 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Interfaith Issues
(Compiled comments by
Adam Blatner, from Sept. 2005 through February, 2006:
Notes Late February, 2006 ; 11/20/05 notes ; 11/11/05 notes ; Creation Spirituality ;
Guidelines for Inter-Spiritual Understanding ; Interfaith Issues 11/03/05 ; 10/13/05
Paradigm Shifts Needed, according to Wayne Teasdale ;
Feb 24: Dear People, there is a growing interest in Inter-spiritual dialogue, or inter-faith dialogue, and I have on this website and associated websites the presentation of a variety of issues for your consideration.
1. First, what do you think is involved in Interfaith Dialogue, or Interspiritual Dialogue? What issues are to be raised or discussed?
2. You might want to check out some other websites, too:
3. Some questions:
3a. Can deism be considered a type of spirituality? (Many Deists do consider themselves spiritual, even though they don’t acknowledge the authority of any traditional texts, relying instead on the continuing processes of learning about nature and humanity to re-evaluate thinking and policy in the present.)
3b. How organized need a spiritual path be to be included in the discussion?
(May we define a religion as the social organization of the spiritual impulse?)
3c. The major issue at this point in history, it seems to me, is the frontiers of religion and social policy, specifically regarding the following issues:
– abortion
– right to suicide
– use of psychedelic agents (recent Supreme Court finding in favor of a small tribe)
– civil rights of homosexuals
– rights of transsexuals
– limits of tax exemptions for religious organizations that take in hundreds of thousands of dollars or more per month (e.g., televangelists), some mega-church organizations?
– review of tax exemption policy as a possible drain from the civic need
– obligation of more moderate religionists to confront or attempt to temper or at least clearly distance themselves from more extreme co-religionists
– rights to use social pressure to evangelize, intrude into secular contexts (e.g., military academies), infiltrate the chaplaincy, etc.
– taxpayer-support for parochial schools and various “faith-based” programs
– what other issues would you add to this list?
--
3d(1). Religion does much good: At present, it offers some of the more positive programs for community-building, wholesome youth activities, charity work, etc., in our culture.
– it offers support for those who feel grounded in those symbol-systems
– its chaplaincy programs often provide the major psychological as well as spiritual support for people in hospitals and various other social institutions; and modern programs are increasingly oriented to inter-faith work.
–
3d(2): On the other hand, religion can also be problematical:
– It may feel entitled to impose its dogmatic beliefs, or secondary beliefs based on dogma, interpretation of selected scriptural passages, etc., on the general public, thus blurring the principle of separation of church and state
– It perpetuates many ideas that are distinctly problematical for many people–not just concepts like hell, but other fear-based dogmas
–It frequently supports the social and economic status quo while diverting its memberships’ attentions to symbolic “moral” issues (often centered on sex or targeting the less powerful people in the society), while sidestepping massive socio-economic inequities.
4. What would happen if Jesus came again and said that the symbol for his mission on Earth should be not the crucifix but the overturned table of the money-changers?
5. What organizations should be invited to be a party to our dialogues? Which people?
5a. I heard there are some professors in departments of religion at various colleges and universities whose work involves a more sensitive appreciation of the depth and wisdom of other faiths. (E.g., Richard Fox Young at the Princeton Theological Seminary) Should we try to reach out to these folks?
5b. What about the moderate religions that have become increasingly universalist, such as the Association for Global New Thought (that has recently partnered with the Institute of Noetic Sciences for national conferences)? Perhaps they should be included.
6. What about including Freethinkers? (This category here includes some Deists, Agnostics, Freethinkers, Atheists, Secular Humanists– they have an important role to play in this dialogue. We should note that many who have been called atheists and infidels have expressed certain sentiments that were deeply spiritual, though not based on an officially-recognized religious foundation. Their objection is not to spirituality itself, but to the tendencies this psychological and socio-cultural dynamic has towards, shall we say, overstating its case. Personal vision and experience, when communicated, often become stories, and stories evolve into myths. If written down–ah, the superimposition of the illusion of truthfulness that goes with the technology of writing, more with printing–such stories, myths, become dogma.
The problem arises because it seems fitting to expect others to believe, also, and to elaborate those stories so that if one doesn’t believe, bad things will happen. It’s like those emails you get that end up saying that you need to pass it along to 8 people or bad luck will happen to you–only it’s even more insidious. The story that lack of literal belief, sufficient belief, sufficient observance of ritual, sufficient degrees of righteousness, austerity, sacrifice, self-abnegation, ego-less-ness–should a certain threshold be not met, significantly negative things will happen in the afterlife–which is threatened to last for more than a few months! We’re talking about stories about exclusion from the Divine glory, which is a bummer, and worse! The all-loving God may punish–aw, that’s too namby-pamby a word, a euphemism–we’re talking about torture, here, folks. And not just ordinary nasty, sadistic, human-type cruelty--which is certainly bad enough–, but Divine and therefore in some weird way fully justified (?) Eternal horrible torture. That’s more than for a few weeks. Well, it’s the kind of story that generates a fear-based religion, and when folks are fear-based, they get real wary about breaking rules, and insist (out of sincere beneficent concern!) that others buy into this myth–their kids, their neighbors–and, indeed, considering the stakes, why not pass a law.
From this comes the unholy and totalitarian mixture of theocracy, church and state, a system that we may have thought was passé, but it’s rising again with full force not only in the Middle East, but right here in America!
For these reasons, we should include those who want to question the wisdom of religion and its common (but not necessary) tendencies to widen its domain past the realm of preferred symbol systems to enforced belief.
- - - -
7. I am one of the editors of ReVision: A Journal of Consciousness & Transformation. I would like to arrange for a special issue of this journal to address Inter-Spiritual Dialogue and related themes. Might you have a paper, or be willing to write a paper on this subject? Aim for a draft of at least 3000 words and less than 7000 words. You can even send me a brief abstract or discuss your ideas.
112005 Blatner's note, November 20, 2005:
I’ve become affiliated with some circles of people who are exploring interfaith dialogue and inter-faith spirituality. It’s an interesting challenge, and one I think is a very needed exploration. It’s more needed because of the recent heating up of what seem to me to be extreme elements in religion and their increasing aggressiveness in politics and international affairs. Moderation needs to be more clearly asserted, and this, it seems to me, includes some effort at articulating a new spiritual worldview.
To me, this exploration is a bit of a game, not in the sense of it being at all frivolous, but rather in the sense that it is a mixture of challenge, some rules, and some room for creativity. The main rule should be that we seek to for the most part to pursue a rational discussion, following the rules of logic. Yet this should not be absolute–there should be occasions where a lapsing into more relational or emotional-intuitive discourse is quite appropriate. Yet these lapses should be identified as such–with no apology needed, but only to more clearly identify the modes or purposes of the discourse at the moment.
Here are some issues:
1. Are any of five or six key ideas derived from the process philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead or Charles Hartshorne relevant? I think they are, and that they offer important correctives or improvements on a number of spiritual concerns.
2. What would happen if people immersed in a belief system could consider a sharper differentiation between myth and fact. The implications of this extend to certain ideas that are being pushed in the political and civic arena.
3. Will interfaith dialogue require a certain awkward acknowledgment that the extremes in each religious camp are problematic and that there might be a unified... what?– protest?– reasoned counter-argument by the moderate or liberal co-religionists?
All too often we are inclined to say to Christians, “how can you justify the claims or behaviors of your co-religionists?”– or to Muslims, or Jews. The problem is that there is often a gradient of sentiment even within mainstream, mainline churches. In the interests of harmony, such divisions are often simply overlooked. Should a preacher / minister /leader take a stand, demand a shift, there is the risk of schism, or of people simply leaving the church and going to another church.
4. What are the issues that are at the root of the interfaith dialogue? (I’ve posted some issues, and invited responses. Why have I received none? Is this philosophical “game” too ... something... for most people’s taste? It seems that it is a necessary component.
5. I want to write an article about this whole enterprise, but don’t know enough. I’d like to start with:
A bit of expansion, maybe one page, of connections, websites, names of organizations, key pioneers...
6. I will confess my own bias: I want to create a new religion-like process, one that requires no adherence to specific doctrine.
A fundamental principle is the recognition that each person has a unique set of symbols that feel meaningful to them. This is because each person’s personality combines elements of temperament, ability, cognitive style, educational background, interest, and resonant imagery that, in their aggregate, makes for a need to construct a meaning system that must be unique. Its function is to respond collectively and individually to the search for meaning, and by meaning, I refer especially to the questions of (1) what helps a person feel that they “belong,”– to a community or in the world, in the Cosmos? And (2) what ideals may be woven into that unique blend of temperament, background, interests, and ability so that the individual may experience a sense of personal direction, purpose in life, relevance for being?
One of the sources of meaning-making involve those symbols–that such symbols can be, for most people, certain icons such as the person of Jesus, the Great Spirit or other name given for the unifying ground of being, Mary or any of the saints, a guru or great spiritual teacher in another tradition, a holy scripture, and so forth. We should not under-estimate the power of associated experiences, such as the profundity of certain rituals, the social connectedness of a community, the inspiration of a friend, a life-changing experience of a personal “turn-around” or feeling saved as an act of Grace, and so forth. I will confess that for me, I find amazing inspirations in the scientific explanations of the origin of the universe, the phenomena of biology and other dimensions of science–and yet I am aware that these symbols are rather distant to most people who haven’t been immersed joyously in their wonders. So I’m aware that my beliefs may appeal only to those who have become sensitized to my symbol set. Even then, others will take such symbols and give them their own unique twists.
I’m also aware that my personal spirituality is also richly influenced by certain sets of ideas, ranging from writings about the kabbalistic tree of life to an ongoing interest in the lives of various mystics through the ages. Jung’s psychology is another source, as is the implied spirituality in the creativity-oriented system of psychodramatic psychotherapy developed by Jacob L. Moreno–an approach to treatment that has been quite influential in my life. There are numerous other influences, also, all of which reinforce my suggestion that other people’s spirituality is likely no less complex.
Even if a person seems to be mainline in their religion, the interpretation they give to various issues will express a wide range of core dynamics and individual proclivities: Which types of prayer are supported and how much? What is the nature of piety? How stringent are moral rules to be, and how shall they be enforced? Is a measure of fear an important element, and should it be supported or diminished? Often people buy into certain dogmas and not so much into others– and these make for an important fine-tuned individuality of spiritual involvement. Similarly, certain rituals are pursued with more involvement and others more superficially, if at all. The relationship of one’s religion to one’s politics, business, and other aspects of life is another dimension, and for many, one’s sexuality may be too easily compartmentalized, while for others, it is better integrated. Most folks have some doubts, but on close inspection, the nature of those doubts vary widely. The point here is simply that individuality is at work even in those whose religion seems pretty standard.
- - -
November 19, 2005 (In response to Ruth’s request:) Adam’s Spiritual Biography. Raised in an mildly observant Jewish family, but turned agnostic after my Bar Mitzvah, and actively studied critiques of Biblical religion. Nevertheless, intrigued by the mystery of faith, the enthusiasm of televangelists, and a growing interest in comparative religion, so that it was my co-major along with my pre-medical studies at the University of California, Berkeley. Then medical school and internship. In 1964, then, I met a Jungian psychiatry consultant, and became intrigued with Jungian approaches, which bridged over to spirituality. In residency at Stanford, caught up in the ferment of the intellectual community of the San Francisco Bay Area, where new religions, new types of therapy, and many other esoteric developments were emerging. Not yet a "believer" in any deity, though, but sympathetic to mysticism. Discovered kabbalah and began to read about it starting around 1969. Although sympathetic, I could find no rational way to coordinate with spiritual themes until encountering process philosophy in 1983; found it offered a plausible framework for a non-biblical type of deism. Other experiences and an affinity for those with a lean towards the spiritual continued to accumulate, so that I presently have shifted my cognition more deeply. Should anyone ask me if I believed in God, I'd answer, "What do you think all this is, anyway?" (But you know, I still don't believe in the god described in the biblical tradition. In a sense, I am sympathetic with some of the gnostics who considered that patriarch a demi-urge, a sub-god that has the power over earth; the trick, though, is to see past that hypnosis to Sophia, the God beyond god. But that's sort of a metaphor for a general take on it all.)
Of course during this highly abbreviated summary, there were many books, people, influences, and addressing the lessons of each of these would make a full chapter in a many-chapter'd book. (Return to Top)
111105 (Nov 11, 2005): Adam's comments.
While I like Brother Wayne’s characterization of God as Infinite Sensitivity, I am reserved about applying that phrase as a title for any work of ours. I think it may be too grandiose and pretentious. Doesn't feel right. Too much. As I've said, I'm wary about grandiosity... though in small doses, I approve of bursts of relative grandiosity...
Now here's another issue: Can interfaith spirituality cope with deists, folks who are not exactly atheists--though they perhaps should not be discounted, either--but that whole freethinker, atheist, or non-personal-supernatural deity -oriented group.
1. How can we affirm the respectability and right of not buying into biblical or revealed religion?
or include them in interfaith spirituality.
(I confess that sometimes I waver between pretty aggressive anti-religion rhetoric--especially regarding religion's claims to objective truth and its right to impose its beliefs on the general public; receive tax breaks and further subsidies and entitlements; and be seen as a litmus test for political office, much less its current fashionable causes...
On the other hand I'm quite open to personal mythology, spiritual interests, mythmaking, spiritual pursuit, and indeed, think some sort of transpersonal myth to be invaluable source of meaning and structure for personal growth into wisdom.
Faith...? It's the opposite of cynicism! Just having a discussion with a pal about the need to promote imaginativeness, play, involvement... and his saying that there are so many pressures against it, "I don't know that it's going to happen." I found that deeply disturbing. If he said, "It's going to be a tough sell," that would still make it a challenge. And that edge of forward-seeking felt like faith affirmation. I'm not sure yet just what faith is, but it seems to be the opposite of cynicism. Whaddaya think?
well those are three issues. Back to work in other writings. Warmly, Adam (Return to Top)
CreationSpirituality:
(November 08, 2005 Matthew Fox's 10 Principles of Creation Spirituality, followed by comments by Adam Blatner
First, the points, then the comments: Matthew Fox, Ph.D., with nuances from Alexandra Kovats, Ph.D.; University of Creation Spirituality (UCS), Oakland, CA, August 1998 (Now named Wisdom University in San Francisco, CA), suggested the following: Note, however, that the numbering does not indicate relative importance, priority, or sequence of any kind.
TEN PRINCIPLES OF CREATION SPIRITUALITY
1. The universe is basically a blessing, a gift we experience as good. Creation is Original Blessing.
2. Humans can and do relate to the universe as a whole, since they are microcosms of that macrocosm.
3. Each person is called to be a mystic (one who enters the mystery of life with wonder and awe resulting in gratitude).
4. Each person is a prophet (a "mystic in action" {Hocking}, one who "interferes" (Rabbi Heschel} with what interrupts authentic life).
5. Humans need to find and nourish their spirit-selves through spiritual praxis, meditation, and being in community.
6. The spirit life of a person can be named through a four-fold journey as found in the writings of Meister Eckhart:
a.. Via Positiva - delight, awe, wonder, gratitude
b.. Via Negativa - befriending darkness, silence, suffering, letting go
c.. Via Creativa - befriending creativity, images, birthing
d.. Via Transformativa - befriending ccompassion, justice, healing, celebration
(The four-fold journey describes the sequence of paths often experienced in a cyclical, clock-wise process beginning with the Via Positiva.)
7. Each person is an artist in some way and that art as meditation is a primary form of prayer for releasing our images and empowering the community and us; art finds its fulfillment in ritual, the community's art.
8. Each one is a son or daughter of God; therefore we have divine blood in our veins, divine breath in our lungs; and the basic work of God is Compassion.
9. Divinity has many "faces" (Mother, Father, Child, Parent) that the Holy One is as much Godhead (mystery) as God (history), as much beyond all beings as in all beings.
10. The Divine is in all things and all things are in the Divine (panentheism) and that this mystical intuition supplants theism (and its child, atheism) as an appropriate way to name our relation to the Divine and experience the Sacred.
~~~
Adam’s comments: First, I want to respond mainly with a sense of how nice it is to know there are folks trying to develop a new mythos, a new set of images that can nurture us. For some these images involve stories and figures from the Bible, or Gospels, Quran, Baghavad-Gita... for others, the images and stories are drawn more from nature...
I don't think there should be dispute at this level, as it is non-rational, in the category of why do you love the people you do?-- but the price for celebrating one's personal mythos, or sharing it with those who resonate with similar relationships in a certain type of religious community, is to abandon the pretense that this is a rational enterprise--a pretense that leads to a sense of "objective truth" that may then be rationalized as appropriate to impose on others, "for their souls' sake."
Commenting on Fox’s points above: Fox's terms are noble, but they presume a degree of interest in spirituality that is by no means common in the general population. Perhaps we all have the potential, but, hey, we have the potential for terrible wickedness, also. Still, on its behalf, I agree that these principles are a call toward a generally positive philosophical attitude, and for the most part agree with them.
As for the Common Ground seminar 2 months ago, it became clear that if we encounter at the level of art and personal search, such psycho-aesthetic elements (the aforementioned mythic, in action, in dance, poetry, song-writing, etc.) such personal meetings do tend to transcend different religious backgrounds; such issues (as dogma) were simply not raised, irrelevant. Okay. That kind of meeting is possible. But it's neither dialogue or discussion about the different maps that are implicit and/or explicit in the various religious systems.
My own interest is not simply promoting tolerance and respect--though that's good, of course-- but also developing new designs for community myth-making, new maps, systems, ones that are more inclusive. This takes some intellectual dialogue as well as community involvement at the more informal level. (Return to Top)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. The world religions bear witness to the experience of Ultimate Reality to which they give various names: Brahman, Allah, (the) Absolute, God, Great Spirit.
Adam: I can envision other names that suggest less single-person association, and more impersonal or collective-process way of envisioning the Wholeness of Being, the Great Becoming, The Big Multi-Dimensional Blossoming, the Ever-Awakening, the Beyond the Beyond, The Ground of Being (Tillich), etc. If the male-gendered-ness of God is to be challenged, what about the single-entity human projection also? Gaia as a concept of Earth-Spirit, for example, may be envisioned more as a trans-dimensional social being, only instead of the ants in the colony seeming similar, at this other dimension, each species and regional variant would be a different "entity" that interacts ecologically with all the others--which one can do in trans-dimensional spacetime. Of course, this all relates to:
2. Ultimate Reality cannot be limited by any name or concept.
Adam: ...and perhaps invites us to stretch it...
3. Ultimate Reality is the ground of infinite potentiality and actualization.
Adam: Whatever that means. Is God infinite in potentiality, or rather unsurpassable. The philosopher Charles Hartshorne argues plausibly that complete “omnipotence” would logically deny any freedom to the creatures. Are such indiscriminate superlatives truly needed or helpful?)
4. Faith is opening, accepting, and responding to Ultimate Reality. Faith in this sense precedes every belief system.
Adam: The dynamics of faith remain a bit of a mystery to me. It's why on one hand I am deeply excited and interested in the potential of spirituality as a factor in our unfolding evolution, but am wary about the tendency of faith to become stuck on the object of its attention, converted into varying degrees of "belief." There can be different degrees and also types of belief, but literal belief often becomes a problem. This idea is somewhat resonant with the key concept in semantics, that the actual thing-in-itself is not the word attached, or as the Zen saying goes, the finger pointing at the moon is not the moon.
5. The potential for human wholeness - or in other frames of reference, enlightenment, salvation, transformation, blessedness, nirvana - is present in every human person.
Adam: While each of those words calls up a host of associations, some of which may in the long run be more useful, others more misleading, the grounding in the human potential seems a useful reminder.
6. Ultimate Reality may be experienced not only through religious practices but also through nature, art, human relationships, and service to others.
Adam: now we're warming up to my area of disagreement-- in number 8 below. If this is true, then....
7. As long as the human condition is experienced as separate from Ultimate Reality, it is subject to ignorance, illusion, weakness and suffering.
Adam: I think this statement is perhaps overgeneralized and resonates with the subtle totalitarianism of number 8, next. It doesn't allow for the vigorous contributions and goodness of many non-believers whose lives are full, whose consciences are serene... and since the definition of ignorance includes both factual and mythic elements, impossible to fully validate. Still, the question must be asked, "But is this so?" "Is there any evidence whatsoever that this is so?"
Are the people who claim to experience no separation proven to be free from weakness and suffering, and if so, can you name any of them?
8. Disciplined practice is essential to the spiritual life; yet spiritual attainment is not the result of one's own efforts, but the result of the experience of oneness (unity) with Ultimate Reality.
This statement is the most problematical, and is a multipart statement. First, it was created by a biased group, "religious leaders," folks who have an investment in the social organizations of which they are a part being validated and supported. Second, which kinds of spiritual life are defined, or is it a tautology?
Consider Jane Doe, who thinks about God and nature, lives lovingly, does no disciplined practice that can be identified, no prayers as such, no routines, yet behaves respectfully, even reverently to the world around her-- well, I know a few of these folks, and by golly by gosh, they're spiritual, and a lot more than a lot of folks who claim to engage in "disciplined practice."
So is that first part true. Is it "essential"? And what is the "spiritual life" and how is it different from a life lived with a healthy component of spirituality. Indeed, is there any evidence that living a purely spiritual life is any better, any more contributory to the common good or the Divine purpose, than a life lived more directly involved with participating in the common advance of humanity, and with perhaps an edge of reference thrown in?
Is it heresy to ask these questions? They seem fairly elementary.
Then we get to the concept called spiritual attainment. What is that? Who has got it? Does Joe or Bob have it more than Adam? How would we know? What measures it?
Sometimes I play with the paradox that goes something like,
"I'm less competitive than you are, nyah nyah nyah."
If one claims it, does that obviate the claim? If others attribute it: Oh, Joe-Bob is self-effacing, but everyone knows he's "got" it." But maybe others don't agree. How much of the dynamic that attributes spiritual attainment to this or that saint or guru is a product of group dynamics and group self-hypnosis? Is it taboo to even ask that question?
Okay, finally, (pant, pant), what again about our example of Jane Doe. What if she has never had the "experience of oneness (unity) with Ultimate Reality" but she lives a more loving a productive life than Joe-Bob, who claims to have had that experience many times, or, worse (better?), claims to be "established in that consciousness." However, our exemplar counter fellow is in many of his relationships tactless, maybe even cruel. Or phonily sanctimonious? Or spends his life as the center of his own cult, teaching his own versions, gaining adherents, but other than playing the religion game, not really adding much to the world. Spiritual attainment?
So this whole point was pretty problematic, and exposed many of my deeper discomforts about some of the new age trends that seem on the surface rather noble but might in fact be self-serving and misleading
9. Prayer is communion with Ultimate Reality, whether it is regarded as personal, impersonal (transpersonal), or beyond them both.
Finally, what is communion? When I sing a popular song to cheer myself up and reinforce my deeper feelings of faith, like "Whistle a Happy Tune," or "Sing, Sing a Song," or "It's a Small World," or "My Favorite Things," it occurred to me that these are prayers of a kind also. I get realigned with God's purpose as I see it. But maybe they're 2nd-class, too recent, not good enough; maybe a prayer needs to be in old-fashioned language, maybe even in a foreign tongue. Maybe God doesn't speak English.
So again, I kind of like the effort to reach out and make bridges, it's very ecumenical, and better than competition. Yet it's also somewhat ... sooo 20th century. What if the edge of our world and the future of interfaith dialogue involves the interface of tradition and the postmodern, science-fiction, MAD-magazine, playful, scientific, ecological, mind-stretching mentality that values stretching, testing boundaries, lifts the trickster archetype to a new respectability, indeed, a moral obligation? What if we are on a logarithmically upward-curving slope of invention, breakthrough, discovery, paradigm-shifts, that make the worldviews of belief, doctrine, and traditional concepts of belief systems obsolete? Wooo!
Well, it could be invigorating, once you begin to cultivate the infrastructure of skills that involve art, playfulness, psychology, spirituality, and other dimensions that had previously been compartmentalized away from each other.
In a process philosophy-oriented-spirituality--which I confess to--if Divinity enjoys the Creative Advance, then it must be recognized that Creativity includes a measure of Destruction (not malignant or malicious, just that necessity of death, autumn and winter, the winding down of a piece of music so another piece can be played, the finishing of a poem, the archetype who in India takes the form of the God Shiva-- what if that is as necessary to the metabolism of life as the need for a zillion tiny cell deaths that are absolutely necessary for the ongoing health of the organism (the form of Vishnu)?
In other words, what if we are entering an era in which the principle of creativity is recognized as profoundly relevant, perhaps a core value. Traditionalism, which for centuries, perhaps even millennia, offered some grounding in social and cognitive stability, may be less relevant. With Huston Smith, I am not willing to throw out traditionalism, but rather to use it as a foundation that is appropriately used as a spring-board, to be subjected to a constant process of re-evaluation, and at times, or in certain ways, to discarding or neglecting selected parts. Is this disrespect? Not necessarily.
Well, I was suggesting some substantial questions for discussion. What-all do you think of the above. With great respect and love to y'all, your pal, Adam. (Return to Top)
Issues110305: November 3, 2005
In part catalyzed by a seminar titled “Common Ground” held at The Crossings–a holistic learning center in Austin, Texas, this last September, I have been pondering a number of issues related to the trend towards re-thinking ways of developing spirituality in the 21st century.
1. Can prayer include simple chants, popular songs, certain poems, and so forth? What lifts and aligns us, turns us toward the light? Must these be restricted to roots in traditional religion?
2. Some have stated their belief that spirituality must be channeled along a well-trodden path, some “deep” tradition. Others have asserted the claim that spirituality can be valid even when created anew, with elements drawn from many sources. I confess my tending to agree with the latter position for a variety of reasons.
First, what are the boundaries of what the traditionalists might define as an established path? For example, Judaism: The problem with this tradition, though, is that it is and has been “traditionally” a most evolutionary, diverging, reforming, tradition, ever re-defining itself on all levels. So which path can be followed?
Second, what if one’s spiritual vision requires some significant integration of elements–e.g., the discoveries of science, depth psychology, and the frames of reference and aesthetic elements introduced by postmodernism, science fiction, humor, comparative mythology, anthropology, and so forth–that weren’t available to those in the past, those who developed “well-trodden paths.”
Third, what is depth, anyway? Who is to judge how “deep” or “established” some “path” is, or even the boundaries of a “path”? What defines this ambiguous term?
How new can an established path be? What about the Bahai religion? Can it be just a few centuries old? What about sects? How about an established path being only a few decades old, or even just a few years? Or does it require a minimum of a million adherents? Or a hundred thousand? What is the rational basis for drawing any boundaries in this direction.
Other issues addressed in Utne, about 2 years ago.
3. What are the most dynamic organizations furthering interfaith spirituality?
What if most of them don’t think of this as one of their explicit goals, but might come to agree that they are in fact furthering that goal as well.
What if one of the goals of Common Ground might be to operate as a clearing house for some of these organizations? I haven’t seen anyone try to coordinate them, or even introduce them to each other?
What if one of the elements of interfaith spirituality might be to encourage each and every organization to develop a liaison department who will actively explore their boundaries, interfaces, degrees of synergy, inclusiveness, etc.
Some possible organizations to begin this process:
Institute of Noetic Sciences, New Thought Alliance, “The Forge” (?),
International Network for Personal Meaning, General and local Jung Institutes, Association for Transpersonal Psychology, other transpersonal associations
Various colleges, e.g., Saybrook, JFK University, & CIIS in the SF Bay Area,
Esalen, Omega, Crossings, and other Growth Centers
Institute for Transpersonal Psychology and other institutes
Private practitioners, schools, who emphasize psycho-spiritual developments
Religions that emphasize an interfaith connection–e.g., Bahai, etc.
Journals and magazines: more popular, Yoga, New Age; more professional: Journal of Consciousness Studies, ReVision; more balanced: Shift, Parabola, etc.
Related approaches that aren’t particularly oriented to this mission, but some of their
practitioners would be:
Theatre artists, drama therapists, psychodramatists, other psychotherapists...
Educators, Waldorf, Montessori, other pioneers and visionaries
Business coaches, consultants, trying to develop more transpersonal or spiritual business climates
Social and Emotional Learning movements, emotional intelligence
Please write me and add to the list!
Philosophical centers–especially the Center for Process Thought (dealing with the trans-denominational and spiritual ideas of Alfred North Whitehead and Charles Hartshorne)
- Listing issues to be added to the list of issues: (smiling). What are the issues to be considered? What themes seem taboo? What are we avoiding sharing for fear of offending, hurting, bruising widely held sentimental attachments?
– how much overlap is there between interfaith spirituality and philosophy?
How can philosophy–or at least some types of it–be brought into contact with this trend?
– ditto for politics? Economics?
5. It has become “politically correct” to express compassion and non-dualistic ideals regarding all humans. What about the problem that some folks reproduce irresponsibly? That there are major population explosions among the “have-nots,” and this trend is actually encouraged by certain religions? Dare anyone speak to this problem? Are the “haves” obligated to subsidize the reproductive irresponsibility of the have nots?
While there well may be a place for charity in this system, how much are we obliged as a matter of public policy to care for those afflicted with misfortune? (That is, by enforced taxation and re-distribution of resources?) Can such hard-hearted-seeming questions even be raised?
(This relates to the need to recognize the taboo boundaries–the unspoken collusion in “that which must not be spoken or even thought–in all human endeavors.)
Another issue recently raised, for example: New technologies are coming in that promise to raise both the quality of life and quantity of years lived. However, such technologies cost money–some have estimated to be about a thousand dollars per each person per extra year lived–and some technologies would cost ten thousand dollars, or a million dollars? Where’s the cut-off?
Dare we begin to say, in the backwash of a tsunami, rising oil prices, diversions of military expenditures in various chaotic regions, hurricanes, earthquakes, and so forth, that perhaps we (collectively) cannot “afford” all possibly desirable goals, and that systems of priorities, rationing, restraint, humility, and the like are necessary? Can we afford the self-indulgence of responding generously to every high-profile misfortune while at the same time ignoring the tens of thousands of low-profile misfortunes that don’t get political traction?
Can all the high-blown rhetoric in the world get us over really facing and making these hard choices?
7. Is there a place for a kind of self-policing of vague generalities (also more recently identified as “bulls**t,”)? How can we bring a sharper level of discernment to the noble goals of interfaith spirituality?
For example, shall we assume unquestioningly that:
– enlightenment is possible, desirable, and attainable? Is there any evidence whatsoever for such assertions? Or that this state is measurable, able to be assessed, and not simply a product of group consensus, seeking a “leader,” and other less-rational projective dynamics?
– ego-less-ness, self-transcendence, non-duality, and other spiritual goals are other than illusions, claims of possibly narcissistic or megolomanic sociopaths, or other forms of self-delusion?
– questioning these extreme claims need not be an assertion of the opposite, a totally cynical or materialist position. Perhaps a middle position is possible, affirming the value of some relative movement in these directions?
8. Just as we asked about the politically incorrect themes of compassion as public policy, perhaps also we might ask about other touchy subjects:
-- the “right” of parents to impose their own belief systems on their children
-- the idea that there are no “rights,” only collective agreements, and that it is appropriate to re-evaluate all collective agreements in a multi-cultural and changing world.
-- might meditation and other acts of piety be recognized as expressing a spectrum of activities that range from simple brief re-alignments with deeper values and mythic connections to a self-indulgent and self-delusional attempt at spiritual materialism? That this range may reflect the amount of time spent in prayer, meditation, and so forth? Is it even possible to suggest that more than 30 minutes a day at such activities diverts too much energy from the needed tasks of helping to make the world a better place? (Just for argument’s sake). Can such questions be rationally discussed?
9. What are the requirements for an ideal spiritual path or religion? How can we support a religion–as a social organization that supports spirituality–while minimizing the pitfalls of social organization in general?
10. Can any religion overcome its own weight of tradition, dogma, orthodoxy, the influences of its more conservative elements? Can a religion be reformed from within, or must new alternatives, sects, outside religions, be formed anew? What is so wrong with the latter alternative?
11. Can we introduce a process of discerning the difference between mythic and factual modes of discourse? (Both have a place in life, and there are situations even when a mixture of the two are appropriate; nevertheless, it is often important to interpose a process of making this distinction explicit. Certain criteria for action, public versus private policy, what is to be “taught” and what simply “witnessed to,” and so forth, all depend on this distinction being made.
12. There has emerged a new trend towards the blurring of the political and the religious, with the rise to power of a political party that panders to those who feel entitled to impose their religious beliefs on the general public. These fear-based religious groups have created an atmosphere in which “faith-based” is uncritically accepted, and those who question the rational foundations of revealed religion are viewed as being incapable of moral judgment. This refers mainly to Christianity in the United States, but similar tensions exist in other religions and internationally.
There is also another trend towards the liberalization of religion, allowing for its mythic and subjective nature, its psychological validity, and promoting an inclination to seek the spirit of the message rather than value mindless loyalty to traditional interpretations. It may well be that the liberal thinkers in the various religions have more in common with each other than with those who are more literal, fundamentalist, or evangelical in their own traditions. The liberal thinkers feel okay about allowing others to practice their own different paths, without needing to coerce or subtly impose their own ideals and values on others.
Should there be any moral obligation of those who are more liberal and ecumenical to take a stand against their own more reactionary co-religionists? For example, is there any moral obligation for clergy who don’t believe in Hell to speak to the toxic mental health impact of this doctrine?
Furthermore, can interfaith dialogue include as faiths those who are deists, agnostics, and atheists?
Does faith require a belief in a supernatural “being”? Can faith not equally involve a positive attitude towards the world and its own innate energies, including the most noble aspirations of humanity? I’ve known many secular freethinkers whose sense of morality is sharper and more closely reasoned than many who presume their own righteousness based not on their deeds but on their capacity to believe in doctrine.
Can morality derive from a sense of responsibility for making this world a better place, without recourse to the finely micro-managed instructions given to a small tribe in the Middle East over three thousand years ago?
13. What are the most controversial and disturbing books, websites, articles, that you’ve encountered–disturbing in the sense that they make you think, are not easily dismissed, and may offer some uncomfortable ideas that stretch your system?
Well, that’s what’s on my mind this month. I’m open for discussion.
- - -
Nov 3: from Kurt:
The web address (www.isdac.com <http://www.isdac.com/> ) for the InterSpiritual Dialogue website includes the sites for the National Service Conference of the American Ethical Union (which, having UN NGO status, sponsors ISD at the UN).
Kosmos website etc. already has links to isdac.com etc. Kosmos Journal grew out of the Spiritual and Values caucuses at the UN. Over the years, the UN NGO community started "caucuses" of fellow travellers; the Spiritual Caucus is NGO's with religious roots/agenda, the Values Caucus is NGO's with ethic's based roots/agenda (including both religious and non-religious; the Earth Values Caucus is NGO's with interests in values and the environment. Nancy Roof the editor and founder of Kosmos was a founding member of both Spiritual Caucus and Values Caucus. ISD belongs to the Spiritual Caucus, the NSC of the AEU (see above) belongs to both Spiritual and Values Caucuses. So we knew Nancy for quite a few years. When ISD was founded I met with the Spiritual Caucus to explain its purpose and we attended all meetings since and also been a part of UN International Peace Day. Nancy got enough support to go independent with Kosmos, which is her "heart child/dream work".... She is exp. Interested in the vision of evolving global consciousness and transformation... another reason some of us are
going to CA this month to the conference on Mysticism and Global Transformation being done by Adyashanti and Llewellyn Vaughan-Lee. Nancy works closely with a lot of people esp. Ken Wilber, Surya Das, and has good ties to the Andrew Cohen "What is Enlightenment" magazine bunch etc..... all of these folk, and us, are little eddies in this bigger whirlpool interested in transformation.
101305 Interfaith Dialogue (October 13, 2005)
Hello, all. My own interest is more in helping to develop the intellectual foundations for interfaith dialogue. I had some hope of doing that during the conference, but there was so much going on in other directions, and I became aware that my goal might interest only a small percentage of people involved. It really requires groups of two to four or six, not much more. Or even ongoing online discussion.
One angle I pursue is that of noting other groups that are also probing the philosophical, psychological, sociological, and other perspectives on the subject of interfaith
dialogue. For example, I heard that Michael Lerner, the editor of the liberal Jewish magazine, Tikkun, is expanding his effort beyond Judaism to become something called (I think) an association for spiritual progressives.
There is another group, the International Network for Personal Meaning, centered near Vancouver, BC, that does some interesting work, and I've been to some of their conferences. I think they'd like to know about y'all.
Institute of Noetic Sciences probably would enjoy some synergy, etc.
Another angle I pursue is to consider some of the intellectual questions associated with the problem. For example:
1. In Utne Magazine a few years ago there was an article that articulated an issue: Some people feel fine about drawing from various traditions and synthesizing their own spiritual path. Others claim that this is dangerous, and that it is necessary to pick from the range of established paths-- The Dalai Lama has suggested this, also, but just because he's presently highly respected doesn't make him right.
a. sub-problem: when does a path become established? How long must it be worked? 1 week, 1 month, 10 years, 100 years, 300 years? Is Mormonism an established path?
b. What about the way religions ("established paths") evolve, become new?
c. In India, there are long traditions, but some "lineages" begin in a sense only with a self-realized guru, and thus may only be a few generations old. Does this qualify?
2. Is it possible, as Roger Walsh did in his 1999 book, Essential Spirituality, to distill out the essential ideas or elements in many different religions? (I'm inclined to agree that it is, to confess my bias. But there's always room for learning more, clarifying wrong understandings, etc.)
So my interest goes in this direction. I'm
really rather weak in the direction of organizing, etc. Warmly, Adam Blatner in Texas
www.blatner.com/adam/ for my photo and a number of articles on related subjects--from "Imagining God" and "Creative Mythmaking" to reflections on Intelligent Design; or a supplement to the Kabbalistic Tree of Life as a useful mind-soul-spirit map. Comments from anyone who likes to play this way are welcome, through this list or back-channeled.
Response: From Kurt: johnsonku@gtlaw.com October 13, 2005
It is going to be interesting and require some artfulness for us, as the self-selected InterSpiritual Action Organizers, to make sure that all aspects of this discussion are somehow artfully facilited for the wider Forum (once it gets going) without a crashing and burning
based on "just too much information". Luca brought this up re: his previous experiences with email forums. Regarding peoples various gifts and emphases, its good to remember Ramana's wisdom about balance and inclusivity. About extremes or opposites, complements, etc. Ramana said "it is always either both or nothing". We have to somehow artfully allow a place for both-- the free flowing and the disciplined.
Thus, for sure, as an academic myself I am aware of the validity of the suggestions/ parameters Adam suggests below and yet I also know other people who will wilt very fast if faced with too much "disciplined thinking". I think a good example of this complementarity comes from Adam's mention of Roger Walsh M.D. (whom I know because he works closely with Surya Das, and, as well, one of the most gifted Lamas, spiritual mentors, among Surya's folk, Lama John Makransky, is also head of Buddhist Studies at Boston College... a Lama and a Scholar). This recognizes the mutual validity of (1) Adyashanti's note, in one of his books, saying about higher consciousness (or "enligtenment") "It is amazing anyone could make a concept out of this"...and (2) the fact that we know also the precise value of the scholarly work on traditions etc.
I think we will need to carve out niches, where both can have their necessary place. FOR INSTANCE, in the newsletter, and at eventual website, we may want a PRECISE PLACE for setting out the kinds of intellectual foundations re: interfaith dialogue and artful & precise things along that line. And, not confuse this place with other, more free flowing contributions which can also be part of the newsletter or the website, but seen in the integrities of what they are. Perhaps someone like Adam can be the facilitator of that part, while someone else facilitates another etc. The willy nilly mixing of "free flow shamanic/inspired spiritual stuff" versus "discipline intellectual stuff" can cause a muddle as we all know..... So, I am glad Adam points out the need for us to vigilant about this from the beginning.
So, let's definitely be mindful there as this develops. Again, as Adya says "love means no one has to be left out" .... but its an artful thing....
Let me mention briefly two points of Wayne (which Gorakh and I may develop more when we write something about Wayne's thought as he expressed it to us). Wayne distinguished in talks with me, what might be called (1) primary interspiritual dialogue and (2) secondary
interspiritual dialogue. (2) "secondary" is the kind of dialogue that naturally results because there are different, even fixed, views or traditions in the first place-- e.g. those established traditions/concepts "dialogue" with each other. But (1) "primary" is the kind of thing interspiritual dialogue would be if there were NO preconditions, no histories, e.g. just "pure awareness" and that, more than perhaps, is a very different kind of dialogue.
What Adam is pointing out is that "modalities"/"methods" are a reality and "modalities" need to be honored and elucidated etc. As Gorakh knows, while my strengths are organization, distillation, synthesis and a more free flow kind of shamanic spiritual conversation, I am not much gifted at all re: modalities or methodologies because, in my experience, they all seem the same, at least fundamentally. Yet I am the first to appreciate, and know the essential importance of, modalities, methods, ways, paths etc. They are just not my strong suite.
So, we are going to need to be artful here. Perhaps the best way is to make sure there is a "place" for everthing.... from free-flow extremes, to academicly disciplined extremes etc... again, as Ramana said, when asked about great paradoxes-- "It is either both or nothing". So I guess the awareness has to begin with us. kurt (Return to Top)
Here are Brother Wayne Teasdale’s list of world paradigm shifts needed, along with my comments: These points address many of the world's problems. The points are taken from Teasdale's book, The Mystic Heart: Finding a Universal Spirituality in the World's Religions:
1. "We are at the dawn of a new consciousness, a radically fresh approach to our life as the human family in a fragile world. This birth into a new awareness, into a new set of historical circumstances, appears in a number of shifts in our understanding:
Adam B’s comment in November 13, 2005: I agree with this, and it might be useful to fill out why I (or we, others) might think this is so.
2. The emergence of ecological awareness and sensitivity to the natural organic world, with an acknowledgment of the basic fragility of the earth. AB: Agree.
3. A growing sense of the rights of other species.
AB: I agree that the depth of mind, the validity of experience, an expansion of compassion goes with raising consciousness. Historically, people began to open to the idea that maybe other tribes have rights and it's not okay to slay them or enslave them; maybe women have rights; children; ... ? the unborn? ? animals? ? the sick or aged or handicapped? the misfits? gays and lesbians? transgendered? The circle of caring has gradually expanded.
The problem with "rights" is that there are a host of legal, collective policy, political implications, boundary issues, etc. Is vegetarianism compulsory? Orthodox Jainist doctrine?
4. A recognition of the interdependence of all domains of life and reality.
ab: the problem here involves weighing the relative influence or degree of involvement of each domain or species or type of reality... some are more relevant than others, and this can differ with historical era, other variables, such as "can we afford to lend equal respect to..?" One positive implication might be
5. The ideal of abandoning militant nationalism as a result of this tangible sense of our essential interdependence.
ab: the problem here involves weighing the relative influence or degree of involvement of each domain or species or type of reality... some are more relevant than others, and this can differ with historical era, other variables, such as "can we afford to lend equal respect to.... ?"
6. A deep, evolving experience of community between and among the religions through their individual members.
AB: a noble goal, but requires that all play the game equally. What if the problem of separating the moderates from the extremists in any group interferes with this noble goal? Also, can community be experienced just through a sharing of ideals, or do economic factors detract from this goal?
7. The growing receptivity to the inner treasures of the world's religions.
AB: Might credit be given to the relatively “new” (early-mid 19th century) religion, Bahai, as one of the significant precursors for this level of ecumenicism? Admittedly, of course, this trend became more popular beginning in the 1960s. I don’t doubt that there are many and various other perspectives.
8. An openness to the cosmos, with the realization that the relationship between humans and the earth is part of a larger community of the universe.
ab: Ditto, reflecting the increasing influence and vigor of science since the mid-century, and a sense that science versus religion seems foolish. They need to become integrated...
9. WT: Each of these shifts represents dramatic change; taken together, they will define the thought and culture of the third millennium. We could really name [this] age after any of these shifts in understanding. To encompass them all, however, perhaps the best name for this new segment of historical experience is the Interspiritual Age.
Adam: Yes; I also like the term “Consciousness Transformation.”
10: Wayne Teasdale: All of these awarenesses are interrelated, and each is indispensable to clearly grasping the greater shift taking place, a shift that will sink roots deep into our lives and culture. Taken together, they are preparing the way for a universal civilization: a civilization with a heart. These aspects of spirituality will shape how we conduct politics and education; how we envision our economies, media, and entertainment; and how we develop our relationship with the natural world, while pursuing our quality of life.
Interdependence is an inescapable fact of our contemporary world. A spiritual interdependence also exists between and among the world's religions. This interdependence is more subtle, though the actual impact of traditions on each other is clearly discernable in history.
.The spiritual interdependence is often indirect and thus not clearly seen. But it is nonetheless real. When we examine relations among the religions today, we find traditions increasingly discovering and pursuing a real experience of community, especially among individuals. This existential realization arises from actual encounters between people of different traditions.
Interspirituality and intermysticism are terms I have coined to designate the increasingly familiar phenomenon of cross-religious sharing of interior resources, the spiritual treasures of each tradition. .In the third millennium, interspirituality and intermysticism will become more and more the norm in humankind's inner evolution."
On The Qualities of Interspiritual Dialogue
"I am always inspired by genuine acts of selflessness. This quality of love is the natural fruit of the mystical life and the contemplative character, and it is the nature and fullness of this character [which defines] the elements of mature interspirituality: actual moral capacity, solidarity with all living beings, deep nonviolence, humility, spiritual practice, mature self-knowledge, simplicity of life, selfless service and compassionate action, and the prophetic voice."
Adam: Sounds good to me.
Comments? Email me! adam@blatner.com (Return to Top)
Notes Late February, 2006 ; 11/20/05 notes ; 11/11/05 notes ; Creation Spirituality ;
Guidelines for Inter-Spiritual Understanding ; Interfaith Issues 11/03/05 ; 10/13/05
Paradigm Shifts Needed, according to Wayne Teasdale ;
Feb 24: Dear People, there is a growing interest in Inter-spiritual dialogue, or inter-faith dialogue, and I have on this website and associated websites the presentation of a variety of issues for your consideration.
1. First, what do you think is involved in Interfaith Dialogue, or Interspiritual Dialogue? What issues are to be raised or discussed?
2. You might want to check out some other websites, too:
3. Some questions:
3a. Can deism be considered a type of spirituality? (Many Deists do consider themselves spiritual, even though they don’t acknowledge the authority of any traditional texts, relying instead on the continuing processes of learning about nature and humanity to re-evaluate thinking and policy in the present.)
3b. How organized need a spiritual path be to be included in the discussion?
(May we define a religion as the social organization of the spiritual impulse?)
3c. The major issue at this point in history, it seems to me, is the frontiers of religion and social policy, specifically regarding the following issues:
– abortion
– right to suicide
– use of psychedelic agents (recent Supreme Court finding in favor of a small tribe)
– civil rights of homosexuals
– rights of transsexuals
– limits of tax exemptions for religious organizations that take in hundreds of thousands of dollars or more per month (e.g., televangelists), some mega-church organizations?
– review of tax exemption policy as a possible drain from the civic need
– obligation of more moderate religionists to confront or attempt to temper or at least clearly distance themselves from more extreme co-religionists
– rights to use social pressure to evangelize, intrude into secular contexts (e.g., military academies), infiltrate the chaplaincy, etc.
– taxpayer-support for parochial schools and various “faith-based” programs
– what other issues would you add to this list?
--
3d(1). Religion does much good: At present, it offers some of the more positive programs for community-building, wholesome youth activities, charity work, etc., in our culture.
– it offers support for those who feel grounded in those symbol-systems
– its chaplaincy programs often provide the major psychological as well as spiritual support for people in hospitals and various other social institutions; and modern programs are increasingly oriented to inter-faith work.
–
3d(2): On the other hand, religion can also be problematical:
– It may feel entitled to impose its dogmatic beliefs, or secondary beliefs based on dogma, interpretation of selected scriptural passages, etc., on the general public, thus blurring the principle of separation of church and state
– It perpetuates many ideas that are distinctly problematical for many people–not just concepts like hell, but other fear-based dogmas
–It frequently supports the social and economic status quo while diverting its memberships’ attentions to symbolic “moral” issues (often centered on sex or targeting the less powerful people in the society), while sidestepping massive socio-economic inequities.
4. What would happen if Jesus came again and said that the symbol for his mission on Earth should be not the crucifix but the overturned table of the money-changers?
5. What organizations should be invited to be a party to our dialogues? Which people?
5a. I heard there are some professors in departments of religion at various colleges and universities whose work involves a more sensitive appreciation of the depth and wisdom of other faiths. (E.g., Richard Fox Young at the Princeton Theological Seminary) Should we try to reach out to these folks?
5b. What about the moderate religions that have become increasingly universalist, such as the Association for Global New Thought (that has recently partnered with the Institute of Noetic Sciences for national conferences)? Perhaps they should be included.
6. What about including Freethinkers? (This category here includes some Deists, Agnostics, Freethinkers, Atheists, Secular Humanists– they have an important role to play in this dialogue. We should note that many who have been called atheists and infidels have expressed certain sentiments that were deeply spiritual, though not based on an officially-recognized religious foundation. Their objection is not to spirituality itself, but to the tendencies this psychological and socio-cultural dynamic has towards, shall we say, overstating its case. Personal vision and experience, when communicated, often become stories, and stories evolve into myths. If written down–ah, the superimposition of the illusion of truthfulness that goes with the technology of writing, more with printing–such stories, myths, become dogma.
The problem arises because it seems fitting to expect others to believe, also, and to elaborate those stories so that if one doesn’t believe, bad things will happen. It’s like those emails you get that end up saying that you need to pass it along to 8 people or bad luck will happen to you–only it’s even more insidious. The story that lack of literal belief, sufficient belief, sufficient observance of ritual, sufficient degrees of righteousness, austerity, sacrifice, self-abnegation, ego-less-ness–should a certain threshold be not met, significantly negative things will happen in the afterlife–which is threatened to last for more than a few months! We’re talking about stories about exclusion from the Divine glory, which is a bummer, and worse! The all-loving God may punish–aw, that’s too namby-pamby a word, a euphemism–we’re talking about torture, here, folks. And not just ordinary nasty, sadistic, human-type cruelty--which is certainly bad enough–, but Divine and therefore in some weird way fully justified (?) Eternal horrible torture. That’s more than for a few weeks. Well, it’s the kind of story that generates a fear-based religion, and when folks are fear-based, they get real wary about breaking rules, and insist (out of sincere beneficent concern!) that others buy into this myth–their kids, their neighbors–and, indeed, considering the stakes, why not pass a law.
From this comes the unholy and totalitarian mixture of theocracy, church and state, a system that we may have thought was passé, but it’s rising again with full force not only in the Middle East, but right here in America!
For these reasons, we should include those who want to question the wisdom of religion and its common (but not necessary) tendencies to widen its domain past the realm of preferred symbol systems to enforced belief.
- - - -
7. I am one of the editors of ReVision: A Journal of Consciousness & Transformation. I would like to arrange for a special issue of this journal to address Inter-Spiritual Dialogue and related themes. Might you have a paper, or be willing to write a paper on this subject? Aim for a draft of at least 3000 words and less than 7000 words. You can even send me a brief abstract or discuss your ideas.
112005 Blatner's note, November 20, 2005:
I’ve become affiliated with some circles of people who are exploring interfaith dialogue and inter-faith spirituality. It’s an interesting challenge, and one I think is a very needed exploration. It’s more needed because of the recent heating up of what seem to me to be extreme elements in religion and their increasing aggressiveness in politics and international affairs. Moderation needs to be more clearly asserted, and this, it seems to me, includes some effort at articulating a new spiritual worldview.
To me, this exploration is a bit of a game, not in the sense of it being at all frivolous, but rather in the sense that it is a mixture of challenge, some rules, and some room for creativity. The main rule should be that we seek to for the most part to pursue a rational discussion, following the rules of logic. Yet this should not be absolute–there should be occasions where a lapsing into more relational or emotional-intuitive discourse is quite appropriate. Yet these lapses should be identified as such–with no apology needed, but only to more clearly identify the modes or purposes of the discourse at the moment.
Here are some issues:
1. Are any of five or six key ideas derived from the process philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead or Charles Hartshorne relevant? I think they are, and that they offer important correctives or improvements on a number of spiritual concerns.
2. What would happen if people immersed in a belief system could consider a sharper differentiation between myth and fact. The implications of this extend to certain ideas that are being pushed in the political and civic arena.
3. Will interfaith dialogue require a certain awkward acknowledgment that the extremes in each religious camp are problematic and that there might be a unified... what?– protest?– reasoned counter-argument by the moderate or liberal co-religionists?
All too often we are inclined to say to Christians, “how can you justify the claims or behaviors of your co-religionists?”– or to Muslims, or Jews. The problem is that there is often a gradient of sentiment even within mainstream, mainline churches. In the interests of harmony, such divisions are often simply overlooked. Should a preacher / minister /leader take a stand, demand a shift, there is the risk of schism, or of people simply leaving the church and going to another church.
4. What are the issues that are at the root of the interfaith dialogue? (I’ve posted some issues, and invited responses. Why have I received none? Is this philosophical “game” too ... something... for most people’s taste? It seems that it is a necessary component.
5. I want to write an article about this whole enterprise, but don’t know enough. I’d like to start with:
Interfaith Dialogue.
There has been a growing effort at inter-faith dialogue for many years and in many small circles, some affiliated with each other, others perhaps not yet aware of this stream within the larger river of faith-related endeavors. One of these efforts derive from the work of the late Brother Wayne Teasdale, who supported events such as the recent Congress of World Religions. Another effort rises from the work of ... Etc....A bit of expansion, maybe one page, of connections, websites, names of organizations, key pioneers...
6. I will confess my own bias: I want to create a new religion-like process, one that requires no adherence to specific doctrine.
A fundamental principle is the recognition that each person has a unique set of symbols that feel meaningful to them. This is because each person’s personality combines elements of temperament, ability, cognitive style, educational background, interest, and resonant imagery that, in their aggregate, makes for a need to construct a meaning system that must be unique. Its function is to respond collectively and individually to the search for meaning, and by meaning, I refer especially to the questions of (1) what helps a person feel that they “belong,”– to a community or in the world, in the Cosmos? And (2) what ideals may be woven into that unique blend of temperament, background, interests, and ability so that the individual may experience a sense of personal direction, purpose in life, relevance for being?
One of the sources of meaning-making involve those symbols–that such symbols can be, for most people, certain icons such as the person of Jesus, the Great Spirit or other name given for the unifying ground of being, Mary or any of the saints, a guru or great spiritual teacher in another tradition, a holy scripture, and so forth. We should not under-estimate the power of associated experiences, such as the profundity of certain rituals, the social connectedness of a community, the inspiration of a friend, a life-changing experience of a personal “turn-around” or feeling saved as an act of Grace, and so forth. I will confess that for me, I find amazing inspirations in the scientific explanations of the origin of the universe, the phenomena of biology and other dimensions of science–and yet I am aware that these symbols are rather distant to most people who haven’t been immersed joyously in their wonders. So I’m aware that my beliefs may appeal only to those who have become sensitized to my symbol set. Even then, others will take such symbols and give them their own unique twists.
I’m also aware that my personal spirituality is also richly influenced by certain sets of ideas, ranging from writings about the kabbalistic tree of life to an ongoing interest in the lives of various mystics through the ages. Jung’s psychology is another source, as is the implied spirituality in the creativity-oriented system of psychodramatic psychotherapy developed by Jacob L. Moreno–an approach to treatment that has been quite influential in my life. There are numerous other influences, also, all of which reinforce my suggestion that other people’s spirituality is likely no less complex.
Even if a person seems to be mainline in their religion, the interpretation they give to various issues will express a wide range of core dynamics and individual proclivities: Which types of prayer are supported and how much? What is the nature of piety? How stringent are moral rules to be, and how shall they be enforced? Is a measure of fear an important element, and should it be supported or diminished? Often people buy into certain dogmas and not so much into others– and these make for an important fine-tuned individuality of spiritual involvement. Similarly, certain rituals are pursued with more involvement and others more superficially, if at all. The relationship of one’s religion to one’s politics, business, and other aspects of life is another dimension, and for many, one’s sexuality may be too easily compartmentalized, while for others, it is better integrated. Most folks have some doubts, but on close inspection, the nature of those doubts vary widely. The point here is simply that individuality is at work even in those whose religion seems pretty standard.
- - -
November 19, 2005 (In response to Ruth’s request:) Adam’s Spiritual Biography. Raised in an mildly observant Jewish family, but turned agnostic after my Bar Mitzvah, and actively studied critiques of Biblical religion. Nevertheless, intrigued by the mystery of faith, the enthusiasm of televangelists, and a growing interest in comparative religion, so that it was my co-major along with my pre-medical studies at the University of California, Berkeley. Then medical school and internship. In 1964, then, I met a Jungian psychiatry consultant, and became intrigued with Jungian approaches, which bridged over to spirituality. In residency at Stanford, caught up in the ferment of the intellectual community of the San Francisco Bay Area, where new religions, new types of therapy, and many other esoteric developments were emerging. Not yet a "believer" in any deity, though, but sympathetic to mysticism. Discovered kabbalah and began to read about it starting around 1969. Although sympathetic, I could find no rational way to coordinate with spiritual themes until encountering process philosophy in 1983; found it offered a plausible framework for a non-biblical type of deism. Other experiences and an affinity for those with a lean towards the spiritual continued to accumulate, so that I presently have shifted my cognition more deeply. Should anyone ask me if I believed in God, I'd answer, "What do you think all this is, anyway?" (But you know, I still don't believe in the god described in the biblical tradition. In a sense, I am sympathetic with some of the gnostics who considered that patriarch a demi-urge, a sub-god that has the power over earth; the trick, though, is to see past that hypnosis to Sophia, the God beyond god. But that's sort of a metaphor for a general take on it all.)
Of course during this highly abbreviated summary, there were many books, people, influences, and addressing the lessons of each of these would make a full chapter in a many-chapter'd book. (Return to Top)
111105 (Nov 11, 2005): Adam's comments.
While I like Brother Wayne’s characterization of God as Infinite Sensitivity, I am reserved about applying that phrase as a title for any work of ours. I think it may be too grandiose and pretentious. Doesn't feel right. Too much. As I've said, I'm wary about grandiosity... though in small doses, I approve of bursts of relative grandiosity...
Now here's another issue: Can interfaith spirituality cope with deists, folks who are not exactly atheists--though they perhaps should not be discounted, either--but that whole freethinker, atheist, or non-personal-supernatural deity -oriented group.
1. How can we affirm the respectability and right of not buying into biblical or revealed religion?
or include them in interfaith spirituality.
(I confess that sometimes I waver between pretty aggressive anti-religion rhetoric--especially regarding religion's claims to objective truth and its right to impose its beliefs on the general public; receive tax breaks and further subsidies and entitlements; and be seen as a litmus test for political office, much less its current fashionable causes...
On the other hand I'm quite open to personal mythology, spiritual interests, mythmaking, spiritual pursuit, and indeed, think some sort of transpersonal myth to be invaluable source of meaning and structure for personal growth into wisdom.
Faith...? It's the opposite of cynicism! Just having a discussion with a pal about the need to promote imaginativeness, play, involvement... and his saying that there are so many pressures against it, "I don't know that it's going to happen." I found that deeply disturbing. If he said, "It's going to be a tough sell," that would still make it a challenge. And that edge of forward-seeking felt like faith affirmation. I'm not sure yet just what faith is, but it seems to be the opposite of cynicism. Whaddaya think?
well those are three issues. Back to work in other writings. Warmly, Adam (Return to Top)
CreationSpirituality:
(November 08, 2005 Matthew Fox's 10 Principles of Creation Spirituality, followed by comments by Adam Blatner
First, the points, then the comments: Matthew Fox, Ph.D., with nuances from Alexandra Kovats, Ph.D.; University of Creation Spirituality (UCS), Oakland, CA, August 1998 (Now named Wisdom University in San Francisco, CA), suggested the following: Note, however, that the numbering does not indicate relative importance, priority, or sequence of any kind.
TEN PRINCIPLES OF CREATION SPIRITUALITY
1. The universe is basically a blessing, a gift we experience as good. Creation is Original Blessing.
2. Humans can and do relate to the universe as a whole, since they are microcosms of that macrocosm.
3. Each person is called to be a mystic (one who enters the mystery of life with wonder and awe resulting in gratitude).
4. Each person is a prophet (a "mystic in action" {Hocking}, one who "interferes" (Rabbi Heschel} with what interrupts authentic life).
5. Humans need to find and nourish their spirit-selves through spiritual praxis, meditation, and being in community.
6. The spirit life of a person can be named through a four-fold journey as found in the writings of Meister Eckhart:
a.. Via Positiva - delight, awe, wonder, gratitude
b.. Via Negativa - befriending darkness, silence, suffering, letting go
c.. Via Creativa - befriending creativity, images, birthing
d.. Via Transformativa - befriending ccompassion, justice, healing, celebration
(The four-fold journey describes the sequence of paths often experienced in a cyclical, clock-wise process beginning with the Via Positiva.)
7. Each person is an artist in some way and that art as meditation is a primary form of prayer for releasing our images and empowering the community and us; art finds its fulfillment in ritual, the community's art.
8. Each one is a son or daughter of God; therefore we have divine blood in our veins, divine breath in our lungs; and the basic work of God is Compassion.
9. Divinity has many "faces" (Mother, Father, Child, Parent) that the Holy One is as much Godhead (mystery) as God (history), as much beyond all beings as in all beings.
10. The Divine is in all things and all things are in the Divine (panentheism) and that this mystical intuition supplants theism (and its child, atheism) as an appropriate way to name our relation to the Divine and experience the Sacred.
~~~
Adam’s comments: First, I want to respond mainly with a sense of how nice it is to know there are folks trying to develop a new mythos, a new set of images that can nurture us. For some these images involve stories and figures from the Bible, or Gospels, Quran, Baghavad-Gita... for others, the images and stories are drawn more from nature...
I don't think there should be dispute at this level, as it is non-rational, in the category of why do you love the people you do?-- but the price for celebrating one's personal mythos, or sharing it with those who resonate with similar relationships in a certain type of religious community, is to abandon the pretense that this is a rational enterprise--a pretense that leads to a sense of "objective truth" that may then be rationalized as appropriate to impose on others, "for their souls' sake."
Commenting on Fox’s points above: Fox's terms are noble, but they presume a degree of interest in spirituality that is by no means common in the general population. Perhaps we all have the potential, but, hey, we have the potential for terrible wickedness, also. Still, on its behalf, I agree that these principles are a call toward a generally positive philosophical attitude, and for the most part agree with them.
As for the Common Ground seminar 2 months ago, it became clear that if we encounter at the level of art and personal search, such psycho-aesthetic elements (the aforementioned mythic, in action, in dance, poetry, song-writing, etc.) such personal meetings do tend to transcend different religious backgrounds; such issues (as dogma) were simply not raised, irrelevant. Okay. That kind of meeting is possible. But it's neither dialogue or discussion about the different maps that are implicit and/or explicit in the various religious systems.
My own interest is not simply promoting tolerance and respect--though that's good, of course-- but also developing new designs for community myth-making, new maps, systems, ones that are more inclusive. This takes some intellectual dialogue as well as community involvement at the more informal level. (Return to Top)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guidelines for Inter-Religious Understanding:
(Comments by Adam Blatner, Nov 6, 2005): Developed over a period of 18 years at the "The Snowmass Interreligious Conference." nine points were finally agreed on as common understandings by leaders of all the main world religions. Here they are with my comments.1. The world religions bear witness to the experience of Ultimate Reality to which they give various names: Brahman, Allah, (the) Absolute, God, Great Spirit.
Adam: I can envision other names that suggest less single-person association, and more impersonal or collective-process way of envisioning the Wholeness of Being, the Great Becoming, The Big Multi-Dimensional Blossoming, the Ever-Awakening, the Beyond the Beyond, The Ground of Being (Tillich), etc. If the male-gendered-ness of God is to be challenged, what about the single-entity human projection also? Gaia as a concept of Earth-Spirit, for example, may be envisioned more as a trans-dimensional social being, only instead of the ants in the colony seeming similar, at this other dimension, each species and regional variant would be a different "entity" that interacts ecologically with all the others--which one can do in trans-dimensional spacetime. Of course, this all relates to:
2. Ultimate Reality cannot be limited by any name or concept.
Adam: ...and perhaps invites us to stretch it...
3. Ultimate Reality is the ground of infinite potentiality and actualization.
Adam: Whatever that means. Is God infinite in potentiality, or rather unsurpassable. The philosopher Charles Hartshorne argues plausibly that complete “omnipotence” would logically deny any freedom to the creatures. Are such indiscriminate superlatives truly needed or helpful?)
4. Faith is opening, accepting, and responding to Ultimate Reality. Faith in this sense precedes every belief system.
Adam: The dynamics of faith remain a bit of a mystery to me. It's why on one hand I am deeply excited and interested in the potential of spirituality as a factor in our unfolding evolution, but am wary about the tendency of faith to become stuck on the object of its attention, converted into varying degrees of "belief." There can be different degrees and also types of belief, but literal belief often becomes a problem. This idea is somewhat resonant with the key concept in semantics, that the actual thing-in-itself is not the word attached, or as the Zen saying goes, the finger pointing at the moon is not the moon.
5. The potential for human wholeness - or in other frames of reference, enlightenment, salvation, transformation, blessedness, nirvana - is present in every human person.
Adam: While each of those words calls up a host of associations, some of which may in the long run be more useful, others more misleading, the grounding in the human potential seems a useful reminder.
6. Ultimate Reality may be experienced not only through religious practices but also through nature, art, human relationships, and service to others.
Adam: now we're warming up to my area of disagreement-- in number 8 below. If this is true, then....
7. As long as the human condition is experienced as separate from Ultimate Reality, it is subject to ignorance, illusion, weakness and suffering.
Adam: I think this statement is perhaps overgeneralized and resonates with the subtle totalitarianism of number 8, next. It doesn't allow for the vigorous contributions and goodness of many non-believers whose lives are full, whose consciences are serene... and since the definition of ignorance includes both factual and mythic elements, impossible to fully validate. Still, the question must be asked, "But is this so?" "Is there any evidence whatsoever that this is so?"
Are the people who claim to experience no separation proven to be free from weakness and suffering, and if so, can you name any of them?
8. Disciplined practice is essential to the spiritual life; yet spiritual attainment is not the result of one's own efforts, but the result of the experience of oneness (unity) with Ultimate Reality.
This statement is the most problematical, and is a multipart statement. First, it was created by a biased group, "religious leaders," folks who have an investment in the social organizations of which they are a part being validated and supported. Second, which kinds of spiritual life are defined, or is it a tautology?
Consider Jane Doe, who thinks about God and nature, lives lovingly, does no disciplined practice that can be identified, no prayers as such, no routines, yet behaves respectfully, even reverently to the world around her-- well, I know a few of these folks, and by golly by gosh, they're spiritual, and a lot more than a lot of folks who claim to engage in "disciplined practice."
So is that first part true. Is it "essential"? And what is the "spiritual life" and how is it different from a life lived with a healthy component of spirituality. Indeed, is there any evidence that living a purely spiritual life is any better, any more contributory to the common good or the Divine purpose, than a life lived more directly involved with participating in the common advance of humanity, and with perhaps an edge of reference thrown in?
Is it heresy to ask these questions? They seem fairly elementary.
Then we get to the concept called spiritual attainment. What is that? Who has got it? Does Joe or Bob have it more than Adam? How would we know? What measures it?
Sometimes I play with the paradox that goes something like,
"I'm less competitive than you are, nyah nyah nyah."
If one claims it, does that obviate the claim? If others attribute it: Oh, Joe-Bob is self-effacing, but everyone knows he's "got" it." But maybe others don't agree. How much of the dynamic that attributes spiritual attainment to this or that saint or guru is a product of group dynamics and group self-hypnosis? Is it taboo to even ask that question?
Okay, finally, (pant, pant), what again about our example of Jane Doe. What if she has never had the "experience of oneness (unity) with Ultimate Reality" but she lives a more loving a productive life than Joe-Bob, who claims to have had that experience many times, or, worse (better?), claims to be "established in that consciousness." However, our exemplar counter fellow is in many of his relationships tactless, maybe even cruel. Or phonily sanctimonious? Or spends his life as the center of his own cult, teaching his own versions, gaining adherents, but other than playing the religion game, not really adding much to the world. Spiritual attainment?
So this whole point was pretty problematic, and exposed many of my deeper discomforts about some of the new age trends that seem on the surface rather noble but might in fact be self-serving and misleading
9. Prayer is communion with Ultimate Reality, whether it is regarded as personal, impersonal (transpersonal), or beyond them both.
Finally, what is communion? When I sing a popular song to cheer myself up and reinforce my deeper feelings of faith, like "Whistle a Happy Tune," or "Sing, Sing a Song," or "It's a Small World," or "My Favorite Things," it occurred to me that these are prayers of a kind also. I get realigned with God's purpose as I see it. But maybe they're 2nd-class, too recent, not good enough; maybe a prayer needs to be in old-fashioned language, maybe even in a foreign tongue. Maybe God doesn't speak English.
So again, I kind of like the effort to reach out and make bridges, it's very ecumenical, and better than competition. Yet it's also somewhat ... sooo 20th century. What if the edge of our world and the future of interfaith dialogue involves the interface of tradition and the postmodern, science-fiction, MAD-magazine, playful, scientific, ecological, mind-stretching mentality that values stretching, testing boundaries, lifts the trickster archetype to a new respectability, indeed, a moral obligation? What if we are on a logarithmically upward-curving slope of invention, breakthrough, discovery, paradigm-shifts, that make the worldviews of belief, doctrine, and traditional concepts of belief systems obsolete? Wooo!
Well, it could be invigorating, once you begin to cultivate the infrastructure of skills that involve art, playfulness, psychology, spirituality, and other dimensions that had previously been compartmentalized away from each other.
In a process philosophy-oriented-spirituality--which I confess to--if Divinity enjoys the Creative Advance, then it must be recognized that Creativity includes a measure of Destruction (not malignant or malicious, just that necessity of death, autumn and winter, the winding down of a piece of music so another piece can be played, the finishing of a poem, the archetype who in India takes the form of the God Shiva-- what if that is as necessary to the metabolism of life as the need for a zillion tiny cell deaths that are absolutely necessary for the ongoing health of the organism (the form of Vishnu)?
In other words, what if we are entering an era in which the principle of creativity is recognized as profoundly relevant, perhaps a core value. Traditionalism, which for centuries, perhaps even millennia, offered some grounding in social and cognitive stability, may be less relevant. With Huston Smith, I am not willing to throw out traditionalism, but rather to use it as a foundation that is appropriately used as a spring-board, to be subjected to a constant process of re-evaluation, and at times, or in certain ways, to discarding or neglecting selected parts. Is this disrespect? Not necessarily.
Well, I was suggesting some substantial questions for discussion. What-all do you think of the above. With great respect and love to y'all, your pal, Adam. (Return to Top)
Issues110305: November 3, 2005
In part catalyzed by a seminar titled “Common Ground” held at The Crossings–a holistic learning center in Austin, Texas, this last September, I have been pondering a number of issues related to the trend towards re-thinking ways of developing spirituality in the 21st century.
1. Can prayer include simple chants, popular songs, certain poems, and so forth? What lifts and aligns us, turns us toward the light? Must these be restricted to roots in traditional religion?
2. Some have stated their belief that spirituality must be channeled along a well-trodden path, some “deep” tradition. Others have asserted the claim that spirituality can be valid even when created anew, with elements drawn from many sources. I confess my tending to agree with the latter position for a variety of reasons.
First, what are the boundaries of what the traditionalists might define as an established path? For example, Judaism: The problem with this tradition, though, is that it is and has been “traditionally” a most evolutionary, diverging, reforming, tradition, ever re-defining itself on all levels. So which path can be followed?
Second, what if one’s spiritual vision requires some significant integration of elements–e.g., the discoveries of science, depth psychology, and the frames of reference and aesthetic elements introduced by postmodernism, science fiction, humor, comparative mythology, anthropology, and so forth–that weren’t available to those in the past, those who developed “well-trodden paths.”
Third, what is depth, anyway? Who is to judge how “deep” or “established” some “path” is, or even the boundaries of a “path”? What defines this ambiguous term?
How new can an established path be? What about the Bahai religion? Can it be just a few centuries old? What about sects? How about an established path being only a few decades old, or even just a few years? Or does it require a minimum of a million adherents? Or a hundred thousand? What is the rational basis for drawing any boundaries in this direction.
Other issues addressed in Utne, about 2 years ago.
3. What are the most dynamic organizations furthering interfaith spirituality?
What if most of them don’t think of this as one of their explicit goals, but might come to agree that they are in fact furthering that goal as well.
What if one of the goals of Common Ground might be to operate as a clearing house for some of these organizations? I haven’t seen anyone try to coordinate them, or even introduce them to each other?
What if one of the elements of interfaith spirituality might be to encourage each and every organization to develop a liaison department who will actively explore their boundaries, interfaces, degrees of synergy, inclusiveness, etc.
Some possible organizations to begin this process:
Institute of Noetic Sciences, New Thought Alliance, “The Forge” (?),
International Network for Personal Meaning, General and local Jung Institutes, Association for Transpersonal Psychology, other transpersonal associations
Various colleges, e.g., Saybrook, JFK University, & CIIS in the SF Bay Area,
Esalen, Omega, Crossings, and other Growth Centers
Institute for Transpersonal Psychology and other institutes
Private practitioners, schools, who emphasize psycho-spiritual developments
Religions that emphasize an interfaith connection–e.g., Bahai, etc.
Journals and magazines: more popular, Yoga, New Age; more professional: Journal of Consciousness Studies, ReVision; more balanced: Shift, Parabola, etc.
Related approaches that aren’t particularly oriented to this mission, but some of their
practitioners would be:
Theatre artists, drama therapists, psychodramatists, other psychotherapists...
Educators, Waldorf, Montessori, other pioneers and visionaries
Business coaches, consultants, trying to develop more transpersonal or spiritual business climates
Social and Emotional Learning movements, emotional intelligence
Please write me and add to the list!
Philosophical centers–especially the Center for Process Thought (dealing with the trans-denominational and spiritual ideas of Alfred North Whitehead and Charles Hartshorne)
- Listing issues to be added to the list of issues: (smiling). What are the issues to be considered? What themes seem taboo? What are we avoiding sharing for fear of offending, hurting, bruising widely held sentimental attachments?
– how much overlap is there between interfaith spirituality and philosophy?
How can philosophy–or at least some types of it–be brought into contact with this trend?
– ditto for politics? Economics?
5. It has become “politically correct” to express compassion and non-dualistic ideals regarding all humans. What about the problem that some folks reproduce irresponsibly? That there are major population explosions among the “have-nots,” and this trend is actually encouraged by certain religions? Dare anyone speak to this problem? Are the “haves” obligated to subsidize the reproductive irresponsibility of the have nots?
While there well may be a place for charity in this system, how much are we obliged as a matter of public policy to care for those afflicted with misfortune? (That is, by enforced taxation and re-distribution of resources?) Can such hard-hearted-seeming questions even be raised?
(This relates to the need to recognize the taboo boundaries–the unspoken collusion in “that which must not be spoken or even thought–in all human endeavors.)
Another issue recently raised, for example: New technologies are coming in that promise to raise both the quality of life and quantity of years lived. However, such technologies cost money–some have estimated to be about a thousand dollars per each person per extra year lived–and some technologies would cost ten thousand dollars, or a million dollars? Where’s the cut-off?
Dare we begin to say, in the backwash of a tsunami, rising oil prices, diversions of military expenditures in various chaotic regions, hurricanes, earthquakes, and so forth, that perhaps we (collectively) cannot “afford” all possibly desirable goals, and that systems of priorities, rationing, restraint, humility, and the like are necessary? Can we afford the self-indulgence of responding generously to every high-profile misfortune while at the same time ignoring the tens of thousands of low-profile misfortunes that don’t get political traction?
Can all the high-blown rhetoric in the world get us over really facing and making these hard choices?
7. Is there a place for a kind of self-policing of vague generalities (also more recently identified as “bulls**t,”)? How can we bring a sharper level of discernment to the noble goals of interfaith spirituality?
For example, shall we assume unquestioningly that:
– enlightenment is possible, desirable, and attainable? Is there any evidence whatsoever for such assertions? Or that this state is measurable, able to be assessed, and not simply a product of group consensus, seeking a “leader,” and other less-rational projective dynamics?
– ego-less-ness, self-transcendence, non-duality, and other spiritual goals are other than illusions, claims of possibly narcissistic or megolomanic sociopaths, or other forms of self-delusion?
– questioning these extreme claims need not be an assertion of the opposite, a totally cynical or materialist position. Perhaps a middle position is possible, affirming the value of some relative movement in these directions?
8. Just as we asked about the politically incorrect themes of compassion as public policy, perhaps also we might ask about other touchy subjects:
-- the “right” of parents to impose their own belief systems on their children
-- the idea that there are no “rights,” only collective agreements, and that it is appropriate to re-evaluate all collective agreements in a multi-cultural and changing world.
-- might meditation and other acts of piety be recognized as expressing a spectrum of activities that range from simple brief re-alignments with deeper values and mythic connections to a self-indulgent and self-delusional attempt at spiritual materialism? That this range may reflect the amount of time spent in prayer, meditation, and so forth? Is it even possible to suggest that more than 30 minutes a day at such activities diverts too much energy from the needed tasks of helping to make the world a better place? (Just for argument’s sake). Can such questions be rationally discussed?
9. What are the requirements for an ideal spiritual path or religion? How can we support a religion–as a social organization that supports spirituality–while minimizing the pitfalls of social organization in general?
10. Can any religion overcome its own weight of tradition, dogma, orthodoxy, the influences of its more conservative elements? Can a religion be reformed from within, or must new alternatives, sects, outside religions, be formed anew? What is so wrong with the latter alternative?
11. Can we introduce a process of discerning the difference between mythic and factual modes of discourse? (Both have a place in life, and there are situations even when a mixture of the two are appropriate; nevertheless, it is often important to interpose a process of making this distinction explicit. Certain criteria for action, public versus private policy, what is to be “taught” and what simply “witnessed to,” and so forth, all depend on this distinction being made.
12. There has emerged a new trend towards the blurring of the political and the religious, with the rise to power of a political party that panders to those who feel entitled to impose their religious beliefs on the general public. These fear-based religious groups have created an atmosphere in which “faith-based” is uncritically accepted, and those who question the rational foundations of revealed religion are viewed as being incapable of moral judgment. This refers mainly to Christianity in the United States, but similar tensions exist in other religions and internationally.
There is also another trend towards the liberalization of religion, allowing for its mythic and subjective nature, its psychological validity, and promoting an inclination to seek the spirit of the message rather than value mindless loyalty to traditional interpretations. It may well be that the liberal thinkers in the various religions have more in common with each other than with those who are more literal, fundamentalist, or evangelical in their own traditions. The liberal thinkers feel okay about allowing others to practice their own different paths, without needing to coerce or subtly impose their own ideals and values on others.
Should there be any moral obligation of those who are more liberal and ecumenical to take a stand against their own more reactionary co-religionists? For example, is there any moral obligation for clergy who don’t believe in Hell to speak to the toxic mental health impact of this doctrine?
Furthermore, can interfaith dialogue include as faiths those who are deists, agnostics, and atheists?
Does faith require a belief in a supernatural “being”? Can faith not equally involve a positive attitude towards the world and its own innate energies, including the most noble aspirations of humanity? I’ve known many secular freethinkers whose sense of morality is sharper and more closely reasoned than many who presume their own righteousness based not on their deeds but on their capacity to believe in doctrine.
Can morality derive from a sense of responsibility for making this world a better place, without recourse to the finely micro-managed instructions given to a small tribe in the Middle East over three thousand years ago?
13. What are the most controversial and disturbing books, websites, articles, that you’ve encountered–disturbing in the sense that they make you think, are not easily dismissed, and may offer some uncomfortable ideas that stretch your system?
Well, that’s what’s on my mind this month. I’m open for discussion.
- - -
Nov 3: from Kurt:
The web address (www.isdac.com <http://www.isdac.com/> ) for the InterSpiritual Dialogue website includes the sites for the National Service Conference of the American Ethical Union (which, having UN NGO status, sponsors ISD at the UN).
Kosmos website etc. already has links to isdac.com etc. Kosmos Journal grew out of the Spiritual and Values caucuses at the UN. Over the years, the UN NGO community started "caucuses" of fellow travellers; the Spiritual Caucus is NGO's with religious roots/agenda, the Values Caucus is NGO's with ethic's based roots/agenda (including both religious and non-religious; the Earth Values Caucus is NGO's with interests in values and the environment. Nancy Roof the editor and founder of Kosmos was a founding member of both Spiritual Caucus and Values Caucus. ISD belongs to the Spiritual Caucus, the NSC of the AEU (see above) belongs to both Spiritual and Values Caucuses. So we knew Nancy for quite a few years. When ISD was founded I met with the Spiritual Caucus to explain its purpose and we attended all meetings since and also been a part of UN International Peace Day. Nancy got enough support to go independent with Kosmos, which is her "heart child/dream work".... She is exp. Interested in the vision of evolving global consciousness and transformation... another reason some of us are
going to CA this month to the conference on Mysticism and Global Transformation being done by Adyashanti and Llewellyn Vaughan-Lee. Nancy works closely with a lot of people esp. Ken Wilber, Surya Das, and has good ties to the Andrew Cohen "What is Enlightenment" magazine bunch etc..... all of these folk, and us, are little eddies in this bigger whirlpool interested in transformation.
101305 Interfaith Dialogue (October 13, 2005)
Hello, all. My own interest is more in helping to develop the intellectual foundations for interfaith dialogue. I had some hope of doing that during the conference, but there was so much going on in other directions, and I became aware that my goal might interest only a small percentage of people involved. It really requires groups of two to four or six, not much more. Or even ongoing online discussion.
One angle I pursue is that of noting other groups that are also probing the philosophical, psychological, sociological, and other perspectives on the subject of interfaith
dialogue. For example, I heard that Michael Lerner, the editor of the liberal Jewish magazine, Tikkun, is expanding his effort beyond Judaism to become something called (I think) an association for spiritual progressives.
There is another group, the International Network for Personal Meaning, centered near Vancouver, BC, that does some interesting work, and I've been to some of their conferences. I think they'd like to know about y'all.
Institute of Noetic Sciences probably would enjoy some synergy, etc.
Another angle I pursue is to consider some of the intellectual questions associated with the problem. For example:
1. In Utne Magazine a few years ago there was an article that articulated an issue: Some people feel fine about drawing from various traditions and synthesizing their own spiritual path. Others claim that this is dangerous, and that it is necessary to pick from the range of established paths-- The Dalai Lama has suggested this, also, but just because he's presently highly respected doesn't make him right.
a. sub-problem: when does a path become established? How long must it be worked? 1 week, 1 month, 10 years, 100 years, 300 years? Is Mormonism an established path?
b. What about the way religions ("established paths") evolve, become new?
c. In India, there are long traditions, but some "lineages" begin in a sense only with a self-realized guru, and thus may only be a few generations old. Does this qualify?
2. Is it possible, as Roger Walsh did in his 1999 book, Essential Spirituality, to distill out the essential ideas or elements in many different religions? (I'm inclined to agree that it is, to confess my bias. But there's always room for learning more, clarifying wrong understandings, etc.)
So my interest goes in this direction. I'm
really rather weak in the direction of organizing, etc. Warmly, Adam Blatner in Texas
www.blatner.com/adam/ for my photo and a number of articles on related subjects--from "Imagining God" and "Creative Mythmaking" to reflections on Intelligent Design; or a supplement to the Kabbalistic Tree of Life as a useful mind-soul-spirit map. Comments from anyone who likes to play this way are welcome, through this list or back-channeled.
Response: From Kurt: johnsonku@gtlaw.com October 13, 2005
It is going to be interesting and require some artfulness for us, as the self-selected InterSpiritual Action Organizers, to make sure that all aspects of this discussion are somehow artfully facilited for the wider Forum (once it gets going) without a crashing and burning
based on "just too much information". Luca brought this up re: his previous experiences with email forums. Regarding peoples various gifts and emphases, its good to remember Ramana's wisdom about balance and inclusivity. About extremes or opposites, complements, etc. Ramana said "it is always either both or nothing". We have to somehow artfully allow a place for both-- the free flowing and the disciplined.
Thus, for sure, as an academic myself I am aware of the validity of the suggestions/ parameters Adam suggests below and yet I also know other people who will wilt very fast if faced with too much "disciplined thinking". I think a good example of this complementarity comes from Adam's mention of Roger Walsh M.D. (whom I know because he works closely with Surya Das, and, as well, one of the most gifted Lamas, spiritual mentors, among Surya's folk, Lama John Makransky, is also head of Buddhist Studies at Boston College... a Lama and a Scholar). This recognizes the mutual validity of (1) Adyashanti's note, in one of his books, saying about higher consciousness (or "enligtenment") "It is amazing anyone could make a concept out of this"...and (2) the fact that we know also the precise value of the scholarly work on traditions etc.
I think we will need to carve out niches, where both can have their necessary place. FOR INSTANCE, in the newsletter, and at eventual website, we may want a PRECISE PLACE for setting out the kinds of intellectual foundations re: interfaith dialogue and artful & precise things along that line. And, not confuse this place with other, more free flowing contributions which can also be part of the newsletter or the website, but seen in the integrities of what they are. Perhaps someone like Adam can be the facilitator of that part, while someone else facilitates another etc. The willy nilly mixing of "free flow shamanic/inspired spiritual stuff" versus "discipline intellectual stuff" can cause a muddle as we all know..... So, I am glad Adam points out the need for us to vigilant about this from the beginning.
So, let's definitely be mindful there as this develops. Again, as Adya says "love means no one has to be left out" .... but its an artful thing....
Let me mention briefly two points of Wayne (which Gorakh and I may develop more when we write something about Wayne's thought as he expressed it to us). Wayne distinguished in talks with me, what might be called (1) primary interspiritual dialogue and (2) secondary
interspiritual dialogue. (2) "secondary" is the kind of dialogue that naturally results because there are different, even fixed, views or traditions in the first place-- e.g. those established traditions/concepts "dialogue" with each other. But (1) "primary" is the kind of thing interspiritual dialogue would be if there were NO preconditions, no histories, e.g. just "pure awareness" and that, more than perhaps, is a very different kind of dialogue.
What Adam is pointing out is that "modalities"/"methods" are a reality and "modalities" need to be honored and elucidated etc. As Gorakh knows, while my strengths are organization, distillation, synthesis and a more free flow kind of shamanic spiritual conversation, I am not much gifted at all re: modalities or methodologies because, in my experience, they all seem the same, at least fundamentally. Yet I am the first to appreciate, and know the essential importance of, modalities, methods, ways, paths etc. They are just not my strong suite.
So, we are going to need to be artful here. Perhaps the best way is to make sure there is a "place" for everthing.... from free-flow extremes, to academicly disciplined extremes etc... again, as Ramana said, when asked about great paradoxes-- "It is either both or nothing". So I guess the awareness has to begin with us. kurt (Return to Top)
ShiftsNeeded: Sept 23, 2005
(Following the Common Ground Conference at The Crossings in Austin, Texas):Here are Brother Wayne Teasdale’s list of world paradigm shifts needed, along with my comments: These points address many of the world's problems. The points are taken from Teasdale's book, The Mystic Heart: Finding a Universal Spirituality in the World's Religions:
1. "We are at the dawn of a new consciousness, a radically fresh approach to our life as the human family in a fragile world. This birth into a new awareness, into a new set of historical circumstances, appears in a number of shifts in our understanding:
Adam B’s comment in November 13, 2005: I agree with this, and it might be useful to fill out why I (or we, others) might think this is so.
2. The emergence of ecological awareness and sensitivity to the natural organic world, with an acknowledgment of the basic fragility of the earth. AB: Agree.
3. A growing sense of the rights of other species.
AB: I agree that the depth of mind, the validity of experience, an expansion of compassion goes with raising consciousness. Historically, people began to open to the idea that maybe other tribes have rights and it's not okay to slay them or enslave them; maybe women have rights; children; ... ? the unborn? ? animals? ? the sick or aged or handicapped? the misfits? gays and lesbians? transgendered? The circle of caring has gradually expanded.
The problem with "rights" is that there are a host of legal, collective policy, political implications, boundary issues, etc. Is vegetarianism compulsory? Orthodox Jainist doctrine?
4. A recognition of the interdependence of all domains of life and reality.
ab: the problem here involves weighing the relative influence or degree of involvement of each domain or species or type of reality... some are more relevant than others, and this can differ with historical era, other variables, such as "can we afford to lend equal respect to..?" One positive implication might be
5. The ideal of abandoning militant nationalism as a result of this tangible sense of our essential interdependence.
ab: the problem here involves weighing the relative influence or degree of involvement of each domain or species or type of reality... some are more relevant than others, and this can differ with historical era, other variables, such as "can we afford to lend equal respect to.... ?"
6. A deep, evolving experience of community between and among the religions through their individual members.
AB: a noble goal, but requires that all play the game equally. What if the problem of separating the moderates from the extremists in any group interferes with this noble goal? Also, can community be experienced just through a sharing of ideals, or do economic factors detract from this goal?
7. The growing receptivity to the inner treasures of the world's religions.
AB: Might credit be given to the relatively “new” (early-mid 19th century) religion, Bahai, as one of the significant precursors for this level of ecumenicism? Admittedly, of course, this trend became more popular beginning in the 1960s. I don’t doubt that there are many and various other perspectives.
8. An openness to the cosmos, with the realization that the relationship between humans and the earth is part of a larger community of the universe.
ab: Ditto, reflecting the increasing influence and vigor of science since the mid-century, and a sense that science versus religion seems foolish. They need to become integrated...
9. WT: Each of these shifts represents dramatic change; taken together, they will define the thought and culture of the third millennium. We could really name [this] age after any of these shifts in understanding. To encompass them all, however, perhaps the best name for this new segment of historical experience is the Interspiritual Age.
Adam: Yes; I also like the term “Consciousness Transformation.”
10: Wayne Teasdale: All of these awarenesses are interrelated, and each is indispensable to clearly grasping the greater shift taking place, a shift that will sink roots deep into our lives and culture. Taken together, they are preparing the way for a universal civilization: a civilization with a heart. These aspects of spirituality will shape how we conduct politics and education; how we envision our economies, media, and entertainment; and how we develop our relationship with the natural world, while pursuing our quality of life.
Interdependence is an inescapable fact of our contemporary world. A spiritual interdependence also exists between and among the world's religions. This interdependence is more subtle, though the actual impact of traditions on each other is clearly discernable in history.
.The spiritual interdependence is often indirect and thus not clearly seen. But it is nonetheless real. When we examine relations among the religions today, we find traditions increasingly discovering and pursuing a real experience of community, especially among individuals. This existential realization arises from actual encounters between people of different traditions.
Interspirituality and intermysticism are terms I have coined to designate the increasingly familiar phenomenon of cross-religious sharing of interior resources, the spiritual treasures of each tradition. .In the third millennium, interspirituality and intermysticism will become more and more the norm in humankind's inner evolution."
On The Qualities of Interspiritual Dialogue
"I am always inspired by genuine acts of selflessness. This quality of love is the natural fruit of the mystical life and the contemplative character, and it is the nature and fullness of this character [which defines] the elements of mature interspirituality: actual moral capacity, solidarity with all living beings, deep nonviolence, humility, spiritual practice, mature self-knowledge, simplicity of life, selfless service and compassionate action, and the prophetic voice."
Adam: Sounds good to me.
Comments? Email me! adam@blatner.com (Return to Top)