your menu and mine

genkaku

At the risk of being pushy or self-serving, I posted this on my blog today:

Strange to think that if a group of friends sits down for breakfast in a diner, nobody takes umbrage when one person chooses scrambled eggs and another chooses fried...

And yet where spiritual endeavors are on the menu of life, all sorts of clamor arises over the choice of nourishment.

"Tut-tut!" some will say -- "religion ain't scrambled eggs. Religion is more far-reaching and profound and touching. The vast skies of importance are entirely different."

And maybe it's true.

But this morning I think that to the extent a person cannot or will not acknowledge and embrace his or her spiritual endeavor as a personal choice, then, to that extent exactly, the spiritual endeavor can never be satisfactorily actualized.

Religion is like zero: It has no free-standing impact or meaning. Only when it is Miracle-Glued to an espousing individual does its meaning soar or confound, inform or blind in any meaningful way.

Imagining that spiritual life will somehow be diminished or defamed when it is acknowledged as a personal choice is a very large mistake ... popular, I grant, but still, a very large mistake.

First comes the hungry (wo)man...

Then comes the food.

Anything else is a recipe for bloodshed.

how

A religion is only the practice of it's followers. I think I am missing your point.
I'll have some tea & try again.

fivebells

If I see someone being sold stone soup, I think I'm doing them a service by pointing it out.

karasti

But if they believe the stones are really dumplings, your pointing it out won't convince them otherwise. And perhaps if we see their dumplings as stones, the issue is more ours than theirs to begin with.

federica

I'm frankly damned if I fully understand just what you're on about, @genkaku.... :scratch:

vinlyn

Seems pretty clear to me.

He's saying that religion in and of itself is sort of a neutral thing. Man comes along and begins attaching general -- rather than personal -- importance to the concept. People with differing concepts about the religion or competing religions then begin arguing over what should be a thing of personal importance. Thus, religion becomes owned by individuals who then have to protect their possession.

Or am I wrong, Genkaku?

anataman

'What a world. It could be so wonderful if it wasn't for certain people'

Woody Allen

Hamsaka

We humans instinctively feel insecure going solo. Not that it prevents some from going solo.

@vinlyn says:

Seems pretty clear to me.

He's saying that religion in and of itself is sort of a neutral thing. Man comes along and begins attaching general -- rather than personal -- importance to the concept. People with differing concepts about the religion or competing religions then begin arguing over what should be a thing of personal importance. Thus, religion becomes owned by individuals who then have to protect their possession.

I "see" something quite different. If religion includes the search for intrinsic meaning, then the individual turns toward themselves and goes within, apparently a solo act. The result is awareness of our intimate connection with all of life, but until then, each person moves through an exploration of their singular or unique 'self' until that is exhausted.

I "see" people feeling insecure when their 'religion' is not mirrored all around them. Remember being a kid, and checking around you to make sure everyone else is standing or clapping or dancing or whatever before you join in? Being the idiot doin' your own thing will get you laughed out of the clique. Instinctively we fear standing alone, our little mammalian brains insist upon safety in numbers.

So, following that . . . you share your bag of weed after school so you aren't the ONLY one being naughty. You join up with the local white supremacy group to feed off of that juicy validation that comes in numbers. You get 'saved' at the tent revival so you can be safely tucked into God's chosen. You criticize religions that conflict with your own because deep down other religions make you afraid yours isn't the right one.

Striking out on your own (the individual pursuing 'religion' within their own self) is terrifying and instinctively discouraged. And here we all are pursing a 'religion' which encourages us to do exactly that

genkaku

Dear Friends -- Thank you for your patience. Truth be told, sometimes I don't know what the hell I am saying even after I said it with considerable heartfelt fervor. Color me doofus!

In this instance, I guess what I was getting at was what I perceived as a sort of upside-down nature of spiritual pursuit ... a situation in which religion/spiritual effort takes on the quality of a yardstick against which to measure and shape at the expense of the one doing the measuring and shaping.

It is within such confines that regret plays a starring role ("I'm not compassionate/patient/courageous/clear-eyed enough" and "If only I could ______" fill in the blank). In this world, implicitly and explicitly, someone or something else is minding the store because that someone or something else is, well, you know, endowed with superior capacities. It is a world in which the line, "I am not enlightened" is issued without embarrassment or much reflection either: "I am not enlightened" ... but someone or something else is.

I'm not trying to say that exercising a bit a determination and, yes, setting a goal or two, isn't in the religious cards. It is. But I really do think that for the well-being of the participant, a time has to come when spiritual endeavor is recognized as a choice ... a choice just like scrambled eggs. As a choice, the towering wonders (often used as towering excuses) can be set aside and serious effort stands a chance.

And to those who say, "I know it's a choice," I might wonder in return, "Why then do you call yourself a Buddhist?"

I am Buddhism.
You are Buddhism.
He, she or it is Buddhism.

And what is Buddhism?

Damned if I know, but, since it seems to do relatively little harm, I like it and choose it and don't mind being called a fool for doing so. Of course I seldom mention it, so the chances of being called a fool are modestly reduced (there are plenty of other opportunities). Hell, I don't mention my love affair with chocolate, either, but that doesn't mean the affair isn't going strong.

Buddhism is just a choice. It makes sense to me. Shoelaces make sense to me too. I don't praise or blame some lord-god-almighty for shoelaces and shoelaces, to the best of my knowledge, don't praise or blame me in return. It's a good deal. Life is easier that way.

If any of that makes much sense.

Jeffrey

Trungpa calls it 'the Lord of Beliefs'. Attachment to your good meaning beliefs to the point of rigidity and lack of sensitivity.

The other obsessions are Lord of Form, and Lord of States of Being