As I began to write selections for this blog I found that I was using terms that, while they may be familiar, I was adapting to my own definitions. Given that, I had better make clear what I mean by these terms when I use them. First off, I am calling this blog a spiritual primer because the true seeker will only consider this as a small step on the path to God, (albeit hopefully a useful one). There are very many beings that are far more advanced than I am who offer vast amounts of in depth teachings and profound insights to act as aids to the journey. But they often either assume levels of knowledge by the listener, treat all the information as Zen Koans or simply don't have the time to get into the simple explanations that would be useful. In addition, I believe that the greatest part of learning takes place within with our own God self as the teacher so this can only be thought of as an editorial to all of that.
‘Adept’ is meant to refer to the reader and to all those who are travelers on a spiritual path, whichever way they may choose. It is, in a sense, a title in that it assumes some already existent level of spiritual momentum. But this seems fair to me because to have an interest in the spiritual path implies at least a basic level of momentum upwards, of adeptship. I believe that once a person’s interest in the spiritual journey becomes conscious they must necessarily have been on the path unconsciously for some time so they must have some momentum, however small it may appear to be to themselves. Further, the other words that I considered all carry a subtle connotation of following a doctrine of some kind and I am trying to get away from that. I find it convenient, therefore, to use the term "adept' rather than student, chela, disciple, etc. It is simply a convention I have assumed.
When I use the term ‘doctrine’ I am referring to a given organization’s list of "required" beliefs. One example, (but hardly the only one), is the Catholic Apostle’s Creed. These are the beliefs that are necessary for admission and continual membership because the whole of a given religion’s theology is based on them. If you don’t believe then by definition you aren’t one of them. If you don’t accept them then you don’t accept the religion and won’t be, won’t want to be, a member. It isn’t necessary for the hierarchy of a given church to cast you out. Your lack of acceptance will automatically distance you internally. In the context of this blog ‘paradigm’ applies to our personal beliefs and assumptions about the macrocosm and microcosm at all levels of experience: personal, social, religious, etc. So, rather than ‘kicking in’ just when we are in our ‘spiritual’ mode of thought, it is constantly involved with who we are and how we perceive the world at every minute. We each have a paradigm, a set of assumptions that exist at the core of our beliefs as to how the world functions, our relationship with the world as we perceive it. Doctrines change from denomination to denomination, from sect to sect, from religion to religion, from person to person. In fact, it is insistence on the uncompromising nature of many religious doctrines that separates believers of different religions. Paradigms are always entirely personal. While a personal paradigm involves a personal doctrine, (an atheist, too, has a doctrine), it goes far beyond that to what are the very basic assumptions we make about the world. Decisions you make in your life: i.e. what book to read, what movie to watch, aren’t part of you paradigm but the reasons for making those decisions, the assumptions that lie behind those choices, are. Paradigms involve what we consider to be worthwhile and why we consider it to be so. On an even deeper level it involves what we even allow ourselves to perceive, how we perceive and, finally, why we perceive any given item at any given time.
What doesn’t change from one person to another is the process of walking the path so the tools for getting from here to there don’t vary much regardless of which trail we take up the mountain. What we may believe is ‘there’ and our motivation for getting ‘there’ may change from group to group but the process of going from point A to point B is remarkably similar, especially among the mystics of the variety of religions available. Point A is wherever you are at the moment and point B is, by definition, located at the ‘top’ of the mountain. There are religions where the path is a process of growth to be experienced. Your salvation depends on a process of development over an indeterminant period of time. There are numerous religions where there are, rather, guidelines or set of laws to follow. Your salvation then depends on how well you conform to those laws. (With time and experience I have found that there are usually those in any given religion who have transcended the law and developed a personal relationship with God. "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.) There are also religions where the goal is a transformation of both intent and focus which often takes place in a moment of clarity or realization that is the necessary ingredient to salvation and once you have changed your life’s focus you can be fairly certain you are saved. (That doesn't mean that the work is over but that the work is able to begin on a whole new level of awareness.) There are religions where all three paths are accepted by different sects. In fact, that seems to me to be the rule rather than the exception. There is a strong tradition of mysticism and of orthodoxy in most religions and most have multiple sects that each accept one or the other of the three approaches to salvation. There is one trait that both doctrine and paradigm share. They are both sets of beliefs. If you have a doctrine offered to you by an organization, an outline regarding how things are in the universe that pertain to God and the spiritual world that you have not directly experienced, (and often even if you have), then it is made up of a series of beliefs. This is especially true if you have accepted the tenants of a religion or spiritual group without direct experience of them. They are beliefs. They are not ‘knowings’. I don't have an issue with beliefs. I have plenty of them. I am simply trying to bring clarity to your understanding of that portion of MY paradigm so that you can get the most from it.
The tips that I offer in this book are not ‘knowings’ either. You cannot get ‘knowings’ from others. If you get a concept of how things are from a source other than your own experience then it will be paradigm that is subject to change. If it is a paradigm that pertains to your spiritual life it will often be doctrine. This is especially true if belief in a given set of concepts is a requirement for membership in an organized religion. They are tools or perspectives that may serve you or may not. But what is true about the universe, what is universal, you have to have either brought with you or you need to come to within yourself. In fact, what you bring with you may be the very reason you are searching in the first place. I do not have a problem with doctrine, per se. If you are engaged upon a path of spiritual devotion you will have a doctrine, a set of beliefs that are the framework for your endeavor. I certainly do. That is seemingly unavoidable. It would be very difficult to travel the spiritual path without an environment or a goal for that process to achieve. The problems come when either the doctrine becomes confining rather than uplifting or when it conflicts with our own inner voice. When we begin to make the doctrine more important than our own experience, our own personal growth or closeness to God then it becomes a hinderance rather than a help. And when we cling to a doctrine in spite of our own inner voice telling us that it doesn’t ring true then it can be the wedge that drives into our relationship with God and separates us from Him.
Doctrine can come in many forms. What I mean is that we tend to think of doctrine as the stated belief of a given religion or sect and that is certainly true at one level. But what about the unconscious assumptions we make, our personal doctrines, that limit our perspective? Once in conversation with my wife I happened to mention a particular teacher who I said had a great deal to offer, (although I thought that his communication was sometimes so intellectual as to be obscure). My wife said something to the effect that that person’s teachings were wrong or misguided or misleading or some such. But I knew that she hadn’t ever looked into what he had to say. I asked her how she had come to that conclusion and she was not sure. She said that this person said that that ‘teacher’ had said so. I told her that I suspected that she was being a victim of a peripheral paradigm – that kind of paradigm that isn’t a major tenant of a religion but is still an accepted belief because some teacher said so. I didn’t recommend that she read him herself because he can be dry and intellectual but I did suggest that she not make any assumptions based on second hand hearsay.
Let me give you an example of my own that is even more subtle although still related to the spiritual path. I purchased a copy of “The Tibetan Book of the Dead” at one point and sometime later I sat down to explore it. The Dalai Lama wrote the Introduction to this particular translation and in it he discussed differing ideas about the afterlife that particular sects of Buddhism have, even as to whether or not it exists. I nearly stopped reading the book right there because I didn’t agree with the idea that there was no afterlife. My paradigm conflicted with that one. The “Tibetan Book of the Dead” obviously speaks of an afterlife. The Dalai Lama wasn’t saying whether or not HE believed in any kind of afterlife. In fact, he wasn’t speaking about his own thoughts about afterlife at all nor about the text’s views on the subject. He was simply explaining for the sake of clarity that there are many different ideas about the afterlife among sects of Buddhism who all found "The Book of the Dead" useful. Yet I was so closed off at the time that I nearly put down the book and ceased to read it because I was sure that if there were those who held that this book had value who, themselves, didn’t believe in an afterlife, then my thoughts were so different from theirs that I had nothing to learn from the book at all. What amazing arrogance on my part! Yet we all do that all the time in greater or lesser ways. It is one of the most common themes down through history. Sometimes it can be very subtle. If all of that can be said about doctrine then how much more can it apply to our personal paradigms. This is a subject that takes far more consideration. I may take that up later in the blog.
What I hope to accomplish is to give you, the reader, the tools to at least begin the journey on your own, even if you do feel called to follow one or another of the religious groups that abound as you begin your journey or once you have traveled for a time on your path. There is a difference between the doctrine of the path you may choose, i.e. what I think of as the environment in which you choose to travel, and the ‘how to’ instructions, the nuts and bolts on how to get further down that path regardless of the doctrine you travel with when you do it. I call these nuts and bolts instructions ‘tools’. What I have found to be a most important part of my growth on the path is the ability to set my own beliefs aside when I am confronted with an environment that has the potential for spiritual growth. That doesn’t necessarily mean that I can’t keep those beliefs but it does mean that I am ready to accept what a given teaching has to offer without first making it pass through the filter of what I am willing to accept. As I hope is obvious belief and knowing are two different states.
If you want to grow in and on your journey to God you absolutely need to let go of your preconceptions about God and the universe. You must approach your path as a little child. When Jesus speaks of becoming as little children he means not only to be as sweet and guileless as a child. I believe that he also means to be as open to new ideas, to not assume that we already know when we are being told something. As Suzuki says you must have a beginner’s mind always when you are dealing with ‘God stuff’. This doesn’t even mean that your beliefs and ideas are wrong. It means that by holding on to them tightly at the expense of widening your spiritual horizons you may be limiting the scope of those horizons and partially blocking your vision of God. You may be making your preconceptions your God. More on this later.
I had a teacher on the path once who told me that the most difficult thing about teaching is getting the adept to realize you are telling them something they don’t already know because we all tend to take information and distort it into shapes that fit into the contours of the paradigm we already have. I will be using the term “mask”. I use this term to encompass the entirety of one's outer personality. This is all of who you see yourself as consciously. This is the image of you that you often present to the world. It is also the image of yourself that you often think of as who you are. I will use this term to cover personality, ego, etc. It is that outer you that covers, speaks for and acts as a defense for the inner child which I consider to be the soul. This mask is not, in my opinion, who you are. This is a false front. I am not going to get into this further at this point or I will get off on a tangent that, being premature, would be non-productive. Just know that all that you see as your personality, the ego construct – that is what I refer to as the mask.
Finally, the rare times that I will use pronouns at all I will use the feminine in this book. This is done for three reasons. I consider the soul to be feminine and I am generally trying to speak directly to the soul in each of us. If you find it distracting simply regard it as either a further tool that I am conveying but that I am, for once, doing it more subtly of that you are witness to a manifestation of my own personal paradigm in action. I am, in addition, a follower of the Divine Mother so I have an affinity for the feminine. I honor the feminine in all of creation and this is just one more way in which I can show my regard for her. And the third reason: I wanted to go against the accepted practice of deciding to use the masculine for the sake of ‘ease of use’. In that context I simply chose the feminine as one of two equal choices – ‘for ease of use’. It doesn't seem to come up all that often.
No comments:
Post a Comment