent. Contrast is needed to create a distinguishable reality, without which we would experience Nothingness. Therefore, contrast is useful along the path or Way. But we learn that what we imagined to be independent and oppositional pairs (yin and yang) are actually interdependent. Rather than exchanging oppositionally, they are reciprocal.

In Western philosophy, dualism is considered to be a dualism between mind (nonphysical) and brain (physical), which ultimately involves mind interacting with the physical brain. When we speak of dualism in the context of Buddhism and Dharma, we are not referring to the Western idea of dualism necessarily. Buddhist dualism is not a dualism between the mind and brain, but rather between states of consciousness and the unstructured points of energy, we know as sub-atomic particles, which are both considered nonphysical in Buddhist philosophy, because the subatomic particle is understood as being able to be traced back to the most etheric form of quantum matter/energy, (which can neither be created or destroyed). In Buddhism, we understand dualism as the delusional perception of things as being separate and independent in origin or existence.

The dualist sees light and darkness as two separate, oppositional "things". The Buddhist recognises that darkness is not a "thing", but simply the label we give to the absence of light. (Absurdly, the ignorant argument has been made that "who’s to say that light isn’t the absence of darkness"… this validates my belief that the argument is not about really contemplating these things, but wanting to be disagreeable. Light is a scientifically and quantifiable phenomenon. Therefore, it’s foolish to pretend that light might be the absence of darkness. Such things might be seen as the delusional fantasies of the Goth set, but have no place in mature spiritual discussion.) The Buddhist goes further than simply noticing that darkness is the label we give for the absence of light, and recognises that neither is "better" than the other, because both are made of the same "stuff"… as are we all.

The argument was made that Buddhism is "fluffy" and "warm fuzzy", because we acknowledge that every living being seeks happiness and the avoidance of suffering, and that every being is sacred at heart. Again, because living beings are impermanent, they are made up of the same "star stuff" — quantum energy — that all other phenomena are made of.

Non-dualism implies that things appear distinct while not being separate. In our philosophy, the essential unity of all is "real" (we speak of this unity as sunyata or Emptiness), whereas duality and plurality are phenomenal illusions. Matter is materialised energy, which in turn is the temporal manifestation of this quantum energy.

A non-dual philosophical perspective maintains that there is no fundamental distinction between mind and matter, and maintains that the entire phenomenological world is an illusion (with reality being described variously as the Void, Emptiness, or what theistic sects call "God(dess)", Spirit or Mind.

As long as we are living on this plane, we will always have a dualistic perspective. One can develop realisation of the fact that our perspective is dualistic/delusional, and can know that there exists this ultimate reality, obscured by our perspective. In Buddhism, we call that Sunyata, but others have taught the same thing. Lao Zi calls it Tao; Ramana Maharishi calls it the Self; Sri Aurobindo named it Spirit; while Plotinius called it The One.  Even in the Christian tradition, we read the elucidation of the Ultimate Reality, which the primitives call "God". The Christian scripture says, "God is Love."

Therefore, when I said that Love is all there is (well, actually, the lyricist said it before me, but you know what I mean), I meant that the Numenal Reality is all there is. All our discussion duality and non-duality is meant to lead the deluded to a much higher truth. His Holiness, the Fourteenth Dalai Lama tells us that Mahayana Buddhism encourages us to temper the view of non-duality (wisdom) with respect for the experience of duality (compassion) — that ordinary dualistic experience, populated with selves and others (sentient beings), is to be tended with care. This approach is itself regarded as a means to disperse the confusions of duality (i.e. the journey itself is the means of realising Englightenment).

This is why Dharma teachers continue to use dualistic references, when guiding and encouraging students toward the realisation that our delusional perceptions can be transcended.

So it might seem to be a contradiction of terms, and it is… but the objective is the journey. As Thich Nhaht Hanh tells, when he gets lost, he can look to the North Star and immediately knows where north is… the star is not his destination, but provides him with the frame of reference needed to continue the journey. And so it is with the phenomenal world.

My hope is that my friend will temper her need to disprove those things she does not yet understand, and perhaps feel a bit more comfortable questioning those things in a more appropriate forum (or even in private), rather than irresponsibly refuting such things with more delusional concepts and opinions.

In the end, I cannot ensure that she will. And she may not be ready to embrace something "bigger" than her current worldview. That would be unfortunate, but her ultimate decision to make. Either way, my love, friendship and teaching will always be there for her, and for all who seek a way to stop suffering.

If someone truly wants to stop suffering, they’ll shut-up and listen… then ask questions, investigate, and determine if this works for them. Those who want to cling to the drama will not. The ego already knows that what I share is true… and that is why it fights so hard to convince us to act out against it.

I pray you will find the maturity to listen with an interior ear to the truth that is already within you.

Namasté!

- dharmacharya gurudas śunyatananda
http://dharmadudeunplugged.com

Copyright ©2008, Dharmacharya Gurudas Śunyatananda (Dr. F. Gianmichael Salvato). All rights reserved. This article may be reproduced, blogged, quoted or distributed, provided the entire blog, including by-lines, contact information and this copyright remain intact. It may NOT be altered in any way, without express written permission.

Losar Tashi Delek! Today, as our Catholic sisters and brothers celebrate Ash Wednesday, our sisters and brothers in Tibetan and the Tibetan Diaspora observe Losar – the Tibetan New Year. It is an observance that has its roots in the Bön tradition.

Losar is a celebration of gratitude, which becomes especially poignant, given the suffering endured by the Tibetan people, at the hands of their Chinese oppressors. At first glance, the more primitive and animistic Bön traditions might appear to be pointless rituals and superstitions: with offerings being made to the nagas, who protect the waters of the Gangha, and activate the waters that flow from the Himalayas to all the world, incense offerings to the local spirits of the natural world, ancestral offerings and so forth. However, these are not literal beliefs, but rather viewed as metaphoric projections of human fears onto the natural world (delusions). In the ancient world, the sages used these traditions to ensure that people understood the intrinsic sacredness of both internal and external elements, without prejudice.

Yesterday, we cleaned-up the lama ladrang (hermitage of the Teacher), to prepare (mentally) for a new beginning. For us, it was an especially joyful event, because it was the combination of recognising the preparations for the Great Lent of the Catholic tradition, and the preparation for Losar. Our contemplatives observe both of these traditions in tandem, particularly since both observances are about gratitude, mindfulness, reconciliation and preparing the way for the Sacred in our lives/hearts.

Special pujas were done last night, in honour of Kuan Yin (the female aspect of Avilokitesvara), the Blessed Mother, and the Sacred Elements. Our torma offerings were made. A Eucharistic liturgy was offered, just before dawn, and we concluded with a period of universal Tibetan Reiki (motionless) and sitting zazen.

The purpose of these traditions was to bring our mindfulness and awareness to the intentions of the people around the world who are suffering, wounded, sick, dying, depressed, hungry and alone. Our spiritual practice of tonglen, in which we visualise (following the breath) taking into ourselves the suffering of others, and exhale peace, wholeness, vitality and joy. We do this for the entire forty-days of the Great Lent, as we ponder the deeper meanings of the early Christian narratives, and grow in our understanding of the parallel teachings of the Buddha and the Christ.

As we mentioned yesterday, the Catholic tradition of being marked with ash today, as a reminder of the impermanence of this physical existence, and the importance of reconciliation, are ideas that are compatible with the Bodhisattva ideal. During Lent, many people follow the tradition of “giving something up”: candy, beer, random sex, whatever… And there is the lingering carry-over of the mafioso fish-mongers, who brokered a deal with one of the popes, starting the whole “no meat on Wednesdays or Fridays” scheme… These traditions are not very useful to our spiritual practice.

I suggest that rather than giving something up, we consider “taking something on”… Make a commitment to go out of your way to do something to alleviate suffering, each day of these next forty days. Perhaps it will be spending the $5 you would have spent on cigarettes on a sandwich and beverage for a homeless person. Perhaps it will be to donate one or two hours each week at your local food bank or homeless meals program. Perhaps it will be to visit those in nursing homes, hospital cancer or AIDS wards, prisons or assisted living facilities.

Whatever it is, make a commitment to do something… anything… to alleviate the suffering of just one person each day. And I promise you… this will be the most powerful forty days in your life thusfar.

I was especially pleased yesterday, to read about the Anglican Bishop, who is a practicing Buddhist. It’s nice now, to not be the only openly Buddhist successor to the Apostles! When I was consecrated as a bishop and exarch for the Old Catholic Franciscans in North America, I dreamed of a day, when I could continue the work of my mentors, in taking the Buddhist-Catholic dialogue to the next level of Dharma-in-Action (Engaged Dharma). Now it seems that things are coming together in meaningful ways that may make those efforts possible.

Last night, I was also privileged to receive an invitation to review a wonderful web service and community that I believe could be beneficial to so many of my readers’ spiritual practice. The website, called bmindful (http://bmindful.com) is run by a very kind, gentle and compassionate fellow, named Lee Nutter, and well worth your visit. (I’m dharmadude on there, so stop in and say hello!)

Finally, I encourage everyone to drop by our new, incredible "Tweetworks Group" — weekdays, from 6 PM until 8 PM EST, where we enjoy the "mash-up" of Twitter and Forums, in the Dharma room. This can be a great place to make some friends, ask some questions and have fun! Viit us at: http://tweetworks.com/groups/view/Dharma. (Help us achieve our goal of 100 members! It’s free, it’s useful, it’s fun and it spreads the word about the Dharma!)

Finally, in solidarity with our sisters and brothers in Tibetan, and those exiled by the Chinese occupation of Tibet:

Let us quiet our minds and remember that in situations of turmoil, conflict and even violence — even when our oppressors are sowing seeds of injustice and causing suffering — we must love them. This sounds absurd and impossible to the ego-mind. How can we love our enemies? The only way is to still our ego-minds, and try to understand them. Where understanding goes, the Light of Compassion illuminates the way, and the moment we begin to understand why they behave as they did, they are no longer our enemies… they are no longer "them"… they are human beings, exactly like us, with fears, ambitions, attachments, suffering and pain. The Compassionate Heart of the Buddha and the Christ, which is our Heart, is their Heart too.

And so we hold our sisters and brothers in Tibet in our hearts. We continue to ACT with non-violence and compassion, demanding social justice for them and all the oppressed. And we breathe in the suffering, attachment and fear that motivates the Chinese oppressors, and release to them the breath of love, healing, understanding and compassion.

This is our path. This is our work.

Namasté!

dharmacharya gurudas sunyatananda, o.c.
The Contemplative Monks of the Eightfold Path
http://dharmadudeunplugged.com

Internationally respected, life coach and teacher, Dharmacharya Gurudas Sunyatananda (Dr. F. Gianmichael Salvato, O.C., M.Sc.) is a Buddhist and Franciscan contemplative, and author of the popular book, "The Dharma of Compassion – One Monk’s Reflections on the Teachings of the Enlightened and Anointed Ones". He is best known for his on-going contributions to helping people unlock the power of their own minds — teaching them how to apply that power to create strong, loving relationships, improve their financial situations, and live healthier, more meaningful, prosperous, health and satisfying lives.

Copyright ©2008, Dharmacharya Gurudas Sunyatananda (Dr. F. Gianmichael Salvato, O.C., M.Sc.) , All rights reserved. This article may be reproduced, blogged, quoted or distributed, provided the entire blog, including by-lines, contact information and this copyright remain intact. It may NOT be altered in any way, without express written permission.

In the Catholic and Anglican traditions, the day before the beginning of Lent is called Shrove Tuesday, or Mardi Gras (literally, Fat Tuesday — a reference to the last day of eating well, before the Lenten fast). The name "Shrove Tuesday" is derived from the ancient custom of penitence, known as shriving, which has evolved into the Sacrament of Reconciliation today.

The idea behind this tradition, and later, the sacrament, was to provide the person with an opportunity to confess (acknowledge) their transgressions, and offer them an opportunity to make amends, thereby giving them absolution. One can see this as a time in which we mindfully make amends for those we have wronged, and pay our karmic debt.

But the tradition of Mardi Gras also has its roots in the Roman celebration of Lupercalia, a carnival-like fertility festival, some may recall from Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, which the Roman Church decided to incorporate into its new faith, like so many other pagan traditions that were co-opted by Catholicism. Lupercus was the Roman equivalent of the Greek god, Pan — the god of the shepherds. He was said to stand in the cave where a wolf suckled Romulus and Remus, the mythical founders of Rome.

In fifth century, the Roman Catholic Pope Gelasius I formally banned the celebration of Lupercalia, and so the God of the Shepherds was absorbed into the imagery of the "Good Shepherd".

Most non-Catholics identify tomorrow, Ash Wednesday, as the day in which their Catholic friends and neighbours show up with that "odd smudge of ash on their foreheads". In the Catholic tradition, this mark is a reminder of the scriptural text that says, "From the Earth you were created and to Earth you shall return."

It is, in many respects, a day in which Catholics reflect upon the idea of impermanence and emptiness. When one thinks of Lent as a time of "penance", it takes on a feeling of punishment, but that is not the idea of penance, or more accurately, reconciliation, at all. Lent is a time in which one contemplates his or her impermanence and is reminded of the importance of making every moment count. It is a time in which we redouble our commitment to live life from a place of gratitude, mindfulness and awareness of the gift of each breath. And it is a time in which we recognise that suffering indeed exists, and that our own attachments are the cause of such suffering.

Over the next six weeks, we’ll be looking at ways in which the Dharma of the Christ is applicable to our postmodern lives, and I believe some will be surprised to see the parallels between the deeper meaning of the Christian narrative and tradition and the timeless essence of the Dharma.

This past week, many of us watched with heavy hearts, as the news reports of a vibrant, loving woman, who was expecting a new child, was shot in the head by her boyfriend’s eleven year-old son. The tragic news was a reminder of both, how short life can be, and of the unimaginable suffering that might go completely unnoticed, as one tries to understand how a child could be driven to murder someone who loved him.

The tragedy struck particularly close to home for us, as one of our own Dharma students and friends is the cousin of the murdered woman and unborn child.

Folks often ask me to explain to them what it means to generate Bodhicitta, and I could not help but think about that during this horrible turn of events.

Right now, stop for a moment and notice the feelings you are experiencing.

If you are like most of us, you are not only feeling compassion and sadness for the loss experienced by the murdered victims’ family and loved ones, but are probably also feeling a profound sadness and genuine compassion for the eleven year-old boy — wondering what could have caused him to make such a horrifying and violent decision. In both instances, what you have generated is genuine Bodhicitta — the heart of compassion.

Now, I want you to consider that it seemed to come natural to most of us, to generate compassion toward the eleven year-old boy, because he is a child, and we have not been conditioned by our perceptions, opinions and delusions to automatically "hate" children, the way we might do if the murderer was an adult.

Our challenge, if we are to learn anything from this terrible loss, might be to allow ourselves to remember, for the next six weeks, the young woman, her unborn baby, her two surviving children, her boyfriend, family and loved ones… and the young boy who killed her, because he was "jealous" of the impending arrival of the new baby. Don’t just remember them in your heart and thoughts, but be mindful of the compassion you feel for all of them, and each day, try to extend that compassion to include someone you might otherwise have marginalised, due to our dualistic minds.

And so we begin this period of contemplation and reflection on the call to greater reconciliation by gently noticing how our own prejudices often interfere with our own compassionate nature, and by simply choosing to begin becoming more aware of those prejudices, as they arise, so that we can let them go, and return to our compassionate centre.

It has been suggested by some that discussion of the news and world events, discussion of diversity, philosophy, relatives and so forth is "unworthy of conversation", according to a fundamentalist and literalist interpretation of the Anguttara Nikaya — a collection of Theravadan Buddhist discourses. Perhaps for those monks, living nineteen hundred to twenty-five hundred years ago, in primitive monastic cultures, such prescriptions could be taken literally. But I find it ridiculous to imagine that any Enlightened One would suggest that we could not, in fact, gain insight from discussing everything that occurs around us today.

This is but one example of how we can use “real life” (the cosmic play created by our minds to appear as real life, anyway) as grist for the mill, rather than pretending to be “above it all” or “separated” from the world. Without disrespecting those monks for whom the sanctuary of the ancient monasteries provide shelter and formation grounds, we choose to make the world our monastery.

And therefore, commit to you, that our Dharma talks will always be relevant to our times and experiences… because in the end, as I said earlier this week, my objective is not to gain the approval of literalists or fundamentalists, but to genuinely inspire compassion, reconciliation, and to end suffering for all beings.

It is my intention, during these forty-days of Lent, to illuminate the Dharma of the Christ in a way that it can be found useful for all people, regardless of their faith (or absence of faith), tradition, or religious persuasion. These reflections will be spiritual reflections, but not religious. They will respect the Christian narrative, for those who hold it as their scriptures, without necessarily espousing any belief that the story is historical or intended for literal interpretation.

If it can prove useful for your journey, I welcome your comments, questions and discussions.

Namasté!

- dharmacharya gurudas śunyatananda
http://dharmadudeunplugged.com

Copyright ©2008, Dharmacharya Gurudas Śunyatananda (Dr. F. Gianmichael Salvato). All rights reserved. This article may be reproduced, blogged, quoted or distributed, provided the entire blog, including by-lines, contact information and this copyright remain intact. It may NOT be altered in any way, without express written permission.

Originally, I planned to share something altogether different in today’s Dharma talk; however, I received so many emails and questions from individuals, who seemed genuinely interested in something I said earlier in the week, that I decided to revisit that topic today.

It seems that something “clicked” for many of our students, when I explained why my philosophy and way of life is non-theistic. I mentioned that although we have evidence in the narratives of the Buddhist and Christian traditions that both Sakyamuni and Jesus used terms that were culturally familiar to their audiences, there is compelling evidence that neither one necessarily believed in a mystical, magical Cosmic Babysitter, Bully, or Creator Dude, the way that so many folks today conceive of the “god-concept”.

In fact, while Buddha used the familiar term “Brahama” in some of his talks, Jesus completely broke with the familiar custom in his tradition, in which the god-concept bore a name that could not be spoken (out of reverence and fear). Jesus referred to the god-concept as Abba – an affectionate term for one’s beloved father, very similar to the English “Papa” or “Daddy”.

It is likely that this was the term he used throughout his talks, but that the later translators “sophisticated things up” by changing it to “Father”. One can imagine these scholars, deciding Father was a bit more dignified for their Saviour to say, than Daddy.

When I was a child, there were two passages in the texts that inspired and informed me, which led me to the realisation that this idea of an external God, as some sort of personal creator, judge, rewarder, and so forth was a complete fabrication, carried forth from the primitive and ignorant minds of a people who lived thousands of years earlier. You can imagine, for a moment, how you felt perhaps, the first time you heard the legends of such characters as Medusa, Zeus, Hercules or Neptune. Few, if any of us, imagined that the characters of Greek or Roman mythology were intended to be taken literally. We reasoned that these five thousand year-old legends were the product of the superstitious and primitive creativity of the ancients’ minds.

Well, let’s be realistic here for a moment… the legends and mythology introduced by Moses and his contemporaries, about Yahweh/Jehovah/Adonai — “God the Creator”, “God the Judge”, and Jesus’ “God the Father” are from the same primitive era that worshipped the gods and goddesses on Mount Olympus. So it is only our own ignorance, arrogance and unwillingness to see clearly that cause us to somehow pretend that the region around Palestine (which also had other, nearly identical myths of sons of god, such as Attis and Mithra), were somehow exempt from the mindset of the ancients!

Let’s look at the two texts that made it “click” for me, at the age of seven…

In the Gospel attributed to John, we find the passage, “God is Love…” We also find the supporting text, which says that one who “abides in God, abides in Love, and God in that person.” Now stay with me a moment…

First of all, the first passage doesn’t say that “God” is like love, or that “God” loves. It tells us exactly what the thing we call “God” actually is. God IS Love. OK… now we know that God is another word for Love. Logically then, we can substitute the word “Love” where we find the word “God” and illuminate some of the teachings of the Master. In fact, that is exactly what is being done in that second passage! We’re being shown that to “abide in God” (a popular idea and aspiration of the pious Jew of Jesus’ time) is actually someone who “abides in Love”.

Now, there are some Buddhists who claim that I am mistaken, by insisting that the same Perfect Love, which Jesus illuminated in his Dharma as being what the ancients imagined was “God”, is another word for the Sunyata or Emptiness/Void. So let’s look at the other passage that woke up my seven year-old mind, so long ago:

“Not by hate is hate defeated; hate is quenched by love. This is the eternal law.” – Dhammapada 5

Buddhism is a rational and highly logical philosophy. It teaches that anything that is real must have existed eternally. It also teaches that anything science has disproven can be discarded as superstition or non-essential. We know that matter is without beginning or end. When I read this passage from the Dhammapada, I realised that matter and love were synonyms!

If the Dhammapada is to be accepted as truth, then we must accept that “hate is quenched by love”, which Buddha says is the “eternal law”, means that for all eternity, love has been the only thing that could quench hatred. Thus, if the law was eternal, it must mean that love is also eternal, which means that either love and matter are the same thing, or love is the impetus for matter. Either way, Love is eternal.

Hatred is incapable of going beyond itself, because it is nothing. It is simply the “absence of love”. Love goes beyond itself… it is the only thing that cannot be depleted by giving it away… well, the only thing beside matter, that is.

That is why I say that I am “non-theistic”, not “atheistic”. It is also why I can be non-theistic, and find no conflict with my profound love for the Eucharistic tradition I celebrate as a successor to the apostles. It is why I can say that I don’t buy into the ancient ideas of personal gods, and yet remain wholly devoted to the Heart of Compassion that is embodied in the stories of Mary and Kuan Yin. And it is why I need not know whether there ever was a person called Buddha or Jesus, to know that they hold a revered place in my heart.

This is why I chose to follow the inspiration of the passage in the Vimalakirti Sutra, which tells:

“He becomes a monk in all the different religions of the world, so that he might free others from delusion and save them from falling into false views…”

It is why I recognise that there are some things for which we have no explanation of answer at this time. And I don’t obsess, as some do, trying to figure out such things as, “Well then, where did matter come from?” Because such pursuits are not helpful. They are not fundamental to the spiritual life. They do nothing to eliminate suffering or bring peace. They do not ultimately lead to awakening. They just don’t matter!

I continue to imagine a time in which each of us can remain committed to our own personal paths – whether that path is a religious path or non-religious path… monotheistic, polytheistic or atheistic – a path, however that shares one common ideology: the bodhisattva ideal.

And until that time, I will continue to hold all spiritual traditions in equal regard. And I will maintain that my only religion is compassion, my only god is love and my only path is service.

Namasté!

- dharmacharya gurudas śunyatananda
http://dharmadudeunplugged.com

Copyright ©2008, Dharmacharya Gurudas Śunyatananda (Dr. F. Gianmichael Salvato). All rights reserved. This article may be reproduced, blogged, quoted or distributed, provided the entire blog, including by-lines, contact information and this copyright remain intact. It may NOT be altered in any way, without express written permission.

In 1223, seven young men from some of the wealthiest families of Firenze (Italy), formed an intentional spiritual community, then known as the Laudesi — or Those Who Praise the Blessed Mother. Ten years later, after a profound spiritual experience, the seven men withdrew from society, devoting themselves purely to the interior life, in the seclusion of Monte Senario, about ten miles north of Firenze. Within seven years, the community experienced another visionary experience, in which they adopted a simple, black religious habit, and took vows of poverty, chastity and obedience.

The community, which would formally come to be known as the Servites, chose a spiritual path of personal sanctification based on contemplating the sorrows attributed to Mary, the Mother of Jesus, who according to the biblical narrative, watched her son’s torture and death, while maintaining a mindfulness of surrender, which Catholics have sought to emulate in facing their own life’s challenges, pain and suffering.

From my earliest recollections as a child, it was to this poignant aspect of surrender and grace displayed in the life of the Blessed Mother that I found myself drawn. In fact, when I took my first Refuge Vows, at the age of seven, I asked that my own heart be forever consecrated and enjoined to Her Heart, as the Bodhisattva and Mother of my spiritual practice and development. When three of my spiritual brothers joined me in forming our own intentional community, in 1981, our practice drew upon the Four Noble Truths, the Five Precepts, the charism of Francesco d’Assisi, and a devotion to the Mother of Compassion and Grace.

To the casual observer, it seems that my spiritual path is one of contradictions, twists and turns. In fact, I am quite certain that several of those closest to me have done their fair share of wringing their hands, and imagining somehow that I’ve either lost my mind, or become some horrific heretic, because they don’t understand (or perhaps, cannot understand) who it is that I am and have always been. Not to say that my spiritual journey has not been one of evolution, growth and transformation. I am grateful that it has indeed evolved and deepened in its scope, understanding and praxis. But the foundational ideology has always been the same.

My first spiritual director, a visiting Benedictine priest, named Fr. Henri LeSaux (who would come to be known, by the permission of his religious superiors, and Popes John XXIII and Paul VI, as Venerable Swami Abishektananda, advised me as a young altar boy, not to discuss with anyone, until I was an adult, some of the things I’d realised, through my own intense, personal spiritual experiences, as a child of seven. Among these was the simple and clear understanding that the biblical narrative, which I found contradictory and even disturbing, was never intended to be taken literal; and the more important awareness that there was no magical, Cosmic Babysitter, sitting on a throne in some imaginary wonderland, called "Heaven", called "God". I understood that the word "God" was a word humanity created to explain things they did not understand.

It seemed obvious to me, even at that age, that Jesus didn’t come to start a church, but instead to advance a new way of life… a life that transcended the intolerance, inequity, pain and suffering of this existence. And it seemed apparent to me that both Jesus and Buddha taught identical philosophies. What’s more, as a child who had a "love for wisdom", I was deeply drawn to understand philosophy, and felt that in Jesus, Buddha and some of the other profound influences in my life (Thomas Merton, John of the Cross, Therese Lisieux, Gandhi, Mother Teresa and Teresa d’Avila) were people who lived a philosophy of love and non-violence… not necessarily "religious" figures.

I would imagine that it makes no sense to my family, who were raised to believe that they have to blindly obey what their pope and his institutional church teach, to avoid some imaginary eternal punishment, when they hear me say that I don’t believe in such nonsense, yet who know that I still celebrate the Eucharistic Liturgy of the Desert Fathers every day. If I were in their shoes, it might confuse me as well!

And when I tell them that I am not Catholic, but that I am still faithful to my vows as a consecrated and ordained successor to the apostles, I know that must be difficult for them, and others like them to comprehend. In fact, it probably seems very unsettling, when I point out that their own denomination’s claim to having been established by Christ, and to have had the disciple Peter as its first "pope", is nothing more than a fabrication… a wilful misrepresentation of the truth, used to justify the institutionalisation (and later bastardisation) of the Way of the Christ. But I have never been one to easily hide and compartmentalise the spirituality I live and the one I let others see.

And so that I don’t give the wrong impression here… this is not only about the way that Catholics or self-described Christians misunderstand my teaching and my work. There are a nearly equal number of self-described Buddhists, who criticise such things as my comfort with Catholic contemplative spirituality, the idea of being able to understand the spiritual writings of some of the great Catholic mystics in terms of seeing the so-called "god-concept" as a term for the groundlessness or emptiness… the inexpressible void that we know is Pure Love or Matter or Mind. And there are those who sheik with horror at the simple fact that while I prefer to eat a simple, vegetarian and predominantly raw diet, I do not reject meals with meat in them, when they are prepared for me… and have no reason to believe that eating meat is any less "spiritual" than eating anything else on the planet. Yes, I prefer to do no violence, but who am I to say that violence is only confined to sentient beings? (In fact, in the Sutta Nipata, Buddha Sakyamuni states, "Anger, arrogance, inflexibility, hostility, envy, pride, conceit, bad company… these are impure foods,  not meat." And this is confirmed in the Dharma of the Christ, in Mark’s Gospel, in which we read, "There is nothing outside a person that by going in can defile, but the things which come our are what defile.")

Now I share these things specifically as a preface to a tradition I have kept every year, since my ordination. During the season of Lent — the forty-day-long liturgical season of fasting and prayer among the original faith communities that developed around the teaching of the Christ — I share with our local Sangha (intentional community) a series of reflections on what the Christian narrative of the Passion, Death and Resurrection means… particularly for those who posses the wisdom and awareness of the documented fact that those events never historically occurred, but were mythological motifs and legends, borrowed from even more primitive and ancient cultures, and superimposed over the authentic teachings of the Great Master, Rav Yeshua (Jesus the Nazarene). Central to these reflections, as one whose life is closely linked to the Bodhisattva of Compassion (known within my traditions as the Blessed Mother Mary, or Kuan Yin), is a focus on the way in which Mary moves through the pain, uncertainty and fear that she would have encountered, according to the stories, and in so doing, transcends suffering.

There will be folks who dislike what I teach. It’s a fact. And it’s OK!

There will be folks who say I am not worthy of being called a successor to the apostles. There will be those who say I am a disgrace to the priesthood and unworthy to celebrate the Eucharistic liturgy. And there will be those who say I am not worthy of calling myself a Buddhist, because my traditions fly in the face of the ritualistic attachments, superficial reliance on such things as “lineages” and religiosity and cultural interpretations of some of the things that are claimed to be attributed to the Buddha (such as the vinaya).

And that’s all OK! Really.

In the Vimalakirti Sutra, the Buddha tells his disciples that the Bodhisattva does not have to be a Buddhist: “He becomes a monk in all the different religions of the world, so that he might free others from delusion and save them from falling into false views.” (Vimalakirti Sutra VIII)

When she opened her first hospice in an abandoned Hindu temple, a devout Hindu man was outraged and confronted Mother Teresa of Calcutta about it. “What are you going to do” he asked, “show disrespect for the Mother Kali’s temple, by converting these helpless dying people to your god?”

Gently, Mother Teresa took the man’s hand and said, “My hope is to help the Hindu become the best Hindu he can be, by showing him love and compassion. I have no desire to convert anyone. If a Muslim comes to us and is in need, then with the same love and compassion, I will hope we can inspire him to become the best Muslim he can be.” Mother Teresa is, without doubt, an example of a Bodhisattva.

I don’t share these Dharma talks and reflections to gain the respect, approval or lauds of anyone. I don’t ask anyone to accept what I teach as some authoritative truth. In fact, if there was one thing I demand of all my students, it is that they take everything they learn from me, and test it with their own reasoning, their own contemplative process, and their own hearts. Let your experience and practice be your teacher.

This year, because of health issues and intense financial strain, caused by those who have taken delight in spreading fear about the "radical, heretical, atheist punk monk, who should never be allowed to be a priest, etc.", I may not be able to provide a full forty daily reflections (although I will try). But my daily practice, which intensifies during this time, will hold each of you in my thoughts, prayers and pujas, with the desire that within the ideas I share, might be found the seeds of enlightenment for each of you, so that suffering might be relieved for you and those you touch.

Namasté!

- dharmacharya gurudas śunyatananda
http://dharmadudeunplugged.com

Note: My spiritual name, Dharmacharya Gurudas Sunyatananda, encapsulates who and what I am: Dharmacharya means “teacher of the Dharma or the Way”. Gurudas means “servant of the Teacher” – and I am a servant of the Buddha and the Christ, and have never been anything more than that. Finally, Sunyatananda is a reference to the “bliss of emptiness”… a Sanskrit interpretation of what Catholics refer to as the “Immaculata” or the perfectly surrendered heart of Mary. In Franciscan life, I was known as Francis-Maria of the Immaculata. I still bear that name with humble regard and respect. The name given to me by my spiritual teachers, Ven. Abishektananda (Fr. LeSaux, OSB), and Ma Tenzin Yangchen is the one by which I am more widely known.

Copyright ©2008, Dharmacharya Gurudas Śunyatananda (Dr. F. Gianmichael Salvato). All rights reserved. This article may be reproduced, blogged, quoted or distributed, provided the entire blog, including by-lines, contact information and this copyright remain intact. It may NOT be altered in any way, without express written permission.

I chose not to post this reflection on Valentine’s Day, because I believed that those who would most need to read its message, might not be as receptive to such things, when they were hurting deeply. And I don’t intend to waste time pointing out that Valentine’s Day is a commericalised innovation of our society, which we need not buy into; because that is obvious and has all been said before.

The simple fact is that there are people, who despite knowing all that, experienced pain and suffering, because they were left alone on Valentine’s Day, or Christmas, or some anniversary or such. And there are those, who because of their own baggage… their woundedness, their addictions, their insecurities or issues… unintentionally hurt those whom they love, by not being with them.

One of the reasons I consider myself fortunate to be part of a Buddhist contemplative order, whose structure and rules are non-traditional and unconventional, is because it has permitted me to avoid being sheltered from the pain that many of those I teach experience. I have been rejected by those I love. I have felt the loneliness of being alone on days like Valentine’s Day, or anniversaries. One Christmas Eve, my partner left the house to “pick up a gallon of milk”, and ended up on a 48-hour drinking and drugging binge, screwing a chain of equally dazed strangers in some bathhouse… on the night I was giving him a car as his gift. So I understand feeling unappreciated. I understand broken heartedness. And I understand suffering.

I don’t mean to diminish the pain any of you might have experienced recently, and I do hope that my reflections will always contain the seeds of relief for those who suffer for any reason. But today, I would like to challenge you to consider a shift in perspective.

Yes, it hurts when we are unfairly treated… but we have to accept responsibility for that pain as well. If you experience a so-called “broken heart”, it is because your love for another person was not yet unconditional. You placed expectations (attachments) on that relationship, and were mistaking the emotional attachment for love. That is not to say that you don’t possess genuine love for that person; for I believe that it is our nature to love others. I simply mean that the “feelings” that were hurt were not feelings of love; they were emotions of possessiveness. And we have to own up to that, or we will never end that cycle of suffering.

Now, once we’ve owned=up to our responsibility, we have the power to affect transformative change in others. And that power is to find that place that does genuinely love the other person, and realise that same place within them genuinely loves us (and all other beings). It may be buried beneath the baggage of past experiences, fears, hurts, doubts, addictions, abuse or any of a million other ego-constructs… but it’s there.

When someone does something that hurts me, I still feel the pain of their actions. And I acknowledge that pain. Often, if at all possible, I will let that person know that I am hurting. But I will never make it their responsibility to “fix it”. I move toward and through the pain. I reflect on it. I look for clues about what thoughts, opinions, expectations and attachments I have, which caused the pain to arise. And then I turn my efforts, my energy and my attention toward resolving those things.

I also turn my awareness to the simple and undeniable fact that the other person is usually hurting much more deeply than I am. Seldom do people intentionally do things to hurt us. Love is always the ultimate means of transforming someone’s anger, their fear, their emotional imbalances. And the kind of love that is genuine and unconditional only arises out of the generation of compassion.

If we are to begin to create a happier, more peaceful and balanced life for ourselves, we must genuinely care about and dedicate ourselves to doing the same for all other beings. We have to be willing to recognise that all relationships are impermanent, and that sometimes, that means those we love and enjoy having around us, will choose to move on, or will die, or will be forced to move on. And we have to allow our desire for them to be happy to be greater than our attachment to them as a false source of our own happiness. Or we will suffer. Guaranteed.

All of this takes time. It takes patience. And it takes a willingness to sit uncomfortably in our pain… to cry if we have to… to observe some unhealthy thoughts that might arise… and then, gently, without judgment, to let them go.

Sometimes, the best way to communicate our pain is to let the other person know they have hurt us, and then to stop talking about it. His Holiness the Fourteenth Dalai Lama admonishes his students to use words only as much as they are necessary. He tells that endless talk is like weeds in a garden. Is it not better to have a few weeds, than to allow them to overtake the entire garden?

St. Francis of Assisi recognised that Jesus was a Teacher who used few words. He challenged his disciples, “Peace, be still.” And, “Come, follow me.” Now that’s brief and to the point. St. Francis himself instructed his followers to “Preach the gospel always, when necessary, use words.”

It’s all about letting go, taking ownership, and choosing love.

May you always choose wisely.

Namasté!

- dharmacharya gurudas śunyatananda
http://dharmadudeunplugged.com

Copyright ©2008, Dharmacharya Gurudas Śunyatananda (Dr. F. Gianmichael Salvato). All rights reserved. This article may be reproduced, blogged, quoted or distributed, provided the entire blog, including by-lines, contact information and this copyright remain intact. It may NOT be altered in any way, without express written permission.

Today, seven of my students formally took Refuge vows, distinguishing themselves from “seekers” of the Dharma, and making the commitment to live as practitioners.

Edward Kunga Vantassel describes the act of taking Refuge vows as “the refinement of an impulse that is at the foundation of our being.” And indeed, I believe it is; because the Dharma path serves no other purpose, than to align our minds and actions toward the ultimate goal of relieving suffering – not only for ourselves, but among all sentient beings.

When one takes Refuge, they are orienting themselves toward alignment with the principles of the Dharma. Their commitment is really to themselves, not to any external beings or concepts. They take Refuge in their own Enlightened-nature (realising that they are already an enlightened being – a Buddha or a Christ – which has yet to reveal itself); they take Refuge in the Way – having determined rationally the Truth of the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path, committing to follow the Eight Dharma Gates; and they take Refuge in the Fellowship – realising that we are all ONE… that there is no “other”, no “them”, just “Us”.

Before taking their vows, each of these students spent considerable time (some, more than three years, others a little more than one year) exploring the value and sensibility of the Dharma of Compassion – as a philosophy – and integrating that into their spiritual practices. There were two nuns among those who took vows: one an Anglican Franciscan, and the other, a Roman Catholic. There was a married couple, and several college students. Each of them, through their own investigation and study, believe that the Dharma principles make sense – that their efficacy and simplicity are a useful approach to relieving suffering.

On the surface, these students took vows to align themselves with the Buddha (the Teacher), the Dharma (the Path) and the Sangha (the Fellowship); however, their deeper commitment, as Ani Pema Chodron explains, is to affirm: “a basic expression of [their] aspiration to leap out of [their] nest.”

As a result of their vows, which they reaffirm three times each day privately, theses seven students will begin to develop the altruistic mind, which we call Bodhicitta – which dedicates its actions, words and thoughts to relieving the suffering of others.

I think it is especially nice that they did this today, on a day when many people observe the secular and commercialised tradition of exchanging “Valentine’s” cards, gift, and copious amounts of chocolate. Instead of these superficial expressions, usually directed only at those to whom we are somehow attached, these seven people made a formal and public commitment to all of those beings who live, and who will one day live… a commitment of love, generosity, altruistic joy, compassion and kindness.

Tonight, I bow to them… and to you.

Namasté!

- dharmacharya gurudas śunyatananda
http://dharmadudeunplugged.com

If you’d like to know more about the Dharma of Compassion, please consider purchasing the book by the same name, online at: http://stores.lulu.com/dharmadude (Note: environmentally-friendly digital copies are also available from the same source.)

Copyright ©2008, Dharmacharya Gurudas Śunyatananda (Dr. F. Gianmichael Salvato). All rights reserved. This article may be reproduced, blogged, quoted or distributed, provided the entire blog, including by-lines, contact information and this copyright remain intact. It may NOT be altered in any way, without express written permission.

Quite often, I receive emails or messages through the blogs, in which folks ask me to define Buddhism, and to explain why I “chose” Buddhism as my religion.

My religion is compassion. Nothing else. I draw from the spirituality of Tibetan Buddhism, the Benedictine spirituality of the Camaldolese, the simplicity of the Franciscan charism and the teachings of the Buddha and the Christ… but the religion is compassion.

I tell people that Buddhism is a way of life, just as I believe that one who follows the authentic message of Rav Yeshua (Rabbi Jesus) would experience that as a way of life, not a religion either. Both of these approaches to life can be more appropriately linked to the meaning of the word “philosophy” — which comes from the Greek words “philos” (love) and “sophia” (wisdom). The Dharma is a rootedness or love for wisdom (clear sight).

It’s not something that can be “overly thought out”. Wisdom isn’t intelligence. It’s not about thinking. Through the development of wisdom, we learn to see things more clearly, and thus our intelligence is increased, but only as a side-effect. The objective is awakening. The Dharma of the Buddha and the Dharma or Way of the Christ is about nothing else.

The Noble Eightfold Path is about perfecting one’s character from within. As that occurs, it give rise to compassion, love, equanimity and altruistic joy. Where these things exist, and as they increase, suffering from resentment, unhappiness, delusion and blame naturally decrease. And our grasping for “answers” becomes less prevalent, since the simplicity of it all begins to “dawn” on us.

Speaking about our obsession with figuring things out, His Holiness the Fourteenth Dalai Lama writes, “Human intelligence is the source of our problems. But it would be foolish to think that the solution is to reduce intelligence. There is only one way out; we must not let our intelligence be guided by negative and harmful emotions. It must be guided only by proper and positive motivation if it is to become marvelously constructive.”

Once again, we see that it is not so much our thoughts, but that we allow our thoughts and perceptions to be coloured and influenced by our emotions and ego, which cause us to suffer. These emotions will not cease to arise, because they are part of the human experience. However, with mindfulness, we learn to recognise them as they arise, and gradually, accept them for what they are… reducing their control and influence, until they can simply be recognised as “thought”… and let go.

This is the purpose of the practice. This is the Dharma. And its outward expression is compassion, service, forgiveness and joy.

Namasté!

- dharmacharya gurudas śunyatananda
http://dharmadudeunplugged.com

Copyright ©2008, Dharmacharya Gurudas Śunyatananda (Dr. F. Gianmichael Salvato). All rights reserved. This article may be reproduced, blogged, quoted or distributed, provided the entire blog, including by-lines, contact information and this copyright remain intact. It may NOT be altered in any way, without express written permission.