peaceful turmoil

May we "get over" ourselves

2008-07-09T13:15:00.004-04:00

May Buddhists "get over" Buddhism. May Christians "get over" Christianity. May Hindus "get over" Hinduism, Taoists over Taoism, Jains over Jainism, Jews over Judaism, Muslims over Islam, Pagans over Paganism, Wiccans over Wicca, Mormons over Mormonism, and Humanists over Humanism. May theists "get over" theism, may agnostics "get over" agnosticism, and may atheists "get over" atheism. One cannot fully appreciate what wisdom, in truth and in folly, is to be found in Buddhism until you are "over" Buddhism, what wisdom there is in Christianity until you are "over" Christianity, and the same for all the rest. How much is missed by such nonsense. Anything one can call "God" that one can choose to "accept" or "reject" cannot be "God". So why impose that limited dichotomy on the Divine? Why impose similarly absurd limits on anything else such as charity or compassion? Just because one uses images or language from one tradition to express an experience or insight in another doesn't automatically mean the other is being watered down. Just because someone else doesn't seek purity of the heart the same way another does isn't cause for despair or disgust. That way of thinking betrays a view of spiritual traditions as cold and dead, wrapped in the burial linens of traditional teachings and liturgies. Such a corpse is either propped up and dissected as an intellectual philosophy for reducing conflict and existential anxiety or dressed up as a magical friend from the land of make-believe.

Gate! Gate! Paragate! Parasamgate! Bodhi, Svaha!

Their knowledge is expressed in other words, or remains unspoken

2008-07-01T15:39:00.004-04:00

An stirring quote I read the other day attributed to Simone Weil:

"Christ does not save all those who say to Him, 'Lord, Lord.' But he saves all those who out of a pure heart give a piece of bread to a starving man, without thinking of Him in the least little bit. And these, when He thanks them, reply: 'Lord, when did we feed thee?' An atheist and an infidel, capable of pure compassion, are as close to God as is a Christian, and consequently know Him equally well, although their knowledge is expressed in other words, or remains unspoken. For 'God is love.' "

I am not familiar with the details of Weil's theology, although I've read she had a mystical interfatih bent, but I think this passage demonstrates a dimension of the concept of salvation that has been lost in the focus on the supernaturalistic legalism surrounding the obsession with the 'afterlife'.

For reflection

2008-06-09T15:41:00.001-04:00

The secret is out

2008-05-30T15:44:00.003-04:00

While the juxtaposition of the text in this image is misleading, I was still very amused by it. Perhaps the Universe is trying warn all of you?

Danger! Danger! Beware!

Woodmoor Village Post Hits Nail On Head - Living Buddha, Living Christ

2008-05-29T15:32:00.003-04:00

Nacho and I agree on a lot and we also differ in some perspectives, but he articulates well something I have also felt needs to be said and shared:

I think the Buddha is alive and well nowadays. There are lots of folks out there who are doing Buddha work (and not necessarily Buddhists)... Unfortunately, the image of the Buddha (or of Jesus Christ for that matter) that we tend to see, that of a lone individual, slogging through the vicissitudes of life, is only muddied through the eyes of a distinctly United States, and possibly Western, individualism that posits a lone individual as making it, saving the community...

Instead, it has always being about how transformation, love, compassion, kindness, etc. rests with us, how we can bring it all into a flow of being and becoming... that capability is not the sole domain of "Buddhists" nor does it have to be spiritually tinged nor religiously governed. I've met folks for whom "living like Jesus Christ" means precisely what I've stated above -- filtered through a narrative of redemption and suffering very similar to the Buddhist narrative.

Right on!

Contemplative Prayer and God

2008-05-28T20:26:00.003-04:00

Contemplative prayer "can only be hinted at, suggested, pointed to, symbolized." It is "the experiential grasp of reality as subjective, not so much 'mine' (which would signify 'belonging to the external self') but 'myself' in existential mystery..." and "the humble realization of our mysterious being as persons in whom God dwells, with our infinite sweetness and inalienable power." It is not "mere inertia, a tendency to inactivity, to psychic peace", it is not "trance or ecstasy, nor the hearing of sudden unutterable words, nor the imagination of lights", and neither is it "the emotional fire and sweetness that come with religious exaltation" nor "the sense of being 'seized' by an elemental force and swept into mystical liberation by mystical frenzy." One shouldn't expect "an escape from conflict, from anguish or from doubt. Contemplative prayer is not a form of 'spiritual anesthesia.' " In fact "the contemplative suffers the anguish of realizing that he no longer knows what God is." Rather one discovers that "there is no 'what' that can be called God" and instead God "is the the 'Thou' before whom our inmost 'I' springs into awareness."

-originally quoted from New Seeds of Contemplation by Thomas Merton, pp.6, 8, 9-13, 15; excerpts taken from Prayer for People Who Think Too Much by Mitch Finley

"It is just this idea of religion which makes any understanding of religion impossible. If you start with the question whether God does or does not exist, you can never reach Him; and if you assert that He does exist, you can reach Him even less than if you assert that he does not exist. A God whose existence or nonexistence you can argue is a thing beside others within the universe of existing things... It is regrettable that scientists believe that they have refuted religion when they rightly have shown that there is no evidence whatsoever for the assumption that such a being exists. Actually, they have not only not refuted religion, but they have done it a considerable service. They have forced it to reconsider and to restate the meaning of the tremendous word God. Unfortunately, many theologians make the same mistake. They begin their message with the assertion that there is a highest being called God, whose authoritative revelations they have received. They are more dangerous for religion than the so-called atheistic scientists. They take the first step on the road which inescapably leads to what is called atheism. Theologians who make of God a highest being who has given some people information about Himself, provoke inescapably the resistance of those who are told they must subject themselves to the authority of this information."

-Paul Tillich, Theology of Culture, pp.3

"God does not exist. He is being-itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore, to argue that God exists is to deny him."

-Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology, volume 1, pp.206

The release and deliverance of the heart

2008-05-27T16:17:00.003-04:00

The Blessed One said: 'Whatever grounds there be for good works done in this world, all of them are not worth one-sixteenth part of that love which is the heart's release. Love alone, which is the heart's release, shines and burns and flashes forth in surpassing them.'
Itivuttaka, I. 3, 7, Pali Canon

The purpose of the holy life does not consist in acquiring support, honour or fame; nor in gaining virtue, concentration, or the eye of knowledge. But that unshakable deliverance of the heart--that indeed is the object of the holy life: that is its essence, that is its goal.
Majjhima Nikaya, I. 204, Pali Canon

Translations take from the The Oxford Book of Prayer, edited by George Appleton, Oxford University Press, 1989 printing

That's not a half-bad prayer

2008-05-27T16:14:00.001-04:00

I recently came across a prayer of sorts, an open letter addressed to God in which the author complains and criticizes and questions and doubts the nature and existence of a Higher Power. My immediate reaction? That's not a half-bad prayer.

Honestly.

If you read Psalms and Lamentations you will see people questioning God, getting angry at God, etc. If you read Job, in his prayers he comes fairly close to actually cursing God in his accusations. Some people think prayer is supposed to always be rigid and formulaic and is supposed to present the right and proper "image", even if it is a silent prayer, and even if it isn't what the person is really feeling. Prayer is an activity of the heart, and in many traditions, Christian and otherwise, it is in the heart that one truly gets to know and understand God/the Spirit/the Source/the Way, etc. Bringing an "offering" of insincere niceties and polite falsehoods may work for our ideas of the Divine, the idols that we create in our heads to either accept or reject, but it cannot ever bring us to that, whatever we call it, that we find when we sincerely open ourselves to the depths of our Being.

Review of Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

2008-05-25T13:45:00.010-04:00

I am not, as someone with a graduate degree in anthropology who has participated in archaeological digs and taught archaeology courses, going to run all over Indy for not being a realistic archaeologist. For one thing, my limited experience doesn't make me an archaeologist, but more importantly, I go to the Indiana Jones movies because they are entertaining, not because they are hyper-realistic. There are plenty of National Geographic and PBS specials about real archaeology. I recommend them and some of them will show you that real life archaeology can sometimes be cooler than its big-screen fictional counterparts. But all of that aside, I was a little disappointed in the latest adventure of the whip-wielding Henry Jones, Jr.

The first thing I felt was a bit of a let down was the dramatic tension. In the other flicks, Indy and friends kept globe trotting all over the place. In this one we go from New Mexico to New England to Peru and Brazil. And that's it. In the other films I sensed more of a build-up as the clues to various puzzles were uncovered in dramatic fashion, leading up to exciting scenes of awe-inspiring revelation. The momentum just didn't build very well in this one. In the other films, there were extremely tense scenes where Indy and pals had to face imminent danger and we felt their panic, but in this one, not so much. The closest it came is a scene near the end running down a disappearing staircase. They did have the long fight scene near a dangerous location with a big lug and some other formulaic elements, but the overall dramatic tension just stayed a hum rather than an urgent buzz.

The second thing and third things go together. In past films, whether it was the Ark of the Covenant, the Sankara Stones, or the Holy Grail, there was a suggestion that Higher Powers and miraculous interventions may be real after all. But not just for their own sake. There was a sense that Indy was a reluctant, somewhat agnostic agent on the side of Good in a conflict with the temptations of Evil. In other words, whether it was an artifact from Judaism, Hinduism, or Christianity, there were indications that some Greater Good, either God or the collective good will of the human spirit or something, was at work behind the scenes and that Indy was instrumental in keeping its presence from being overwhelmed by those who would use the power of the artifacts to harm. This also created a dramatic tension in the series which is most explicitly brought to a head in the third film when Indy has to finally decide what he believes with his father's life hanging in the balance. In the latest movie, the religious artifact is in fact a piece of a living alien being whose morality is ambiguous at best. The subtle but insistent hints at some larger spiritual truth are replaced by a weak transplantation of an X-Files/Star Gate mythology.

Which brings us more directly to the third thing. By having the villains be high-ranking Nazis or murderous demonic cult leaders, the clarity of Good versus Evil was fairly easily maintained. How ironic that a bunch of Nazi officers are melted alive by the holiest artifact of the Jews, or that someone who rips the hearts out of people's chests while they are still alive is ripped apart by crocodiles. Clearly Indy's age meant that the story would have to be placed well after the fall of the Third Reich, and in a way the idea of making the bad guys out to be Soviet "Commies" makes sense. But for all of Stalin's atrocities, the Soviet Communists from that immediate post-Stalin era don't generally have the same "pure evil" image or cache that the Nazis managed to generate and maintain. Surely a better villain could be conjured somehow, perhaps a new wannabe Hitler attempting to stage a coup in Africa, South America, or Asia and who wants the artifact to fuel his or her insane ambitions? Perhaps even based on a real failed dictatorship or coup?

Overall, then, I just felt that the things which really made the other Indy films so interesting and exciting were just lacking or mishandled. While superficially a lot of the standard plot elements were there, they just fell flat. We'll have to see whether the new archaeologist adventurer, Alex O'Connell, can keep his mojo going in the latest installment of The Mummy series later this summer.

The beams in our own eyes

2008-05-24T09:20:00.002-04:00

It strikes me as odd that so many people are so concerned with whether people who are non-heterosexual can be or are being genuine or good Christians, or whether people who are Pro-Choice can be or are being genuine or good Christians, or whether those characterized in some other way can be or are being genuine or good Christians, when it seems to me what these busy-bodies really ought to be concerned with is whether they themselves can be or are being genuine or good Christians. The criticisms of Jesus regarding the Pharisees for preferring a self-image of purity and a judgemental view of the impurity of others seems to be totally neglected in favor of "Judge first, judge hard and judge often, lest anyone get around to noticing your own faults."

Morality and Sexuality: Beyond Fallacy

2008-05-23T15:10:00.011-04:00

The naturalistic fallacy assumes that what exists in nature must therefore be moral and that which does not exist in nature (i.e. that which is unnatural) is immoral. An simple example can be taken from the Black Widow spider, Latrodectus mactans, which is known to sometimes engage in (sexual) cannibalism. Just because some female Black Widows occasionally do this does not automatically make it "OK" for a women to decapitate and consume her husband after sex.

The converse is the moralistic fallacy, which is the assumption that because a particular human culture or all human cultures determine something to be immoral, it must not exist in nature. This charge was raised against those disputing the frequency and "normalcy" of infanticide by adult males in various non-human primate species. Those suggesting infanticide was primarily due to a disruption in the normal habitat and life cycle of these primates were accused of not wanting to see something they found repulsive as a normal part of the natural world. The moralistic fallacy can also be used to argue that because something is moral it must exist in nature as well as human culture, although this is used less frequently.

There are appeals taking the form of the moralistic fallacy nor the naturalistic fallacy on either side of the "Is homosexuality immoral?" debate, although not everyone on any "side" embraces the use of such fallacies. But what if we reject both?

Looking at the development of features, including behavior, we can use a continuum from mostly obligate (the feature is strongly influenced by biologically heritable influences to develop a particular way) to mostly facultative (there is a response to factors in the environment that modify the outcome of the feature being produced). We can also extend this facultative capacity or plasticity to include the social and cultural influences to which developing individuals are exposed to, giving us the classic dilemma of biological determinism (nature) versus cultural determinism (nurture) for some of the more faculative traits that may be sensitive to such influences (other facultative traits may be sensitive to other influences such as air pressure, temperature, etc). That is, we are forced to ask how much of who and what we are, including our psychology, is determined by our biology and how much by our culture for some . On the other hand, agency is the term for our capacity to operate within these influences to come up with behaviors that are not strictly determined by our biology or culture. So we have obligate versus facultative, biological determinism versus cultural determinism, and determinism (both kinds) versus agency.

Going back to the fallacies mentioned previously, some will argue that non-heterosexuality is obligate to suggest that people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, asexual, transgender, etc have no "choice" in being what they are. Since we tend to posit morality as a matter of choosing "wrong" over "right", being non-heterosexual is not immoral. And this serves as a counter to the "homosexuality is unnatural and therefore it is wrong" argument rooted in the naturalistic fallacy. It can't be unnatural, one could argue, if it is strictly biological. However, even heterosexuality is not a monolithic thing. By emphasizing only whether one is sexually attracted to members of a particular sex or gender, the appreciation diversity existing within the heterosexual community is diminished. The same is true for the non-heterosexual orientations. Not all homosexuals, for example, develop their attractions in exactly the same way. It is possible that some are mostly obligate to be gay, some are primarily biologically determined to be that way with a small dose of cultural determinism, and some may reflect a good deal of cultural determinism as well as agency. Nor is sexual orientation synonymous with gender identity conflict or gender role inversion.

So we see and hear endless arguments on the internet, talk radio, cable news, and elsewhere appealing to one of these fallacies by trying to demonstrate that sexuality is either more or less obligate or facultative, more or less culturally or biologically determined, or is more a matter of such determinism or of agency. But what happens when we eliminate arguments based on the naturalistic and moralistic fallacies?

My two cents:

If we posit that only adults are likely to have the physical, mental, and emotional maturity to safely and sensibly engage in sexual relationships, and if we value the idea that such relationships must be consenting, then we are left with the following --

Adults having consenting sex with other adults, whatever their sex, gender, or number is their own private business and they are responsible for the consequences of their choices (physically, emotionally, mentally, spiritually, etc).

Pedophilia, bestiality, and necrophilia would be out because they fail the criteria of requiring clear consent among adults. You cannot get any consent from a corpse, you cannot get unambiguous consent from an animal, and children are not mature enough to offer consent.

As for what forms of sexuality among consenting adults people practice, it should be left up to the "free market" of idea. If you can convince people that your preferred way is safer, holier, more pleasant, etc, then fine, go ahead and do so. If you can convince someone who is a mostly-obligate homosexual to be celibate without harassment or intimidation or emotional blackmail, go ahead. If you can convince, by non-threatening argument or example, a swinging heterosexual to give up sharing his wife at the local orgy as well as also giving up the several extra women he gets to hace sex with, fine. But don't try to legislate people into submission.

Why are so many Democractic superdelegates stalling?

2008-05-23T08:01:00.000-04:00

The impact of the voting public in terms of which candidate will win the most pledged delegates in the primaries has been moot for quite a while now - we've known for some time it would be up to the superdelegates. People were doing the math back in March. Even if Hillary had won big in places like North Carolina and Oregon, the representational "split" of delegates the by percentage of votes virtually assured Obama would end the primary race with more pledged delegates. So if the superdelegates wanted to go with the person with the one who was going to end up with the most pledge delegates, the remaining undeclared superdelegates could have simply sided with Obama and ended the race at any time.

So the issue to me, really, is why are so many superdelegates still on the fence even though Obama has had a virtually insurmountable lead in the pledge delegate count for a while now?

Here are a few reasonable possibilities:

1. If the majority of the remaining superdelegates had simply "gone" for Obama then the last several contests and the few remaining ones would have been meaningless. Some superdelegates may feel that the party is benefitting from increased voter registration and the partisan excitement generated by the historic primary season. Plus, since the race had already lasted so long, letting the remaining voters "have their say" is a popular notion. The potential drawbacks include having the excitement peak too soon (many Americans easily get bored or distracted when it comes to drawn out events such as an entire season of American Idol) and having a schismatic effect spill over from the battle between Obama and Hillary.

2. The superdelegates are politicians, and some of them might prefer to display caution over leadership. In this scenario, the undecided want to make sure how the wind is going to blow, particularly in terms of Michigan and Florida, to avoid any potential political "payback" that comes from backing the wrong candidate. The potential drawback to waiting so long is that their motives will be second-guessed, and since they are the "deciders" of the nominee, this could lead to suspicion about back-room deals and other shady maneuvering which could then fuel the aforementioned schismatic effect into a full-blown rupture.

3. Some of the remaining superdelegates are experiencing a vicarious buyer's remorse concerning Obama and would rather back Hillary, but they don't want to go against the popular grain and haven't found a suitable argument to justify doing so. Hence they are dragging their feet and wringing their hands. The potential drawback here is that Hillary's campaign grows weaker by the day, so stalling only makes backing her that much harder to do.

I am not wishing for the delegates to come out ASAP for a candidate, let alone any particular candidate, although I know many die-hard Obama supporters are. And while the most die-hard Clinton supported might hope that the explanation for the delay by so many superdelegates is something akin to #3, I personally would guess it's mostly Explanation #1 with a pinch of #2 thrown in for flavor.

Sanctuary - Offering Alms of Prayers, Concerns, and Well-Being

2008-05-22T15:13:00.002-04:00

Candles sit on the rocks and the ground, they fill the smooth tables and some even float on the small stone-lined pool. They flicker in the gentle breeze. This is a place to come and place offerings of remembrance, prayers, and well-wishes.

This space is non-partisan and completely ecumenical. Like many similar types of posts or threads for prayer requests, well-wishes, and the like, you can post about what is on your mind or in your heart. Topics can be as large as world peace or as small as grieving over a pet who recently passed away; it's about what touches you, not what others may deem important or otherwise.

Single-pointed focus and the heart

2008-05-21T16:17:00.007-04:00

I ran across something this week that gave me a pause. I have heard dharma talks and read books by Buddhist monks and lay practitioners about methods for achieving and maintaining single-pointed focus. I have also heard/read contemplatives in other traditions talking about attaining and keeping such focus. There has been a lot about emptiness, form, potential, actual, mind/self, no-mind/no-self, and all of the usual stuff. I am not suggesting that such advice or description of experiences are bogus. However, for the first time the other day someone connected the idea of such a single-pointed focus with the heart. That is, while we live in our heads, and while our initial practice (focusing on a spot, bodily function, image, mantra, etc) is more or less done repetitiously by a conscious mental will or thought-process that initiates and maintains the activity, this is just the beginning.

In Prayer for People Who Think Too Much, author Mitch Finley cites an example involves a literary character taken from a Russian novel The Pilgrim who is a seeker of sorts. Following some advice he has been given, the character repeats a short prayer frequently when not engaged in activities that would distract him from it, and keeps doing so as suggested. Eventually, he gets profoundly bored with it, but he keeps repeating the prayer anyway. After a long dry spell of boredom and disinterest, an unanticipated change occurs and the prayer moves from his head to his heart. He no longer needs to say the prayer with his lips or in his mind, even though he still does at times, because it has become almost a living thing.

Interestingly enough, from what I have observed and read over the last few years, getting over an initial phase of interest or anticipation and then passing through a tedious period of seemingly endless and fruitless desert of monotony and a virtual loss of total interest seems to be a common theme/requirement of the basic prayerful and meditative practices of (most/all?) major religions. It's a test I haven't passed yet. I get bored, distracted, busy, or frustrated, and working along it is hard to maintain a serious commitment. But that aside, what is interesting is that Finley, as per his exemplar from The Pilgrim, equates having a single-pointed focus as something that comes from your heart rather than your head. That we rest in the deep spaciousness of our hearts once we have drilled through the layers of delusion, (false) expectations, and exaggerations that have accreted like arterial plaque, choking off our inherent awareness of ourselves. The prayer/meditation, according to this perspective, is no longer something we do but something that is that we become aware of (and follow along with in our devotions).

I have read and heard quite a bit about different methods for cultivating such focus, particularly in Buddhism but also from some Christian circles, and I have yet to have come across this explicit connection. I wonder if that is why so many people have trouble with working on this focus? and when we don't get the result we want as soon as we want, do we not then try this, try that, and try something else? To use an analogy Finley himself borrowed, it is like starting to dig a well several times and continually stopping and starting over somewhere else before you ever hit water. Which makes me wonder, how many people who are parroting and quoting the the teachings or insights of those who have successfully penetrated through such focus to the cave of the Heart and accessed the Spirit/Source/Nature/Way they had been alienated from have themselves realized such awareness for themselves?

(PS - And it reminds me of these musings and whether I in my ignorance and impatience might have, by serendipity, have skirted this insight before. To give a few examples that spring to mind...

A Little More On Sitting As Surrender
Sitting As Surrender
Pondering the Meaning of Liberation from Suffering, Part 4
Regarding Silence
No mind but Mind
Buddhism and the Divine)

Acerbic spouting of hot-button talking points gone wrong

2008-05-16T13:42:00.021-04:00

Radio Talk Show Host Called on the Carpet Over Knowledge of History, Vocabulary

The Chris Matthew's show resembles it name in the following segment. He decides to "play hardball" with Kevin James... (NOTE: The link went down - it has been redirected and should work now.)

Why he and others don't do this for other similar simplistic, empty-headed rhetoric all the time I don't know, but good on Mr. Matthews.

Let me be clear. I am not a historian and I am embarrassed by my lack of knowledge in a variety of areas. I am not wanting to put down or attack Mr. James. I have and will continue to make mistakes and potentially miscommunicate or give an opinion on things which I later find to be seriously flawed or not properly thought out. In that sense I can empathize with Mr. James, particularly when under the pressure of trying to put forward an argument on a nationally televised program. I have no problem with people criticizing liberalism, conservatism, particular political parties, positions on topics such as abortion, environmentalism, indigenous rights, YEC, ID, evolution, theism, atheism, Humanism, Christianity, Buddhism etc, but we need to give each other much more credit and make an effort to get passed the binary reactionism and simplistic dichotomies that use the limited polemic vocabulary of the derisively divisive demagogues. We need to take our arguments and positions much more seriously and have a thoughtful discussion backed by a solid education and an attempt to understand, even if we cannot agree, those with whom we debate. Just a thought.

PS - On a related topic, it has been noted that when Bush (apparently misleadingly) cited a United States senator from 1939 commenting on the invasion of Poland (“Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler. All of this might have been avoided") that senator was a Republican from Idaho named William Borah. You can read about Borah in an article by the The New York Times, an article on Salon.com, or other sources you can verify on your own indicating that Borah was sympathetic to Hitler and that Borah's quoted lament may have reflected a concern over what he perceived as a strategic failure on the part of the German military rather than out of an appeasing sentimentality.

Atheist vs. Christian Intellectual Death Match

2008-05-14T16:23:00.006-04:00

This Sunday... Sunday... Sunday... get ready to rumble - it's the Atheist vs. Christian Intellectual Death Match!

That is, it is the death of intellectualism in debates between Western folk caught up in their personal conflict over Christianity and atheism, which then feeds into various social and political debates. I am aware that there are extremely bright, well-educated, and reasonable people on either "side" of such debates, but they really can't compete with vicious vulgar mudslinging. That doesn't make for good entertainment. We want our egos stroked in small, easily digestible pieces that make us feel superior and clearly define a dangerous opponent that must be defeated at all costs. Now that sells!

Into this free-for-all, which has spilled over into popular literature (considering what I just wrote, ponder for yourself what it is that really sells such books) but which has been long incubated on the Internet in various discussion boards and list serves, let me inject a few observations (taken from my own humble attempts at engagement on such issues)...

(Collected and edited excerpts)

For me, atheism is merely one of the two position one takes when one accepts the validity of the question "Is there a God?" You don't have to be pro-science, pro-skepticism, or pro-rationality to qualify as an atheist, nor do you have to be anti-spiritual, anti-religious, or anti-faith. In fact, the atheist tent technically includes such a huge variety of people with their own unique views (for example, take the Raelians - PLEASE!) that it is no more valid to talk about atheists as a monolithic group than it is to talk about Christians or Buddhists as monolithic groups (and some in the latter camp also identify as atheist as well).

Neither is Christianity is a monolithic movement in which everyone thinks and acts the same way, or belongs to the same organization or culture or era, hence, not all Christians can be fairly lumped together through guilt by association any more than we can condemn all atheists by lumping them together with movements or individuals that just happened to be anti-religious such as Mao Tse-tung and the massacres he authorized.

Views that are often associated with and (frequently and mistakenly) conflated as identical with atheism include (but are not limited to): scientism, humanism, spiritual cynicism, anti-theism, anti-religionism, and anti-fideism. While one could subscribe to atheism and scientism, or atheism and humanism and anti-theism, or other combinations, they do not necessarily have to go together nor do they imply a movement in and of themselves. Similarly overly simplistic associations are often made with views that are associated with either theism or religion, theistic religions, or all religions. And so people talk about things such as the "atheistic agenda".

If we want to be accurate and actually discuss atheism in terms of “goals” or “agendas”, for example, we need to identify an actual political or social movement that is centred on atheism first and then assess whether it is proactive or reactionary in any particular area. For example, many people who do not identify as atheists do position themselves in opposition to YEC, Intelligent Design, homosexual discrimination, etc and champion the use of reason, so simply saying that “atheists” represent or favour these positions doesn’t really get us anywhere. There are huge numbers of theists, including Christians, who are in this political camp. Nor does being an atheist mean you are going to have a progressive political agenda. To illustrate, one good reason for using the term New Atheist to refer to the authors and fans of a recent collection of anti-religious essays and books is to identify a particular strain of an active socio-political ideology that heavily identifies itself with atheism. Yet it does not "speak for" or "represent" all atheists any more than Oral Roberts or Pat Robertson "speaks for" all Christians. However, we could look at those two as being figureheads for a particular socio-political ideology that identifies with Christianity.

Moreover, there is more and more scholarship being produced looking at how fundamenalism (broad usage) arose as a reaction to modernism, and how current forms of atheism arose as a reaction to fundamentalism. So being reactionary is nothing new. But Christianity is more than just theism. It also offers more than just sanctimonious moralism as well. Like all major religions, it offers a map of how to live a complete and meaningful life as a human being. Atheism, strictly speaking, does no such thing. Humanism potentially can, though. If we really want to compare apples to apples, Humanism should be compared and contrasted to Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc. I am not looking to do so (again) right now, but for the sake of meaningful comparison, all of atheism versus all of Christianity is not really suitable.

Zeroing in on a particular group, which some have dubbed Evangelical Atheists, this may include some but doesn't necessarily all of those we might identify as New Atheists, whose message boils down to "We're atheists/Christianity (and therefore all religion) sucks/abandon religion". The focus is on trying to make Christianity (and religion in general) seem as absurd and dangerous as possible in order to generate disgust and fear towards religion and hence to persuade people to become anti-religious (which again is often conflated in such circles with atheism). Hence the irony I see is that many of these atheists have the same grasp of theology and history that Creationists have of science and hence these atheists end up making similarly specious arguments with vacuous support and inane bridging arguments. It's as painful for me to read much of what passes as "serious intellectual atheism" in those circles as it is to read the moondust arguments and other "scientific evidences" for a 6,000 year-old Earth.

Humans as a rule tend to form an image first and then find whatever support they feel is "strong" (religious, scientific, etc) and selectively argue their case to justify their opinion. I don't deny this is true, and in fact, it's one reason why I grew really weary of talking to people on most message boards about religion and spirituality. It has been my observation that most atheists who debate this kind of thing online base their critiques (fair or unfair, friendly or hostile, sensible or foolish) on the image presented by the more outspoken theists. That is, their ideas of the nature of God, of the use or meaning of sacred texts or sacraments, of the political and moral implications of the aforementioned areas, are rooted in what the more outrageous theists say and do.

Hence much of what the "evangelical" atheists, as some have dubbed them, claim is idiotic or harmful about religion stems from an impression gleaned from the fanatics with an ideological agenda and a superficial spirituality. That is not to say that some (I repeat, some) of these types of atheists don't then come up with other specious arguments, but these still feed off of and add-on to the original proto-image of the theists as uneducated, bigoted troglodytes at worst or soft-skulled, well-intentioned but duped simpletons at best. While it isn't depicted as such in most offline venues for conversation, in some places this out in the open. Of course, the most charitable reading of the strongest variety of such atheists, the anti-theists, is that most religious folks are just innocent but naive victims to the more predatory pastors, priest, clerics, and other clergy-folk. And again, this comes from magnifying and exaggerating the worst examples from billions of theists worldwide -a intentionally skewed sampling.

I am not suggesting such caricatures and strawmen are justified. But there is always some small kernel of truth being distorted and abused in every harmful stereotype. But that doesn't limit polemic theists or atheists from making such stereotypes, nor does it keep them from attempting to take their half-assed and antagonizing tunnel vision and applying it in news and amazingly stupid ways. Here are two examples taken from callers to the Allen Colmes radio program this past Friday night:

One caller complained about religion in politics (I am a fan of separating church and state myself) and then cited a verse where Jesus says he is not here to abolish the old Jewish law (Matthew 5:17-20). Hence, in the context of the conversation, which was about politicians caught in adultery, the caller surmises that even Jesus (and presumably then his self-identified followers) would be in agreement with the Old Testament passage the advocates stoning adulterers. I am guessing the caller must have missed John 8:3-11 in his "selective reading"...

And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and
when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was
taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such
should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they
might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on
the ground, as though he heard them not. So when they continued asking him, he
lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him
first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one
by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone,
and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw
none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers?
hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her,
Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

Apparently this caller never wondered how Jesus viewed "the Law" and seems to have missed the whole bit about how in the eyes of many rabbis as well as Jesus, all of the various laws and rules concerning purity and obedience were subordinate to the commandment to love God and others above all, as expressed in Mark 12:28-34....

One of the teachers of religious law was standing there listening to the debate.
He realized that Jesus had answered well, so he asked, “Of all the commandments,
which is the most important?”Jesus replied, “The most important commandment is
this: ‘Listen, O Israel! The Lord our God is the one and only Lord. And you must
love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and
all your strength.’The second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as
yourself.’ No other commandment is greater than these.”The teacher of religious
law replied, “Well said, Teacher. You have spoken the truth by saying that there
is only one God and no other. And I know it is important to love him with all my
heart and all my understanding and all my strength, and to love my neighbor as
myself. This is more important than to offer all of the burnt offerings and
sacrifices required in the law.”Realizing how much the man understood, Jesus
said to him, “You are not far from the Kingdom of God.” And after that, no one
dared to ask him any more questions.

Which is of course, what frustrated Jesus about the Pharisees. They were so concerned with being pure and holy that they couldn't be bothered with compassion. Which is in turn why the Pharisees were so threatened and annoyed by Jesus, because he would rather identify and eat with sinners and heal the poor than keep to their narrow and judgmental interpretation of their precious rules. I mean, this isn't a very deep exegesis, and you don't have to believe in it to grasp it, but there you go, the caller affirmed his view that Jesus would support a theocratic state which executes people for things such as adultery.

Then a few minutes later another "Biblical scholar" called in to imply perversity in the Eucharist and suggesting that (paraphrasing) "Jesus wanted to be eaten by people who were stronger than him."

I rest my case.

Three general kinds of aptitude for spirituality

2008-05-13T15:40:00.003-04:00

I don't have it in front of me, but I was reading part of The Good Heart, a book describing the events of an annual retreat on Christian meditation from 1994, the year that the Dalai Lama was asked to lead the seminar. His Holiness said that from his training and experience in Buddhism, there are basically three types of disposition for those on a spiritual journey. The best is one who is very intelligent AND who has a laser-like focus of faith. The next best is someone with a rock solid foundation for faith but who isn't as bright. The worst are those who are intelligent but who are so skeptical and cynical that they are always second-guessing everything and have trouble choosing a path and staying focused on a practice. Guess which of these best describes me...

How about you?

Keep the G-word out of Church

2008-04-30T17:44:00.005-04:00

I want and need to feel God and to worship how God is moving in my life on a Sunday morning. For the past couple of years I haven't felt that at a UU church. Even the mention of God often gets gasps or eyerolls (which, to be honest, may have been part of the problem with the minister, but no one admits that). Church often feels dry. I mean, I am very much a believer in environmental issues and social justice issues and I believe those things are exactly what we are called to do. However, I can attend a lecture on carbon emissions or the life of Martin Luther King Jr. at one of the local college campuses. On Sunday mornings I'd rather be moved and feel closer to God.

And so I don't feel compelled to stay at our church or even to seek out another UU church. I still feel very strongly that I support the 7 UU principles and in theory I will always be a UU. But in practice, I need more.

-from Mom to the Left

Another example of how the rush to give the appearance of inclusiveness has lead some UU congregations to have an amnesia about their roots by excluding... (you know). I know bloggers such as Peacebang have written a lot about this issue, but even if you are not sad at some congregations excluding (significant) references to the Divine, it does smack of spiritual confusion or possibly even emptiness (and not the cool Buddhist kind of emptiness). After all, both Unitarianism and Universalism were based on the idea of a Source that gave light, life, and love to all and that various traditions were all valid paths to knowing/recognizing this Source, which the old timers of a few decades ago still called... (you know). I'm still hungry. And apparently I'm not the only one.

We want to worship a living God. I have not seen anything but God all my life, nor have you. To see this chair you first see God, and then the chair in and through Him. He is everywhere, saying, "I am." The moment you feel "I am," you are conscious of Existence. Where shall we go to find God if we cannot see Him in our own hearts and in every living being?
-Vivekananda

Confronting injustice and suffering

2008-04-24T16:37:00.003-04:00

It isn't simply enough to not personally participate in overt acts of injustice or to not intentionally inflict needless suffering on others. One has to be conscious of the need to actively oppose these wrongs - racism, torture, slavery, poverty, preventable illnesses, to name a few examples. I don't generally like the phrase "If you aren't part of the solution then you are a part of them problem." We are always a part of both. It's just a matter of percentages. It's just a matter of what we actively or passively condone at any given moment. Whether we are aware and try to understand each other and our problems or whether we close ourselves off. We don't need divisive slogans - we need people to stand up and inspire others by their own example. May we all seek and discover the courage and wisdom to do so every day.

An Unlit Candle - Tibet, Passover, and the struggle toward the Light

2008-04-15T14:46:00.007-04:00

Politics and religion. Now that should get an "Oy!" A few weeks ago I posted a reference to an article in the Jerusalem Post titled "Are Tibetans the New Jews?" Both groups had an autonomous religious state and highly religious culture which was absorbed into a larger empire. The Romans destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem, and the Chinese destroyed thousands of ancient monasteries throughout Tibet. Many Jews left their occupied homeland before and during a forcible expulsion. Many Tibetans have also fled their homeland and have ended up all over the world. Jews were concerned with how to maintain their religious, cultural, and ethnic identity. Many Tibetans are now pondering those same concerns. This comparison is not intended to be a dig at the Chinese or the descendants of the Romans, nor is it ignorant of the plight of other groups, for example, the many Palestinians who are caught in a conflict they neither want nor desire. Yet it does suggest on some level a sense of shared suffering. And some have now suggested that this be recognized with a sign of solidarity - An Unlit Candle at the Seder Table...

We call on all Jews to include an unlit candle on their Seder Tables this year. The candle symbolizes both the Olympic torch, whose light has been dimmed, and the unmet hopes of a people still living without freedom.

In the Jewish tradition, light symbolizes freedom, hope, and renewal. On Shabbat, Chanukah, and on holidays including Passover, we light candles to shed light into our hearts, thank God for the blessings we enjoy, and commit ourselves to our religion’s ideals of justice and freedom for all.

But for three million Tibetans living under military rule, the light has been extinguished. Tibetans may not freely practice their religion, display their flag, or honor their leader, the Dalai Lama. Doing so puts them at risk of jail, torture, or worse.

The point is not just to have another symbol on your table. Rather, as with the rest of the Seder, the point is to stimulate discussion and action. When your loved ones ask about the unlit candle on the Seder table, talk with them about the Tibetans’ struggle for freedom.

Thanks to Rachel of Velveteen Rabbi for sharing this and to Danny Fisher and all the others who are also passing it on.

On the nature of religion and religion as an aspect of human nature

2008-04-10T14:08:00.011-04:00

Excerpts from my answers to some questions from a friend concerning some of my "big picture" view of religion and humanity...

On cultural archetypes and religion

[F]rom what I understand it is not unreasonable to suggest that comparative religion and cultural anthropology can be used to support the idea that there are common themes and relationships that are embodied in symbolic forms in each "culture" or "cultural system". These symbols reflect generally shared stories and meanings which are then passed on and reinforced or reinterpreted from one generation to the next. There are frequently noted similarities between symbols or between stories of different cultures that are not though to come from a common (even if distantly remote) shared history or diffusion. Sometimes these similarities are very superficial, such as two cultures using a particular shape or image. Other times the similarities can appear to be profound, which is to say, that deep down they seem to be re-telling a common mythical form, or as Jung referred to them, an archetype. It is also true that we each have our own frame for understanding our experiences and the reported experiences of others, a way in which we construct and amend our individual maps of "reality". And sharing the same stories and symbols, i.e. the same cultural "text", suggests we share substantial portions of this frame and/or of our maps. To what degree the apparent similarities reflect our interpretations of the symbols and stories of others based on our own frame and map (i.e. ethnocentrism) and to what degree these similarities reflect similar evolved behaviors and the same needs as members of our species (and commonalities in how we perceive reality and encode our maps) is an interesting issue. To claim that the social and behavioral sciences have made any conclusive and sweeping refutation of any useful application of Jungian thought at this level of analysis strikes me as either ignorance or limiting oneself to a very narrow selection of scholarship and a more narrow form of interpreting that scholarship. This level of analysis neither "proves" nor "disproves" the supernatural (which, as you know, I am personally disinclined to accept).

On whether religion as normative for humans

I would say that it seems perfectly normative for people to be religious. That of course begs the question of what it means to be religious. There are several definitions that I like, but to be consistent with my answer above, I suggest it involves the priorities we use in framing and mapping our reality and in particular how we understand the meaning of existence and our place within it. This often includes shared stories and symbols about our distant origin and what a complete and well-lived human experience entails. This is frequently associated with the various transitions recognized throughout life - common transitions include birth, becoming an adult, marriage and/or becoming a parent, and death). It can also point to other aspects of what it means to live a full and proper life, including an orientation towards something beyond our own ego/superego, which may include a system of socially conscious ethics or the production of and participation in (sacred) art and music, to name a couple of common examples. Even the tendency towards magical and superstitious thinking, which may play major or minor roles in such framings and mappings of reality, seems to be a fundamental aspect of human psychology. And as a part of a cultural system, there is rich source of symbolism reflecting generally shared stories and meanings which are then passed on and reinforced or reinterpreted from one generation to the next. The thing to keep in mind is that the idea of "religion" as a distinct part of our maps of reality (or even as a separate map) is not the normal human condition. It is, as you are aware, a Western concept rooted in the Enlightenment. Speaking from my own personal thoughts and speculations, I would say that "religion" (without such separation and distinction and as I have defined it here) is the original foundation of/reflection of our ancestors' maps of reality. To say it is "normative" to our species would almost be an understatement.

On the "God spot" in the brain and mysticism

The God module in the brain has recently been challenged by new research, but even without that challenge, there is nothing that says that such a "module" couldn't be a part of the inherited biology of all human beings from a common ancestor with that same trait. Besides, this makes the presumption that God=religion or that religion must include God. Even if one accepted that premise, I don't think such research can demonstrate the reality of God. The "light/perception" analogy demonstrates why I believe this.

To reiterate my perspective, essentially everything of which we are aware stems from our own direct experience. We then construct mental "maps" based on our own explanation-forming mental processes as well as from sharing and borrowing the explanations of others that we know and trust. These maps form the basis for what we call "reality", and when we believe that there is one true reality that can be known, we tend to refer to this as "objective reality". It is somewhat ironic then that our belief in and assumptions about an "objective reality" come from a consensus of subjective experiences about what is real! Hence even claims of "objectivity" are still extremely subjective. And when we go beyond the individual level, it can get more complicated when many people share large portions or overviews of their mental maps of reality. We tend to trust our maps based not only on our own interpretations of our experiences but because others claim to see things the same way.

A blind person might not have "light" on their map of reality, and hence the experience of light, which occurs in the perception known as "sight", would be some kind of false experience of reality (i.e. hallucination, delusion, etc). Furthermore, this blind person might suggest that based on brain scans of people claiming to "see", there consistently is a certain kind of activity in a particular region of the brain. Not allowing for light on her map of reality, this blind individual assumes that this brain activity must be giving a false sensation and a false perception, i.e., that "sight" and belief in "light" is just in your head and not objectively real. If we substitute "the Divine" or "God" for "light" and "mystical experience/samadhi" for "sight", then we can see why this analogy is apt. It corresponds to the work you implicitly refer to that has been done to try to show that when Buddhist monks, Christian nuns, and other contemplatives are in deep prayer and meditation, a similar reaction occurs in their brains. On the surface, the shared experience and its physical correlation do not "prove" or "disprove" the "objective" nature of mystical encounters. This of course is just as much of a problem for someone wanting to disprove the reality of the Divine as it is for someone trying to "prove" it. I would also suggest that [this] is unnecessary and may confuse the issue.

These experiences are reportedly "noetic", which would suggest that their reality can only be confirmed by experiencing them first-hand. However, I do recall recently reading passage and corresponding footnote in The God We Never Knew by Marcus Borg in which people who study visions, shamanic encounters, and other phenomena do distinguish (as do many people in these non-industrialized cultures) between hallucinations (in which reality is simply confused and distorted) and visions (in which there a different aspect of reality is said to be experienced). [I haven't read it yet, but I do believe there is a book with a title like "Cosmic Serpent" which deals with the question of whether such shamanic experiences are just hallucinations by examining the anthropological investigation of a group living in the Amazon.] I would say that direct experience of the Divine is the best argument for its reality. Ironically, such experiences, from what I have read, point to the reality beyond our maps, beyond our concepts and categories. In other words, from various accounts God/the Divine is experienced as a depth to reality that goes beyond our normal "frame" of understanding and which cannot (at least not accurately) be "placed" on our maps. In fact, allowing for a greater fluidity of our reality and flexibility of our maps would seem to be pre-requisite for having a such a deep spiritual revelation (and would be a part of it). Hence, to borrow an old and well-used image but very appropriate image (also used in that Borg book and by a Buddhist monk I know), it is like a sphere passing through Flatland.

On the notion asserted by some atheists that religion is just a failed or primitive science

Yes, well, that model suits (some of) them, doesn't it? But religion is a big tent where people put everything, and then they can't figure out why it doesn't all make sense as a big jumbled mess. We have to be very specific about what we mean when we discuss religion. For example, from a Western perspective, superstition can be viewed a way people gain a feeling of control over that which they cannot control, of knowing what they cannot know. Magic, the engine of superstition, can then be presumed to be an incorrect or unsubstantiated attribution of causality. What you are describing your complaint is "religion as superstition and magic". Similarly, we can define the supernatural as the hidden or occult realm of superstition and magic where the unseen forces at work operate, and we can describe the supernatural as a set of ontological category violations which provoke a sense of mystery (see Pascal Boyer's theory of religion, which he conflates with supernaturalism). But again, that is just one set of human experiences which are tied together. In fact, it is typical for us to simply label any beliefs or activities involving such themes as "religion". I have previously given my own preferred definition of religion, which does not require any of these elements (although they are often associated with religion because magic and the supernatural are generally presumed to be a part of the reality which religion is ordering).

--
The rest of the original discussion also includes evolutionary speculations as well.

On atheists and "disbelief"

2008-04-10T13:46:00.006-04:00

From a response I made elsewhere to a charge about atheists and disbelief...

Most atheists I have known base their views on what theists claim about God or the supernatural. The fact that so many of these claims have been disproved or seriously disputed (Young Earth Creationism, cases of faith healing fraud, etc), along with examples of selfish, hateful, and judgmental behavior by people claiming to be following God, is a large factor in convincing them that there is nothing of substance to theism. In other words, a lot of it has to do with the bad advertising of theists. The fact that not everyone who believes in God makes outrageous claims or is morally repugnant is often overshadowed by the witness of the highly vocal and visible ones who do/are.

As for making belief (intellectual assent) the primary concern - it's overrated. People believe all sorts of stupid shit. If the Divine isn't a conscious part of your lived experience, all the beliefs in the world won't do jack. And many "atheists" have some awareness of the Divine, even if they don't comprehend/express it through the lens of a particular religion. To whit...

The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of true art and true science. Whoever does not know it and can no longer wonder, no longer marvel, is as good as dead, and his eyes are dimmed. It was the experience of mystery -- even if mixed with fear -- that engendered religion. A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, our perceptions of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which only in their most primitive forms are accessible to our minds: it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute true religiosity. In this sense, and only this sense, I am a deeply religious man...

-Albert Einstein

Monastery humor

2008-04-09T17:46:00.003-04:00

OK, thanks to pickr for this...

A guy has a religious conversion and decides to become a monk.

He joins a monastery in a remote section of the Italy, where he takes a vow of silence. The Abbott informs him that he will be allowed to say two words at the end of every fifth year.

Five years pass, and the Abbott comes to him to hear the monk's two words.

"Food bad," says the monk, who returns to his devotions.

Another five years pass, and the monk comes back before the Abbott.

"Room cold," he says.

Another five years pass, and this time the monk says, "I quit."

"I knew you wouldn't cut it here," the Abbott replies. "Ever since you came, all you've done is bitch."

Inward Light: Reclaiming Religion

2008-04-09T13:35:00.004-04:00

I am not even going to try to borrow some of the post made at inward light about a speech by Karen Armstrong. I am just going to recommend it to you and say that if it weren't so disrespectful and tacky, I would quote the entire thing right here on my own blog. So go, go on.... go!

Why are you still here? :o)

Hyperbole versus substance

2008-04-09T12:31:00.009-04:00

I was just reading some comments made about a minor "incident" in college athletics that had some fans upset. Many of them were talking about betrayal, hatred, revenge, etc. One of them claimed to "live and die" for the team. This kind of overblown vicarious narcissism isn't limited, however, to a few people who have childish fixations on a sports team or political party.

If you really lived and died for something, truly, then you would NOT get upset over trivial things. You would see the bigger picture and the bigger commitment. In fact, you would have to be more patient, more steadfast, and more conscientious. You would act firmly and decisively when necessary, not out of vain emotionalism or spite. Rather than reacting as a surrogate arbiter to the validity of motives and trials of others you would be paying attention to your own life and your own responsibilities.

This kind of superficial loyalty manifesting as fanaticism happens everywhere. In politics it can be seen in the extreme rhetoric of jingoism, the distorted imitation of genuine patriotism. The symbols of the nation are conflated with the principles for which they stand and in some cases trump those principles - that is, protecting the flag outweighing freedom of expression. Slogans and judgementalism are also part of the mix, with a strong distinction between those who are "with" or "against" a group based on whether they "honor" the right symbols (which in practice is virtually idolatry) and profess the proper beliefs, at least in public. The same kind of mentality has also been observed for some religious institutions as well.

On a personal level, this can be seen in the distinction between true confidence, which does not require boasting or bragging and which can support and be happy for the success of others, and arrogance, which is based on insecurity. Nationalistic jingoism and religious exclusivist-fanaticism are just the same kind of insecurity in a social psychological context.

Hence genuine faith and confidence are based in what is real and substantial, not the projections and agendas of the ego (in Buddhist terms) or the false self. True confidence of the heart comes from knowing, not just knowing about or thinking about, the root of compassion...

If I speak in human or angelic tongues, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body [to hardship] that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Here love is not simply an affection or affectation, it represents what is real in the depths of the heart (of our being and of the cosmos). But without getting into an overly specific religious context, the description here is in contrast to the immature, insecure, and selfish nature that leads to the harming of others and ourselves.

Which is why I am fond of the Peace Prayer of St Francis of Assisi...

Lord, make me an instrument of Thy peace;
where there is hatred, let me sow love;
where there is injury, pardon;
where there is doubt, faith;
where there is despair, hope;
where there is darkness, light;
and where there is sadness, joy.

O Divine Master,
grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console;
to be understood, as to understand;
to be loved, as to love;
for it is in giving that we receive,
it is in pardoning that we are pardoned,
and it is in dying* that we are born to Eternal Life.

Amen.

*in my reading I see this not simply as mere physical death but as the death of the false self, the death of its ability to convince us it is all we are.