Monthly Archive for August, 2007

Whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God

Published
by
Ken
on August 28, 2007
in buddhism, god and quotes
. 1 Comment

Ok, that’s the answer I’ve been looking for but the new question of the day is “How?????”

Been thinking lately about how in the hell I’m going to make any spiritual progress when I have very little time to be “spiritual.” You know, “Deadlines and commitments. What to leave in? What to leave out?” My 17 month old daughter is definitely a “leave in” and that doesn’t leave a whole lot of time for other stuff. (But I love it!)

Then I found the following in The Gateless Gate by Koun Yamada:

The poem that expresses the Hinayana point of view is:

Since the whole cottage has been built by assembling brushwood,
If we took it to pieces,
Nothing would remain but the field, as before.

The one which expresses the Mahayana point of view is:

Since the cottage has been built by assembling brushwood,
There is nothing but the field,
Even without taking it to pieces.

Now, what does the field mean? Again, it is nothing but the empty-infinite, our essential nature, and what does the brushwood represent? It is the objective world, which includes our body and mental activities — concepts, ideas, thinking, feeling, and so on. When we get rid of this objective world, there remains only standing up, sitting down, going to bed, walking and running, eating a meal when you are hungry, crying when sad, working when you need money. There are no concepts or ideas whatsoever attached to these. When you sit down, there is no philosophy attached. Our life in this world is made up of such actions. Is there anything more? No! And from the standpoint of sitting down or taking a walk, there is no difference at all between Buddhas and us.

And this reminded me of I Corinthians 10:31

So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.

“Whatever you do.” That means every single second of every single day. That’s more than saying grace before I eat — it’s eating my hamburger for the glory of God. It’s brushing my teeth for the glory of God. It’s driving to the grocery store for the glory of God. It’s doing all the mundane, mindless, mediocre, menial things for the glory of God. Because that’s what life really is. Life is what happens between the couple of high points you may experience.

So, the question has now become shorter but no less simple: “How?”

Just a thought … on God as author

Published
by
Ken
on August 24, 2007
in bible, biblical interpretation, god, just a thought ... and religious pluralism
. 1 Comment

Getting back to an old post of mine, let’s assume:

  1. The Bible is exactly as God wanted it to be
  2. God is omniscient
  3. God had/has perfect foreknowledge

What does this mean?

I think it’s an obvious fact that there are many, many different interpretations of the Bible. Whether you think any particular interpretation is right or wrong does not change the fact that it exists and someone believes it. But God, in his perfect foreknowledge and omniscience must have known that each interpretation that exists would exist. God knew that we’d be confused. And yet the Bible is exactly as he wanted it to be. Now, I’m not talking about a few fringe ideas that go against an overwhelming consensus. If you’re reading, say, The Scarlett Letter in every high school (which still reads this book) I would guess that there would be a lot of agreement on meaning and interpretation with, perhaps, a few radical ideas. Not so with the Bible!

God may be just but he doesn’t seem quite fair. He gives us this book, knowing that some of us will interpret it differently and then (according to some) punishes us when we do. Kinda like the ol’ apple in the garden, heh? Isn’t that entrapment?

So, God must have had a purpose for the ambiguity, the confusion causing verbiage. Was it to test us? Was it to weed out some of us? What possible reason could there be? Furthermore, how can any of us even pretend to have the “right” answer? So many options, so many ideas, so many opinions and the one that appeals to me just happens to be the one and only correct interpretation?

But, hey … just a thought.

Ellul: gripping stuff … thank you, John H.

Published
by
Ken
on August 24, 2007
in books, buddhism, christianity, jacques ellul, mysticism and zen
. 0 Comments

I’ve been lightly skimming (no offense intended ;-) ) the Confessing Evangelical’s posts on Ellul’s What I Believe. But I went back and looked more carefully at The Word That Grips Us and then at the list of Ellul’s other publications on Jesus Radicals. I just want to say a huge “thank you” to John for leading me to Ellul. It looks like fascinating stuff that’s right up my alley and I’m definitely going to read him. Well, I’m definitely going to put him on my stack of books to read. But up near the top! (I’m finding less and less time to read these days.)

Just a comment on The Word That Grips Us …

Ellul’s statement:

The revelation is not for me a matter of mystical contemplation. It is more like what many of us are familiar with; a word suddenly becomes so true to us that we can no longer doubt it.

We know well how astonishing this experience can be. I read in the Bible texts that I have read a hundred times, that I know by heart, that are part of my objective knowledge of the biblical God, and suddenly the word that I know so well intellectually takes on an unexpected significance, a blinding force that constrains me to accept it as truth, as a truth at once comprehensible, irrational, and rigorously certain.

seems to me to be precisely “mystical contemplation.” It immediately evoked images of Zen monks achieving a moment of satori or enlightenment as the master raises a finger or slaps across the face. The “contemplation” part was when Ellul read these passage “hundreds of times” and committed them to memory. And the revelation is when you suddenly see what you’ve been staring at. You see it in a totally different from; from a new angle; with “fresh eyes.” It’s been there the whole time but something in you has changed so that you really see.

Now, I don’t know Ellul and of course I can’t speak for him. If he does not consider this as “mystical contemplation” then it’s not. I just can’t help but notice the similarity.

Paradise (Never) Lost

Published
by
Ken
on August 23, 2007
in buddhism, christianity, d.t. suzuki, god, jesus, meister eckhart and mysticism
. 0 Comments

In Mysticism: Christian and Buddhist D.T. Suzuki quotes Meister Eckhart …

I have read many writings both of heathen philosophers and sages, of the Old and New Testaments, and I have earnestly and will all diligence sought the best and the highest virtue whereby man may come most closely to God and wherein he may once more become like the original image as he was in God when there was yet no distinction between God and himself before God produced creatures. And having dived into the basis of things to the best of my ability I find that it is no other than absolute detachment from everything that is created. It was in this sense when our Lord said to Martha: “One thing is needed,” which is to say: He who would be untouched and pure needs just one thing, detachment. [emphasis mine]

This is quite interesting to me and very non-mainstream Christian. Eckhart is saying that man existed before God created anything. But man didn’t exist as man, man existed as an image in God and as an image that was not distinct from God. Does this mean that man was/is God?

What does “no distinction between God and himself” mean? The meaning that first comes to mind is that you can’t tell them apart. Does this mean than man is God? As an analogy, it is most likely possible to produce a counterfeit ten dollar bill that is indistinguishable from a real ten dollar bill. But what would that take? It would take the exact same ink, the exact same paper, an exact duplicate of the plates, and probably a couple other things. But if the “fake” bill uses the same ink and paper and identical plates, is it really fake? Isn’t it really only fake because it wasn’t printed in a sanctioned government mint (or wherever it is that money is printed)? And if this is the only difference, then isn’t it really a genuine bill; fake in name only? In other words, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck …

Then I looked up the word “distinction.” The definition, of course, references “distinct” which has two definitions that seem relevant: 1. distinguished as not being the same; not identical; separate and 2. different in nature or quality; dissimilar. Following these definitions then, Eckhart is saying that man and God are the same, identical, not separate, not different, not dissimilar. This is quite a statement! It is so very reminiscent of the well-known Zen koan: What was your face before your parents were born? Answer that and you’ve discovered your Buddha-nature. Answer that and you’ve discovered God. Answer that and you’ve re-discovered your true, essential Self; the Self not tied to this earthly body, this creature made by God.

Eckhart is also implying that the act of creating man on the sixth day was the act that resulted in the separation (the distinction) between God and man. Being human is being separated from God. Or, more accurately, thinking of our Selves as human — being attached to our humanity, as as such, our separateness from other humans and from God — is being separated from God. Perhaps this is the real reason Jesus became human. We were so intent on pushing God “out there” and then trying to re-bridge the gap with religion but it wasn’t working. We had totally forgotten our origins, our face before our parents were born, our true nature as indistinct from God. Jesus’ humanity demonstrates our actual situation — God (or something indistinct from God) incarnate. That is what we are to emulate in Jesus — his God-nature.

Paradise was never lost because we can’t change what we are. Paradise only seems lost because all our attention is on our humanity. We’ve really just forgotten that we are already in paradise right now. And the solution, as Eckhart says, is “absolute detachment from everything that that is created.” Detachment from our humanity and from our society and our culture. This detachment is exactly what Jesus speaks of when he tells us to not worry and trust in him for everything. It’s what Paul talks about when he tells us to pray without ceasing. It’s having our focus on heaven and storing up riches where thieves do not break in and steal.

Ch-ch-ch-ch-Changes …

Published
by
Ken
on August 21, 2007
in Uncategorized
. 0 Comments

I’ve changed the name of my blog! I am getting away from my intent when I started this blog and so the current name does not fit very well with the things I’m posting. Plus it’s long and confusing.

I’m moving to a shorter (but still confusing) name: Punctum Saliens. I think it fits the content much better and, of course, omnia dicta fortiora si dicta latina.

Ok, I hate that, too. Erudites and erudite-wannabees who sprinkle plain ol’ English with Latin phrases and no translation. So, for those of us who don’t read Latin, the above phrase means “everything sounds more impressive when said in Latin.” So it’s a little sarcastic and maybe ironic(?).

Punctum Saliens means “leaping point” or “starting point.” Much of what I’m posting now is new stuff that I’m just beginning to start hashing out for myself. My blog has turned into my platform for figuring out what I believe and so it’s the “starting point” for that. And it’s the “leaping point” because I’m going far beyond what I was raised to believe and what I’ve believed my entire life. I’ll be taking some flying leaps and may crash and burn once in a while but one of those leaps will land me right where I’m meant to be.

Hope you enjoy the ride …

Ken

This really sticks in my craw

Published
by
Ken
on August 19, 2007
in tolerance
. 0 Comments

 More from the Trothkeepr:

[UPDATE: It's curious that the gentleman who penned the following paragraph should now have removed his entry---especially since I did not link his piece. What? Could it be that he now finally recognizes the evil of the slaughter of the innocents? But if he claims that he was simply "thinking outloud" when he penned that piece, then why would he---ashamedly?---pull the post down (when I posted this originally, his entry was accessible via Google; now it is not). If I am thinking outloud, I am not definitively taking a stand. And I can update my post indicating more clearly that what I have written is a mental wrestling, rather than a definitive statement of what I believe. And if "nobody" reads your blog, Sir, then why bother Final Solutioning a post that's been quoted?]

A few comments in rebuttal:

It is somewhat irksome that I was not given credit for the original quote. Citations are just common courtesy, I think. Plus, it’s always nicer to know who said something (even if you have no idea who that someone is) than have it be ascribed to no one. At least with a citation, an interested reader could visit the blog and see what else this chap has to say.

The post Trothkeepr references is still and always has been on my blog. The link is right here.

(when I posted this originally, his entry was accessible via Google; now it is not)

As wonderful and awesome and complete as Google is, Google is not perfect. If something is not found with a simple Google search, that something may still exist. For example, I just Googled “Ken’s pituitary gland” and got no results. Now, I’m pretty sure that I have a pituitary gland even though I have only a vague sense of where it is and what it does. So I would recommend exercising caution when basing statements on Google search results alone.

If I am thinking outloud, I am not definitively taking a stand. And I can update my post indicating more clearly that what I have written is a mental wrestling, rather than a definitive statement of what I believe.

My post ends — now and when I originally posted it — with the line:

Well, unfortunately, I don’t have the answer … yet. Comments, anyone???

I feel this conveys my unsureness and indefiniteness about this topic. Perhaps my banter was too banal, my verbiage too vexing, my prose too pejorative and you were unable to finish reading the post. My apologies but my “mental wrestling,” as you put it, was stated. Furthermore, this post was and is (as all of my posts are) open for comments. So, please feel free to share your thoughts with me directly instead of covertly posting on your blog and not linking back. I do not have moderation turned on and do not mind contrary views in the comments. In fact, I prefer it! Nothing makes you think more than a well written opposing viewpoint.

Drawing the line

Published
by
Ken
on August 7, 2007
in tolerance
. 0 Comments

Found an unaccredited selection from one of my posts over on the Trothkeepr tonight. I’ll link back but the jokes on him because no one reads my blog!

The contention is that my anti-anti-abortion law comment can be used to condone apartheid, racism, and slavery. So, because it can be used to condone these evil practices, it’s a bull shit argument and is worthless.

This is exactly what I’ve been struggling with and exactly why I wrote that post and exactly why I haven’t done much more on it because I don’t have the answer to the question: Where do you draw the line?

Premarital sex is wrong and dancing stirs up all kinds of sexual feelings which may lead to sex so dancing is wrong. And making out and petting is wrong because it stirs up all kinds of sexual feelings so making out and petting are wrong. And pornography is wrong. And bikinis are wrong. And looking at women is wrong. And thinking about women is wrong. So all men should walk around with bags over their heads to avoid even seeing a woman and being tempted to think about things that would lead him to think about a woman in any kind of sexual way. Where do you draw the line?

Terrorists are attacking us and we need to know what they are planning so we need to be able to do all this surveillance and we need access to public and medical and financial records and we need to be able to put wiretaps in place and we need to be able to see into people’s living rooms so we know if they are making bombs. But we don’t know if you’re making a bomb until we look into your living room so we need to be able to look into everyone’s living room just to make sure no one is making a bomb. Where do you draw the line?