Monking Around

The visit by the Drepung Monks has ended -- at least in a temporal sense. But their visit is still with me in my thoughts. I am finding the experience to have "remnant effects" -- as many experiences do; otherwise, experiences would not be either instructive or transformative. But there was something about their presence that affected me in unusual ways. As I expressed to a friend, the leader of the delegation, Geshe Tsewang Thinley, affected me in a unique way in the impressions he made with the brevity of his presence.

Looking back on my anticipation of their arrival, I admit to some anxiety. "Will we be able to communicate?" "Will we provide ample resources for their stay?" "Will we gather enough of an audience to make their visit productive?" Not having attempted such a project before, I realized that we would be flying by the seat of our pants and that lots of volunteer help would be needed.

Thankfully, we had a number of volunteers step forward, one of which -- Armene B -- offered planning, volunteer coordination and hosting of the monks during their stay. Other volunteers provided lunch on each of the days, some provided contributions to cover food purchases and restaurant visits. And, of course, many people participated in the events, made cash contributions to their monastery and purchased products to support their efforts.  Thank you, one and all, for your support of their visit. I am told that their stay was very worthwhile. I know our community has been blessed in obvious and subtle ways -- even in ways not yet realized.

As I expressed in the closing ceremony on Monday night, I felt a deep connection with the one monk with which I spent the most time, Geshe la ("Geshe" indicates his level of attainment within the monastic community, "la" is an honorific). I said, "He has inspired me to do better." To do better -- in my relationships, in my ministerial work and in my personal spiritual work. He expressed a presence I can imagine Jesus expressed, each being a Light of the World.

In fact, each of the monks were Lights, unique in their expression, their individual skills and their personality. Some were more outgoing than others but each seemingly present in their interaction with each other and with those around them. They were focused in their work on their shared effort of the sand mandala and they were joyful in their leisure. During their lunch on the last day, they were comfortable enough to "let their hair down" and share lots of laughter about an interaction they had had with one in our community the prior evening (that's where the phrase "monking around" arose). While I am unable to appreciate what was so hilarious about that interaction (I was told they laughing about the person greeting them with "good morning" when it was late in the evening), they were genuinely entertained by it.  

Here were six people, steeped in their contemplative tradition, expressing their humanity in the most joyous ways. And present on Facebook (at least two of them, each of which has "friended" me)! Perhaps the most startling realization for me was their ever-present smartphone -- when they weren't kneeling over the sand painting, it was as likely as not they were on the internet, perhaps referring to a Tibetan-English dictionary, listening to podcasts in Tibetan, communicating with others (I'm guessing back at the monastery in India), or browsing the internet! Now I feel vindicated for my internet-centric lifestyle. :)

Betrayal to Blessing

We often look upon relationships as either "good" or "bad", "useful" or "wasted". We might view them as constructive or destructive, fulfilling or detrimental, often determining their value by the pleasure we seem to derive from them. It's only human nature to avoid those that seem to be bad, wasted, destructive or detrimental. Life is too short, right?

But what if the true purpose of every relationship has nothing to do with our human nature and everything to do with our divine nature? If so, we might find it useful to set aside our "human nature" criteria and adopt, instead, "divine nature" criteria. Without declaring that the Voice of God speaks through me (although I believe that is the case for all of us when we set our ego* aside), let's speculate as to what the "divine nature" criteria might be.

When Jesus is quoted as saying "the kingdom of God is in the midst of you" (Luke 17:21), I read that as meaning the awareness of God Presence is possible for each and every one of us, in which our nature is seeing with the eyes of God, seeing with the eyes of unconditional love. To realize that elevated state requires that we look upon our moment with the eyes of unconditional love. With that perspective, the criteria of "divine nature" reveal how to elevate our perspective to see and embrace more fully the God Presence in the moment. 

Even the relationships which are punctuated with lies or betrayals can be seen for what they are -- relationships that had, for a moment (or longer), participants that forgot their true nature, their divine nature. If we avoid or reject those relationships because of the lapse of awareness of one or more of the participants, we are declaring that nothing less than perfection in every relationship is acceptable. When is that achieved and where is the opportunity for growth?

At the same time, those "negative relationships" can also be seen as great opportunities for learning and for practice. When one can see beyond the feeling of being attacked (the ego's "proof" of our vulnerability and separation from each other and from God), we have made great progress is seeing with the eyes of unconditional love. In fact, when we view each relationship as a "trip to the gym", we can see the negative relationships as those exercises that challenge us the most and from which our greatest strength is gained; the positive relationships might be seen as a soak in the sauna, healing and nurturing but, by themselves, stimulating little gain in power. 

We don't have to search out those negative relationships but when they show up, we can celebrate! There are bountiful blessings hidden within them.

* from A Course in Miracles: ego -- that aspect of consciousness that insists upon separation from each other and from God

Quest for Certainty

I can imagine a tribe huddled in a cave deciding who is to pull watch that night. Several candidates are available, some of which have been known to fall asleep in the quiet, wee hours of the night, others have the reputation of being alert to every sound in the forest outside. Perhaps, in some very foreign, lost language, they ponder, "Who do we choose for tonight's watch?" The fact that a big grizzly had been sited near the cave in recent suns would have weighed heavily on their minds as they unanimously chose Argh, the most watchful one. Certainty increased their likelihood of survival.

That instinctive desire for certainty is, of course, present in our lives today. Which path is more certain for me to achieve my goal in this world? What education, which mate, which job, which stocks do I choose to ensure happiness, fulfillment and success? Certainty is usually, but sometimes unstated, a salient factor of our selection process. But to the extent certainty is not achievable, uncertainty is present. 

Perhaps more apparent than in any other human quest, the pursuit of a personal understanding of our spiritual nature is fraught with uncertainty. In a recent conversation with a friend of mine I was informed of my misguided ways -- that since I did not accept Jesus as my personal savior (as my friend's teacher defines it), I would not enter into heaven or know God in the afterlife. Furthermore, I was told, he could not imagine how we could possibly use the Bible as a basis of the teachings of our spiritual community since, having read the homepage of our website, he knew we did not accept the literal truth of "Scripture". Scornfully dismissing the validity of an individual's ability to interpret "Scripture", he stated we should rely upon other "more knowledgeable men" as the experts. It was a test of my patience, to be sure!

My friend achieved his remarkable success in the world through a disciplined application of reason and a powerful personal presence that proved very persuasive in his career. In his worldly affairs, certainty had been his guiding light. But in his "born again" transformation, it seems he has released his reliance on reason in the face of the uncertainty of his spiritual quest. To increase his certainty, he has chosen to accept the Bible as being literally true; thus, he is uninterested in the history of its formulation. Apparently disregarding its inconsistencies and inappropriate teachings in today's society (for example, on slave ownership), he leans heavily on only those passages he has been told are important, using the interpretations others have defined and ignoring the illogical conclusions arising from those inculcated interpretations. In his spiritual quest, certainty has become his blinding light.

Perhaps certainty is not the ultimate consideration of our spiritual quest. Follow the logic (sacrilege!) here: Certainty induces expectations. Expectations filter perceptions. Perceptions color our experience. Our experience informs our understanding. The logical conclusion is our quest for understanding of our spiritual nature is limited by our certainty. If our spiritual quest is to gain an understanding of our spiritual nature, then certainty must be released and uncertainty celebrated.

To the extent we are able to celebrate uncertainty, expectations will be released, perceptions will be less filtered, and experience will reveal a trove of lessons of who we are and of our relationship with the Divine. What could be more useful in our quest?

Unveiled in Vail

It's a beautiful, hot summer day in Vail, CO. Honored to be part of a wedding ceremony to be held at the top of the Eagle Bahn Gondola,  Linda and I have had the opportunity to mosey around Vail, perusing the shops ($225 for a western hat that would fetch, maybe, $80 in Denver), enjoying the beautiful gardens and planters kept so immaculately trimmed by the Vail city staff. All in all, a delightful visit.

Perhaps the beautiful scenery above and within the town is why the visitors seem to be very friendly. On the ride up the gondola yesterday to the wedding rehearsal I had the opportunity to meet two young couples visiting from New York City. Remarking on the ambiance of Vail Village and the friendliness of the people, one of the women said, "You know, I've always thought that I and my friends were friendly, but using this as a standard, I can see why people think of New Yorkers as rude." Continuing our ride to the top, I didn't think they were rude at all -- just friendly folks from the right coast, in my mind.

On my ride back down the mountain, I was blessed with meeting two "30-somethings", professional guys from Atlanta that were in town for a week with their wife and girlfriend (I'm assuming that was one wife for one fellow and one girlfriend for the other, but I didn't want to embarrass myself and ask for clarification). A fun, open conversation about everything from the pine beetle infestation to the fires of Southern Colorado to the apparent change in slope of the mountainside once snow covers it. Really, it was a great conversation! At the bottom, the conversation continued as we waited for the Village bus to take us back to Vail Village from Lionshead.

Once on the bus, being at one end of the line, seats were readily available (the buses have a good deal of space set aside to "standing only" -- imagine riders with skis or snowboards in hand). Grabbing one seat, at the next stop a family climbed on board with the alpha male's arm freshly bandaged. With his wife's insistence and with me telling him I wouldn't squeeze his knee, he consented to sitting down. The family had been up the mountain earlier in the day with rented mountain bikes. In an apparent show of bravado, the fellow had met the mountain with unfortunate results, a gash in the top of the forearm; the Village hospital was the beneficiary of that zero-sum game. But, once again, the whole family of five was full of joy and good humor. It was truly a delightful experience to spend a few minutes with them.

Of all those met and greeted, even of those walking down the streets -- and the shops, restaurants and hotel staff included -- I noticed only one scowl on the face of a young woman walking briskly down the street (perhaps in the midst of a lover's quarrel or maybe she just tried to buy a hat?).

So the question is, "Why all these friendly people?" Could it be that this is our nature, when taken out of the stresses of our day-to-day lives? That is, our true nature is unveiled when we set aside those things that we hide behind -- including our self-imposed stress! In the end, our stress is always self-imposed. So whether we're in Vail or Denver or New York City or Timbuktu (yes, even there), we can choose to unveil our nature and be the friendly beings we are designed to be. 

Bluish

I am blessed to be invited to officiate at a wedding this week. I attempt in each wedding to tie the colors of the wedding party together with a suit to blend with the groomsmen wardrobe and a tie to pull in the bridesmaids' colors. The bride is the daughter of a friend with whom I worked many years ago. The groom is from a land far, far away, the inhabitants of which speak a language called "Strine". But being "a man's man", I should have anticipated that when I asked him what are the colors of the bridesmaids' dresses, he would have answered as most men might; he said "bluish". Remarking to him, "Spoken like a man", I realized that, indeed, that might have been the way I might have responded!

Turning to my ever-present friend, G. Oogle, I queried, "shades of blue". Not to disappoint, G. gave me this handy resource: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Shades_of_blue. Men, you no longer have an excuse -- at least as far as blue is concerned.

Granted, I live with a very talented, color-educated woman. She could have answered with at least a dozen different names of shades of blue, red, green, grey or white. So perhaps I should be more patient with myself for anticipating something a bit more specific than "bluish". But it brings up a point -- many of the women I know are far more conversant with colors than I. Is this a gender skill trained in the secrets classrooms of females? Does it come from too much time in front of fingernail polish displays? Or is there a genetic component located somewhere on the Y-chromosome that predisposes women to be proficient "colorati"? When I walk through Home Depot I notice more women in front of the paint chip racks than men. Perhaps there's a "color magnetism" that causes the female navigation system to find and be interested in the various shades.

But wait! Every commercial printer chooses the ink shades for the printed products from a chart labeled PMS Colors. The mystery is solved! But I guess that skill comes with a price...

One Weird Trick

Ever noticed those small ads at the bottom or to the side of online articles that include the phrase "weird trick"? "A pro golfer reveals how one weird trick gets you a 20 yard longer, straighter drive." "One weird trick saves you a ton on car insurance." "A suburban housewife reveals one weird trick that makes the kids quiet down." "One weird trick reduces your weight by 30 lbs." Weird tricks must be fascinating to people because those ad writers can tell the number of hits their ads get, and that phrase keeps popping up.

So let me try it, "One weird trick ensures you have a happier, more peaceful life." Hey, this is easy! "One weird trick brings more joy to your life." Another one, "One weird trick makes your relationships more fulfilling and meaningful." Wow, I could go on, "One weird trick helps you be more productive and prosperous." Fantasies of a weird copywriter? Or maybe a copywriter that has absolutely no idea what he's talking about or perhaps is just outright lying? Maybe.

Or maybe not. What if there was "one weird trick" that did all that? Looking up the definition of "weird" at www.thefreedictionary.com we find, 'Of, relating to, or suggestive of the preternatural or supernatural'. This required that I look up "preternatural", 'Out of or being beyond the normal course of nature, differing from what is natural.'

Some would say that the trick I offer that would do all of the things I suggested above is 'unnatural', 'not normal' or 'superhuman'. So in that sense, 'weird' might apply. But the reality is that what I suggest is natural, normal (in the sense everyone can do it) and very human (I contend that it is our very nature). Moreover, it doesn't cost a thing. Perhaps that is why it is not common; no one has been able to patent it, profit from it and therefore, has not vigorously promoted it.

Certainly you'll see books written about it (spoiler alert: I've even written one), workshops conducted with it as a central theme and various scriptures repeatedly referencing it. But the weird thing about it is that few people practice it. I can confidently say that because the condition of the world testifies to its absence.

The one weird trick? Give unconditional love in every situation, in every circumstance, in every relationship. Without exception. In every moment.

How will you know if you're practicing unconditional love? You'll find you have no expectations of others -- you'll see them as they are, with no baggage. You'll celebrate their wholeness, regardless of whether they realize it or not. You'll have no expectations of the moment -- you'll rejoice in its richness. You'll be unencumbered by the "woulda's, shoulda's and coulda's", and able to focus on the moment, doing what you are called to do without distraction. And you'll be guided to the highest and the best for all concerned, led by love and expressing that love.

Some might even think you're weird.

Undeniably Biased

My relationship with our Christian scripture over the years has been an interesting evolution. Early in my life, I became a "scriptural skeptic" because I refused to believe much of the Bible because "it just didn't make sense". How could a loving God send his "only son" to be crucified for what others, before and after him, did? How could a loving God send flames and plagues on people that didn't "believe" even if they were kind, loving people? And how could an always-existent God be vengeful at one point and a loving Father at another. And "inerrant"? What did that mean when some of scripture obviously conflicts with itself -- compare Jesus' teachings and the book of Leviticus, for ample examples. The evolution of my objections is, frankly, difficult to put into a timeline since some of these conclusions were intuitively sensed early and my study of scripture during seminary brought these objections front and center. Add to this the many different writers from the many different periods of history, each with unique motivations for their message, that contributed commentary based upon their then-present circumstances to what we now call "the Bible"... I recall saying to the Chair of our Biblical Studies department one day after class, "I think I am learning too much about the Bible to believe in it." 

As I gained a greater understanding of the allegorical inclinations of the Hebrew writers, I began to appreciate the depth of scripture. I've come to appreciate, like the appearance of the surface of the lake, that literal interpretation of scripture hides the truth hidden deep within it -- truth represented by the hidden valleys and outcroppings of the bottom of the lake. As we look back on the intentions of the many writers of the various books, we must consider the cultural embrace and the prevailing worldview in which they were ensconced to extract the truth of their message. To illustrate that limited worldview, I use the example that in the time of the writing and editing of the Bible, spanning some 1300 years, the stars in the night sky were regarded as tiny holes in the dome of heaven through which the light of God shown. The twinkling of the stars was caused, so it was said, by angels in heaven dancing behind those holes. Their culture allowed slavery -- as long as the slaves were not of the Hebrew nation. Accepting that cultural bias today would present us with the conundrum, "just which nationalities are acceptable slaves?" We have obviously moved beyond that question -- at least most of us have.

Bishop John Shelby Spong grew up in the literalist tradition. As an Episcopal priest, he began his career with an inclination to interpret scripture literally. But as his understanding of scripture and his relationship with God evolved, he also came to view the cultural biases and limited worldview of Biblical authors as obstructions to his understanding of the truth of their messages. Much to the chagrin of the conservative Episcopalians, his evolving perspectives on scripture became a powerful influence on that tradition. As he rose in ecclesiastical rank, he was an ardent supporter of gay rights, the advancement of women in church leadership, and a strong liberal advocate within the church. So strong was his influence that his theologically liberal bias was a significant cause of the conservative Episcopalians breaking away to join Anglican Communions holding more conservative views (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican_realignment). He has also been a prolific author of books interpreting scripture with a consideration of the worldview/cultural biases held by the various authors. See http://johnshelbyspong.com/. His newly released (and perhaps last) book, The Fourth Gospel: Tales of a Jewish Mystic, continues in his insightful and clear reorientation of our reading of the book of the gospels.

While Unity has long taught that John is the most mystical of the four gospels, Spong gives us an extensive commentary of the cultural/worldview perspectives out of which it grew. My study of Spong's writing continues during my sabbatical; I'm guessing our community will hear more about this in September (and perhaps a few "trailers" appearing in Drop by Drop). 

Yesterday I read a critique of an earlier work of Spong by a seminarian still entrapped by the literalists' views. I found his analysis of Spong's work to be accurate and his biases to be evident. As he made his points, one by one, my response was consistently, "yes, you're right -- and I agree with Spong". Recognizing that we each have biases based upon our experience, our worldview and our culture, we also need to recognize that we choose our biases, consciously or not. So which biases do you choose -- those that enhance your life or those that limit your life; those that bring joy to your experience or those that imprison you in fear and loathing? Isn't it a magnificent feature of the Divine Design that we can choose?