Inquiry

While the popular New Age philosophy of “cosmic balance” tells us that all pairs of opposites (e.g. masculine/feminine, light/dark) are really one and the same, Integral philosophy (as pioneered by Ken Wilber) has a more discerning position: things which seem to be one and the same are really opposites. Just a few examples of this from Ken’s own body of work include: states & stages of consciousness, pre-rational & trans-rational structures of consciousness, qualitative depth (better) & population span (bigger) and the “mutual interpenetration of all things” in quantum physics & Eastern mysticism – all of these opposing categories were once seen to be one and the same, but in the clear light of integral theory they are now seen to be describing very different dimensions of reality.

Likewise, it is widely accepted in the New Age movement that “All religions are the same”, different paths up the same mountain – and this is said to be especially true of Christianity and Buddhism. In other words, according to the popular New Age philosophy, while these two faith traditions seem to be different in their exoteric surface features they are really one and the same in their esoteric deep features - i.e. their external rites and rituals may look different, but their interior essence (usually a version of Non-dual awareness) is very much the same…

Here, then, I want to challenge the alleged spiritual/esoteric identity of Christianity and Buddhism and suggest that the truth is exactly the opposite – the exoteric surface features of Buddhism and Christianity are much the same - they both have priests, temples, scriptures, ceremonies, alters, sacred postures, mantras, secret brotherhoods - it is precisely in their esoteric depths that they are divided.

To begin, all religions believe that we humans are caught up in a net of sin (suffering, delusion, ignorance) – and that there is some way out, a way of liberation, salvation or Enlightenment. But as to what constitutes the way out it seems to me that no two institutions in the world contradict each other so flatly as Christianity and Buddhism…

At G.K. Chesterton pointed out: simply consider the startling differences in the style of their religious art, in which the soul of these religions is made visible to us. No two inner religious ideals could be more opposite than a painting of a medieval Christian saint with eyes wide open, looking with fierce intensity outwards, staring at the world in astonishment and anguished intimacy – and a painting of a Buddhist sage with eyes shut in blissful peace, and with a peculiar inward intent oblivious to the happenings of the world around him. And the contention here is that there must be some real divergence at the innermost core of these traditions which produces such opposing symbols. 

From another angle, It is a commonplace stance in many spiritual circles to say that the esoteric core of all the great traditions ascribes to the same fundamental notion of Absolute Truth in terms of a direct apprehension of Non-dual Awareness – i.e. the simple recognition that “There is only Spirit” as ones always already Free Self, a Self that existed from before the Big Bang and is fully present at each and every point of the temporal process. From the perspective of radical Non-dual Truth - which is said to be the ultimate realization of all the world’s great religion -  the whole universe arises inside ones very own Big Mind, and it is just here that Buddhism and Christianity diverge in their central teachings.

To put it simply, Buddhism teaches compassion for all sentient beings because they are ultimately manifestations of one’s own true Self, while Christianity is grounded in love – and real love requires separation between persons. The Eastern sage says we are all Spirit (as un-qualifiable Emptiness) showing up with many different faces or aspects, that there are no real walls of individuality between different persons in the world. However, the Christian impulse is to love precisely that which is Other, to love the other person in the absolute singularity of who they are, to love that which is not-I. A Christian does not love someone because they arise inside of his/her own Self but because they are different, strange, foreign, because that person shows up in my world from some unheard of dimension, just as a man loves a woman because she is entirely different from himself. To put it bluntly, in the Non-dual traditions of the East we are not to Love our neighbors, rather we are to Be our neighbors, but as G. K. Chesterton put it, “If souls are separate love is possible. If souls are united love is obviously impossible.” So it’s not so much that Love has no opposite (as the original punk monk himself Stuart Davis kindly suggests), but rather that opposites make Love possible!

Or again, where teachers of Eastern Enlightenment (e.g. Andrew Cohen) consider the insidious ego-personality to be fallen, like a drop of water that must return home to a the vast ocean of Emptiness, it is the instinct of Christianity to be glad that God has broken the universe into little fragments, because they are living, breathing fragments. So in contrast to the teachers of Impersonal Enlightenment that recognize no ultimate boundaries in reality, Christianity has always insisted that the boundary between God and the world (and the collective passions of human history) is not something to be regarded as unreal, illusory, or deficient. That is the Judeo-Christian tradition has always seen Creation as “good, very good” (Genesis), not merely a veil of ignorance or illusion, and as such God wants us all to become real persons with a capacity to love one another, rather than the position of the Eastern traditions which teach one large ego to love him/her self and have regard other people in so far as they arise inside ones own awareness...

So Christian love desires real personality, and personality requires division. That is, love requires that two people are different, set apart from each other, so that they are inseparable only in so far as they embody very real differences. In other words, there must be a creative tension between two people that are different (i.e. a masculine and a feminine personality type) for the loving union between them to be real…

So love divides where many Eastern traditions breed indifference and uniformity. As the 1st century Nazarene said, “I have come not with peace but a sword”, a sword which comes to separate, to set free  - and even to set brother against brother... The point being that no other religion makes God rejoice in the separation of the universe into living souls, but according to Christianity it is this qualitative difference between divinity and humanity, and the real distinction between persons in relationship that is sacred…

What Buddhists consider to be only relative or phenomenal reality (remember the only thing that is real in Tibetan Buddhism is that which is present in deep dreamless sleep! – see Ken Wilber’s One Taste), Christians consider to be the whole meaning and purpose of God – persons-in-relationship, the miracle of we, i.e. the Holy Trinity. And that a person may love God it is necessary not only that there is a God to be loved but also a person to love him/her. Can the Buddhist really praise anything as really distinct from him/her self? Are we to seek God in the deeper and deeper regions of our own ego, or in the unconditional claim of the other person - the stranger, the foreigner, the widow and the orphan who come to us in their absolute singularity?

So in the Non-dual teachings of the East we get introspection, quietism, divine egoism and social indifference – Western Buddhism. But by insisting on the transcendence of God (the qualitative distinction between divine and human) we get wonder, astonishment, fear and trembling, curiosity, moral and political adventure, righteous indignation and social justice – Christianity. By insisting that God is inside man, man is always inside himself. By insisting that God is outside of man, man goes outside of himself.

Where Christ says “Love one another”, the Eastern sage says “Be the only Self in the entire universe”, and this constitutes an intellectual abyss of the first-order that I heartily challenge each and all to respond to… (E.g. see the Three Faces of Spirit DVD or similar link on this site)

--

"Become passers-by" (Jesus of Nazareth) 

I chose my spiritual path by trial and error. It all started after my mother passed away after a lengthy 4+ year period where she suffered badly from emphysema. She lived with me and I took care of her while working as a cytotechnologist (diagnosing cancer in fluid specimens). I worked hard to keep her alive, monitoring her health and communicating with her doctor, cooking healthy meals for her and just plain loving her. After her death her doctor wrote me a note saying he believed I had kept her alive an additional three years longer than he had expected her to survive. It wasn't my fault that she died but I felt that somehow I should have been able to save her, I was only 31 when she passed.

After her death I vowed that I would find a way to provide more help for others I loved who might someday become sick (I also had lost my two beloved grandparents when I was in my early 20's). This vow lead me to search high and low for answers. I began by examining nutrition and over the years my search has moved through any number of topics- holistic medicine, yoga, Yogananda's teachings, shamanism, Buddhism, auras, reiki and many others. I followed my interests and where my excitement lead me I went. I had to drop my reservations at looking into less than conventional methodologies. I decided that I would allow myself to look into any topic because it was unlikely that I would uncover anything new if I looked down conventional paths. My selection of areas to research may seem disjointed but what happened along the way was that I began to see truths across the traditions and from those commonalities I began to develop my own version of spirituality. I began to merge in psychological concepts. I see the original spiritual traditions as ancient psychologies so things merged together beautifully which is why I gravitated instantly to Ken Wilber's models. Actually, Ken's books pushed me to further research because I was unfamiliar with so many of the traditions and psychological theories he mentioned in his books that I had difficulty reading them and I was compelled to find out more about many of them.

I have shied away from traditional western religions because I feel that individuals should seek their own path and most western religions require you to follow a defined doctrine. Most western religions, in my opinion, do not address the needs of people who are moving in an integral direction. I tend to work instead from as pure a form of the underlying spiritual philosophies of the eastern traditions as I can find. It also concerns me that western religious institutions have the hand of man in control and quite frankly I don't trust my spiritual growth to people who may have both power and money as motivating factors in the construction of their paradigm. I would far rather follow my own instincts to determine what I believe to be true. I also have found that, at least for me, spirituality rooted in meditation is the most effective. I truly believe that despite the apparently haphazard path I have taken to develop my spiritual belief system, that my life has unfolded in an intelligent and intentional way that has led me to where I am today. If I had to do it over, I would do it exactly the same way, and besides, it remains a work in progress and that is a lot of fun.

It is very interesting that as I consider my spiritual beliefs it would be difficult to provide a concise description of my beliefs. This does not mean that I cannot express my beliefs but rather that my spiritual beliefs guide every aspect of my life and are the very foundation of who I am. I do not believe I would have this depth of immersion if I had adopted an "off the shelf" spirituality. I am certain that my way is not for everyone, but it has been a highly satisfactory path for me.

--

adam

Have I chosen one???  I've looked at several traditions, thoug baptised Christian, I find that Budhism, Hinduism, and Rastafari very appealing.  If I've chosen One, I would have to say it is Integral.  What motivates that choice is actually the lack of tradition and the integration of many.  It has helped me to enjoy the perspectives of others from their chosen paths, and been difficult because most individuals that I come into contact with have no concept of Integral, and find my lack of one traditional commitment disconcerting.  As a result, I learned that I do not really speak of Integral, but speak to the individual from their traditional viewpoint.  My difficulty or reluctance in choosing a single perspective to live by has really been about fellowship in greater numbers.  I can relate to individual, but groups become agitated in a way that I find exclusive rather than inclusive.  Even in the Integral Universe I have felt shunned or rejected or excluded from fellowship and communion.  (I wonder how long it will take for people to read any post I've made today, much less respond in a positive manner, smiles, though perhaps that is in a sense the authenticity of this site!?)  The appeal of the various traditions is just that, the variety, and the potential integral diversity!  O I JUST LOVE IT!  The appeal of no tradition, or rather multiple tradtions is that I've more perspectives to communicate from, and then can communicate to more people, and it is the relationships with people on any path that really gives me cause to celebrate.  In fact for me it is all about RELATIONSHIPS!

I didn't choose my path so much as my path chose me.  At a time when I was undergoing a transition from Orange to Green, I was getting heavily into LSD.  During one particularly powerful trip, my whole world shifted as I saw before me a vision of Jesus Christ, and felt his radiant, all-embracing compassion envelop my entire being.  I accepted him into my heart, and my life was forever changed.

That was really the beginning of a long spiritual journey for me.  Not to say that I was a hard-nosed materialist prior to that -- I had joined the meditation club on campus, and was taking a class on Buddhism -- but overall, I was much more secular in terms of how I lived my life.  My Christological vision caused a major change within me that made me want to live my life for God.

I have to say, of all the religious paths I could have followed, I never could have imagined myself being a Christian.  And since I was well past Blue/Amber, I needed a fresh take on what Christianity meant to me.  For a while I got into Gnosticism, but I felt uncomfortable with its purely ascentionist attitude which shunned all things worldly.  I had gotten into Gnosticism only because I was not aware of the mystical tradition within the main current of Christianity, as expemplified by such figures as Meister Eckhart or St. John of the Cross.

In any case, I am in some sense still searching for my path.  Even though I know Christianity is my path, I have not really found an Integral way of practicing Christianity.  Sitting in a pew every Sunday and listening to some preacher speak does not really satisfy what I'm looking for in a worship service.  The one thing I really like about church is the Eucharist.  I'm thinking about going to some contemplative prayer meetings, but that would be more of a spiritual practice rather than a worship service.  Mostly, I practice my religion in private, praying to God and living my faith in my daily life.  I pray that someday I will find the right sangha for me.  It's lonely enough being Integral.  It's incredibly lonely being and Integral Christian.

By trial and error and by listening to your own heart! Ram Dass expressed my own experience in the best possible way in his audio program (CD/tapes) A Spiritual Journey.

Namaste!

I feel the pull to find a particular path, I believe I would enjoy/benefit from its security and I think Integral suggests strongly that I should 'HAVE TO' find one, in order to deepen spiritually.

I have been with several gurus/teachers, and they have touched me very deeply. I have been envious and respectful on more then a few occassions of those who can go so totally the bakti(surrendered) path with a guru, but alas it doesnt seem my destiny.

I have tried eastern techniques and experienced some wonderful moments but nothing that satisfies 'sustainably'. I have looked to the western christian way and although open and appreciative of its wisdoms, I seem to lack the jump of 'faith' required to follow the christ figure.

I am aware ofcourse of many non-traditional paths and living in Byron Bay Australia I have tasted many, but nothing has chosen me( nor have known the clarity to choose one)

I have loved finding integral and to be honest I held high hopes early on, that this might be a path for me at last. But understand now, as Ken says 'Integral is the exterior map of the path(s), not itself an interior path. To know that you need to find a practice(path) and do it - no way round it'.

My deepest spiritual experience (i mention because maybe it offers an insight into what my path/practice might be) came from sitting alone in a busy restruant in south india. I had just finished recieving 7 days of painful massages, for an even more painful back injury and was getting over a heartbreak. Had suffered alot. I was an alien in this non-tourist town. As I sat there alone I was spontanously drawn into a  deep, soft, and open contemplation upon two subjects. One being 'LOVE', What is it? the other being 'THIS WORLD'.  As I did this, two things happened that seem to have sent me into satori.

  Firstly I was simply watching a very loving and kind indian middle class family arrive for lunch. What struck me was, that this beautifully dressed(western style),  family seemed like the most 'perfect ideal' western 'nuclear family' id ever seen and here I was in a very non-tourist Indian town.  The LOVING APPRECIATION and IRONY of viewing this somehow touched me deeply.

  Secondly just then a waiter stopped to ask me sweetly, what I wanted order. This 'startled' me as it was completely unexpected, as for the previous 7 days I had the hardest time to even get the waiters attention at all, as they wissed by the tables. Literally id been having to grab one and hold him there to give the order. So this was a 'shock', like a sweet zen stick.

The satori seemed to happen just then. It was, as satories are, full of loving peace and connection with all that is. A deep sense of home, the ordinary became miraculous, the miraculous became ordinary ....etc. As it came without warning, it left without warning. As they do!

So is some christian-contemplative/zen combination the path for me????????  Perhaps Mondo-Zen?

To answer the question why dont I  have a path? Clearly I dont know, but some wild stabs in the dark are.

-  To much educated for my own good, about the pitfuls of any particular path. lacking the required innocense for the  neccessary leap of faith. 

-  Lack a sufficient groundedness on lower levels to sustain a higher level path.

- Weak willed, to lazy perhaps due to some unknown, unresolved personal trust/faith issues

-  Perhaps ken is wrong and I dont need a particular path.

-  Path it is just around the corner, a new path still emerging.

Your reflection or advice is welcomed.

Loving regards David

Have I chosen one?

Yes and now.   I meant to say yes and no, but there it is.   True story.  I could say the path choose me, but even I can see through that.   I could say it is not quite the truth to deny it and it is not quite a lie to affirm it.  I think Rumi said that.  And he was right.  

What path did you choose?

This one.  The one where I am 33 years old living my dreams.    Yes, I know.   If it is true that not to select a path is to select a path, then that one, no?  I would say paths.   Part of my challenge was to simply understand there were many paths.  And then to realize that some paths are more or less suited based upon where I want to go.

What factors motivated you to choose that tradition over others?

I like to think the small amount of Cherokee blood that runs through my veins does something.   I have always felt, for a time secret, then guilty, then angry, then confused, then understanding, an affinity with the idea of communicating with the spirits in things, especially animals.  Now: my holy communion is my every meal.  I feel silly folding my hands and talking with my eyes closed (unless I'm on stage with a guitar) it is that the act of eating is infused with the gratitude.  I simply choose those traditional aspects in harmony with me, of the culture, and use them.  Sigh, I am actually fairly within the limits of normal, if there is such a thing.

How has choosing one tradition helped you or been difficult for you?

I appreciate the greater simplicity.  "Before enlightenment... after enlightenment" and all that jazz.  I still have to pay rent and some bills.   I'm still trying to learn the whole right-lively-hood business, and I am making progress.   And, there's a reason for the things that I have owned.   I don't have anything I don't want.  That may not seem like much.  

It has been my experience that it is painful when special relationships are seen for what they are and sometimes one perceives certain channels have been closed and are missed with visceral longing.  EVERYTHING is cured by time.  It has also been my experience that afterwards, you and the other are always good.

What advice can you offer others in making this decision?

Never take advice!

Are you having difficulty or reluctance in choosing a path?

Sometimes.  Not NOW.  Not really.

What do you think is keeping you from choosing?

What?

What appeals to you about the various traditions?

I genuinely like being with people (most people).  I like being with other people.  That's what I like and is in common with all the traditions.   I also like to exert influence over my environment.   I like the way everyone can play an instrumental in church or the campfire.  The food.   The mythology.   The stars.   Family, friends.

What appeals to you about no tradition?