The Mystic Heart

[Janz]

I have recently been reading Wayne Teasdale's teachings about discovering a universal spirituality in the world's religions. The paths are many but the goals are the same: giving witness to the transforming presence of the Divine in human consciousness.

What is spirituality? What is being religious? What is nonviolence? I shared that I have no faith in non-violence because the shadow side of humanity has not been transformed to see that we are all interconnected. If those that live in violence attack you do you believe in self-defense or would you surrender your life to evil?

What is your moral code? Is it based upon your faith or non-faith? How do you define ethics?

 

[Dream]

I have not heard of Wayne Teasedale's teachings or heard of him before you posted.

Lately I've realized that the successful peace movements were successful, because people were aware that peace was holding back violent expression. I think about Ghandi, Martin Luthor King, and I think about the Native Americans. In a sense, these all have made successful peace movements; yet the goal of those movements was to peacefully negotiate a treaty. There was no begging.

Non violence is when you demonstrate the capability for violence yet choose not to be violent. It does not mean being weak. I think that a weak person cannot have a peace movement. That is why the peace here in the US is so significant. A lot of people thought our nation would be chaotic and collapse upon itself, since a lot of us have guns, since we are all equal have the right to an alias, and basically because we reserve the right to revolt. We have weapons, yet the air is not full of bullets. We have courts, yet not everyone sues. We have chemicals, yet our buildings are not constantly exploding. Is that not the essence of a peace movement?

 

[Janz]

Good points, Dream. Mother Teresa once said: "I realized a long time ago that I had a Hilter inside of me."
Brother Wayne was a Catholic Monk. He died in 2004 but his vision for InterSpiritual Dialogue lives on.

"Every one of us is a mystic. We may or may not realize it, we may not even like it. But whether we know it or not, whether we accept it or not, mystical experience is always there, inviting us on a journey of ultimate discovery. We have been given the gift of life in this perplexing world to become who we ultimately are: creatures of boundless love, caring compassion, and wisdom. Existence is a summons to the eternal journey of the sage - the sage we all are, if only we could see."

Brother Wayne Teasdale, The Mystic Heart​

Am I being idealistic to hope that InterSpirtuality could unite humanity. It is not about eliminating the world's rich diversity of religious expression and it is not about rejecting that traditional individuality for a homogeneous superspirituality. It is also not an attempt to create a new form of spiritual culture rather, it is an attempt to make available to everyone all the forms the spiritual journey assumes. I think that spiritual interdependence among the faiths exists because an essential interconnectedness in being and reality exists. Do you agree with this?

 

[Eudaimonist]

I have recently been reading Wayne Teasdale's teachings about discovering a universal spirituality in the world's religions. The paths are many but the goals are the same: giving witness to the transforming presence of the Divine in human consciousness.

I personally don't believe in anything "Divine", so my perspective is a bit different. But perhaps that will make it interesting enough to share?

What is spirituality?

In its barest essence, an effort to achieve a improved understanding and experience of life.

What is being religious?

That will depend on the context. Generally, I would say that it is acting to have a relationship with what one perceives to be Divine.

What is nonviolence?

Undesirable if it means that one will not act in self-defence or the defence of loved ones.

What is your moral code?

I live by a virtue ethics in which rationality is the most basic virtue, and where eudaimonia (personal flourishing) is the ultimate goal of virtue. Other virtues are, for example, kindness, integrity, honesty, generosity, independence, justice, and proper pride.

How do you define ethics?

That branch of philosophical inquiry pertaining to questions of what one ought to do with one's life.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[citizenzen]

I shared that I have no faith in non-violence because the shadow side of humanity has not been transformed to see that we are all interconnected. If those that live in violence attack you do you believe in self-defense or would you surrender your life to evil?

While I have told this story before here, it fits perfectly with your post...

About 6 months ago I was walking downtown one late afternoon when a voice behind me said, "Excuse me." As I turned to address this person I felt a sudden sharp blow to my face. I instantly realized I'd been punched in the nose.

I had not been knocked out or knocked down and quickly got a few feet of separation between me and my attacker. It turned out to be a man, somewhere around my age (50ish) who was very angry and accused me of raping his wife. Luckily, he did not have a knife or a gun, and after a few more moments of yelling, he left on his bike.

During this attack I never generated any hatred or feelings of violence towards this man. I acted to avoid engagement and prevent further attack. I did not "surrender myself to evil" I sought to avoid it. Sometimes avoidance is the best form of self defense.

But the part of this episode that brought me the greatest sense of satisfaction was knowing that I didn't give in to violence, I didn't give in to hatred. I didn't indulge in the mental states that keep people mired in the cycle of violence. That is the way I want to live. That is the way I hope to change the world... one non-violent act at a time.

 

[nativeastral]

Great points; and yes Janz l agree with your concluding sentence in your last post. It cannot be otherwise as all our feet are grounded/connected to this one sphere.

And a lot of violence is the cause and effect of perceived and actual lack that can only be tackled 1. individually and 2. communally/collectively, viz mainly through the laws and acts made by governments worldwide [and the power still inherent in religious bodies cannot be ignored in setting standards that must comply with a pluralistic world, which is a reality]. Of course it is up to organised bodies of individuals to stand as lobbies to the inevitably more powerful corporation bodies and change status quos. Seems an insurmountable job dependent on an undying defining committment for a few but for the less
concerned there is always a dabble in a rally or cause to contribute to.

Non violence? well of course in an ideal world yes it has to be the way to go. And CZ, if your wife was punched [by a man for eg!] can you be sure you wouldn't retaliate physically?! I was in a violent situation hitch hiking in Spain which l made worse by letting him see a pen knife l got out just in case. The same with the gun culture, the probability of fatality is increased. But l can understand US citizens wanting to hang on to this right, seen as a symbol of freedom, to own, the property of a gun - considering the history of the U.S.

Can we have the virtues Mark states without getting rid of violent machines that kill? I'm with Ghandi

 

[Janz]

Who isn't with Ghandi but Ghandi also supported self-defense. From another thread where I posted these quotes.

I WOULD risk violence a thousand times rather than risk the emasculation of a whole race.

Violence the Choice
I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence... I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should, in a cowardly manner, become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor.
But I believe that nonviolence is infinitely superior to violence, forgiveness is more manly than punishment. Forgiveness adorns a soldier...But abstinence is forgiveness only when there is the power to punish; it is meaningless when it pretends to proceed from a helpless creature....
But I do not believe India to be helpless....I do not believe myself to be a helpless creature....Strength does not come from physical capacity. It comes from an indomitable will.
We do want to drive out the best in the man, but we do not want on that account to emasculate him. And in the process of finding his own status, the beast in him is bound now and again to put up his ugly appearance.
The world is not entirely governed by logic. Life itself involves some kind of violence and we have to choose the path of least violence.

Self-defence by Violence

I have been repeating over and over again that he who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honour by non-violently facing death may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden. He has no business to be the head of a family. He must either hide himself, or must rest content to live for ever in helplessness and be prepared to crawl like a worm at the bidding of a bully.

Self-defence....is the only honourable course where there is unreadiness for self-immolation.

Though violence is not lawful, when it is offered in self-defence or for the defence of the defenceless, it is an act of bravery far better than cowardly submission. The latter befits neither man nor woman. Under violence, there are many stages and varieties of bravery. Every man must judge this for himself. No other person can or has the right.


for more see: Between Cowardice and Violence

 

[citizenzen]

And CZ, if your wife was punched [by a man for eg!] can you be sure you wouldn't retaliate physically?!

Whatever gave you the idea that I WOULDN'T retaliate physically?!

I see a big difference between avoiding violence when I can and protecting my loved ones when there is no other choice.

 

[Janz]

@CZ..didn't you say that the man who accosted you was schizophrenic and because of budget cuts was living on the streets? Here is where I believe that we are miserably failing each other..I think more money needs to be channeled into these types of Social Services and yes, take the money from the military, please by all means. There is enough double dipping going on to make it work.

 

[citizenzen]

@CZ..didn't you say that the man who accosted you was schizophrenic and because of budget cuts was living on the streets?

I don't recall ever diagnosing his mental condition or speculating on the state budget's role in this encounter.

Here is where I believe that we are miserably failing each other..I think more money needs to be channeled into these types of Social Services and yes, take the money from the military, please by all means. There is enough double dipping going on to make it work.

Ahhh... we find ourselves in agreement. It has been a while. Excuse me if I linger.

 

[nativeastral]

Janz,
yes of course self defence is a natural instinct and am aware of Ghandi's views, that non violence is the way to go ideally and to practise that as far as able, not just under the circumstances but if possible above all circumstances yet in reality we all have this instinct which will come into play for protection under threat and danger, which macro-wise governments manifest almost knee jerk in their actions sometimes [which we as a society feel we have no control over which adds to vulnerability and fear factor].

Ghandi saying 'violence is unlawful' but sometimes necessary wasn't legalistic but Dharmic; The ethics as an 'ought that one does' we saw wasn't agreed upon by the cultures of Britain and India [the 'one' being mores developed]. We can choose as an individual 1 to go against accepted mores and ethics and risk alienation of some sort or another, or become a prophet and change things, like Ghandi did.

@ CZ l didn't think you wouldn't be a protective orang!

All I have been wanting to highlight is that whatever and however we may ideally and in actuality live in peace we are surrounded by other ideals and actuals that may be not be in accord with what we naturally, even universally, think what is good or right. Thats quite scary, as your experiences have attested Janz.

Yes the mystic would realize the hitler is in there just as the hero is etc but only as shadows which disappear in the light. Hence the need everywhere of manifesting and representing safely the shadow/death/violence in the art, deities and rituals of traditional societies, and also the more dangerous plutonian pervesities of porn and paeodophilia, mafia/triad 'ethics' and global gun/drug trades of both secular and religious societies.

Truth is we have an idea of how we will act in certain situations but until it happens it is only surmising but we cannot deny we have an input to the effect that any cause falls upon us inasmuch as we do in fact create our reality [how we see things]. The mystic will not see a division or separation so will not be negating but presumably encompassing all under/above whatever they conceive/feel/know as the Divine.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Hi everybody!

Another reason Gandhi's non-violence techniques were so effective is because the alternative would have been disastrous. Gandhi was well aware that rioting against the British would have left all of them dead. His non-volence had quite a different effect, and was successful because of this.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

What is your moral code? Is it based upon your faith or non-faith? How do you define ethics?

I'm confused by morality. Much of one's interaction with others comes down to status forcing. It is a largely symbolic, even ceremonial dance of words and postures with the goal of creating status by pushing up off of others. Within this game honesty has little value. I am most often unable to say what I really mean- even if I know what that is. I am expected to adopt postures which are alien to my core self. I am expected to want things that I don't actually want, pursue goals which have no real benefit to me, and toe lines of rhetoric which are essentially regurgitations of outside opinions that I have no way of personally verifying. For myself I find morality completely unnecessary. It is a game that I am forced to play in order to interact with others. It is a public self one dons like a powdered wig.

Ethics are different. Personal ethics are the way I fight back against the apathy and habitual bar lowering of the public world. Ethics are a way for me to jam it back up the world's ass by refusing to compromise. By refusing to accept second best. I think that this sort of resistance is all we really have. It's the only real movement we can effect in the world.

Chris

 

[Raksha]

I think that spiritual interdependence among the faiths exists because an essential interconnectedness in being and reality exists. Do you agree with this?

Janz,

I can't speak for anyone else, but I agree with it. I think it's very well stated too.

--Linda

 

[Raksha]

Ethics are different. Personal ethics are the way I fight back against the apathy and habitual bar lowering of the public world. Ethics are a way for me to jam it back up the world's ass by refusing to compromise. By refusing to accept second best. I think that this sort of resistance is all we really have. It's the only real movement we can effect in the world.

Chris,

Damn! That is so beautifully stated I can't imagine how anyone could improve on it. You just spoke for me too, except that I couldn't have said it as well. I'm not sure what the word for that attitude is, but I think it's honor.

Love and Light,
Linda

 

[citizenzen]

Much of one's interaction with others comes down to status forcing.

Yes, the social games we play seep into nearly every nook and cranny in our lives. But I do believe in morality and I know it guides me in my life. Its overriding pull is driven by the realization that all people are one, all beings are one, everything is one. So in my home, at work, on the highway or in the grocery store I seek to be patient, kind and wise.

For those with their jaws on the floor wondering why I don't bring some of that kindness to the discussions here, just give me another 10 to 20 years, and maybe I'll be mature then.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Hi everybody!

Another reason Gandhi's non-violence techniques were so effective is because the alternative would have been disastrous. Gandhi was well aware that rioting against the British would have left all of them dead. His non-volence had quite a different effect, and was successful because of this.

It seems to me that Gandhi's techniques only worked because they had an "honorable enemy" who was capable of being shamed for suppressing non-violent people. He took away all their excuses and the defensiveness that a violent response would have had.

I'm not so certain that such tactics would have worked against Nazi Germany or the Mongol hordes. I doubt they would have been shamed so easily.

Whatever the case, I'm all in favor of reserving violence as a last resort only. If peaceful solutions can be found, by all means use them.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[lunamoth]

I have recently been reading Wayne Teasdale's teachings about discovering a universal spirituality in the world's religions. The paths are many but the goals are the same: giving witness to the transforming presence of the Divine in human consciousness.

What is spirituality? What is being religious? What is nonviolence? I shared that I have no faith in non-violence because the shadow side of humanity has not been transformed to see that we are all interconnected. If those that live in violence attack you do you believe in self-defense or would you surrender your life to evil?

What is your moral code? Is it based upon your faith or non-faith? How do you define ethics?

Wow! That OP covers a lot of ground!

One definition of a mystic I've heard recently is that a mystic is one whose priority is their relationship with God. But, I also know non-theists who consider themselves mystics, so perhaps they would substitute some other kind of One/Unity/Consciousness/Enlightenment for God.

I have also heard reference to the 'golden thread' which connects mysticism across all religions. It is an interesting and appealing thought, and one I can get a lot of mileage out of. However, I also tend to think that mysticism is most fruitful in the context of a religion.

Spirituality is how we order our priorities (or better, our loves). It is the (hopefully intentional) choices that we make regarding our relationship with each other, God, and the world. A secular spirituality is of course completely possible.

Religion is the context in which we express our spirituality when we are intentional about it. It also has connotations of community, story and history that, I think, are important for elevating the ordinary to the extraordinary.

Morals and ethics help us live together in community. I do not see a distinction between the two, unless you think of morals as those learned behaviors we do not have to think about as much to know they are 'right.' Neither morals nor ethics is logical unless you accept that there is a Good that is higher than we are, even if we can't know exactly what that Good is. We just need to agree that there is something that is 'right' that we can legitimately hope to discern without physical power being the bottom line. Personally I think morals and ethics are learned behaviors not dictated by religion, but that evolve to better standards over time because the Good is a lure that pulls us in that direction.

The role of religious or theistic belief in ethics is that it gives us a grounds from which to value ethics/morality.

What was the question again?