Monakhos

The problem with life as a point is that it seems small; too small to accurately describe existence. Let us continue with the metaphor; however, and see what happens with a little more clarification.

Life is a point. Each being’s existence is defined inside one point. There is nothing else. At the same time, interaction does occur between these points. How does this interaction take place, and how does it affect the point?

It is clear that one being can affect another being. For example, I just punched (lightly of course), my co-worker. My point reached out and touched his point. The two points are now joined. There are still two points, but the two points are connected.

Consider how many times this happens every day, every second. Murmuring voices in the background, a conversation with a friend, a car driving beside you. Every second of every day points are reaching out and connecting to other points. Some connections are thick and strong, others are thin and light.

Pratitya samutpada is the teaching of dependent (sometimes translated as interdependent) arising.
All beings are connected in a web of cause and effect. Nothing is solitary. Everything is connected.

Consider that this has been happening since the beginning of everything. One point reached out and touched another point. The two points, while still distinct, became related by that link; each retained a part of the other. For all eternity, the two will be connected. The two are not one for they are still two points. However, the two cannot exist alone, for they are inseparably connected to one another. From this point on, there is no existence apart from the whole.

As this pattern continues, points become less distinct. Think of ink on paper. At first there are a few lone inkblots. Then, as more ink falls to the page, blots merge and expand. There are no individual blots only one large blot. There is no large blot, only individual inkblots overlapping.

For the first time I can remember, I actually got an interesting fortune in a fortune cookie.

Teachers open the door, but you must enter by yourself.

I have been waiting for something inspiring to blog about, and today I have found it. The Dalai Lama honoured Archbishop Tutu in a ceremony today, offering him a Tibetan butter lamp. When it came time for Tutu to speak he said this:

“I give great thanks to God that he has created a Dalai Lama,” he said. “Do you really think, as some have argued, that God will be saying: ‘You know, that guy, the Dalai Lama, is not bad. What a pity he’s not a Christian’?”

A preacher with the timing of a stand-up comic, the archbishop continued: “I don’t think that is the case - because, you see, God is not a Christian.”

Source: BBC News | Europe

How beautiful and true this is. I wonder how concerned God is actually with things such as to what religion one belongs. I don’t know for sure, but I would venture to guess that he is much more concerned with where your heart is and what your relationship to him is like rather than the fact that you ascribe to a certain religious tradition.

This is the way I have already been leaning lately, and it is wonderful to hear someone as distinguished as Archbishop Tutu say the same.

As always, let me know what you think!

I found a great podcast called Zencast. They post once a week and have a lot of nice soothing talks. Right now, they are reading the Dhammapada about four chapters at a time. It is such a soothing experience to hear the words as I work. If you have iTunes, just go to Music Store -> Podcasts -> Search. Go to the “Religion & Spirituality” section and search for “Zencast” or just scroll down to the Zs. If you don’t have iTunes, you can download the mp3 file directly from Zencast’s site.
I have only listened to a few minutes of one podcast, but it has already been a blessing to me.

In an article called “The Lotus and the Cross”, my friend Jon explores Buddhist and Christian parallels. It is a really great article, and I would check it out if I were you. In it, he states that salvation in Christianity is paralleled to enlightenment/awakening in Buddhism. It just so happens that I have been thinking about this a lot recently, and wanted to see what other people thought about this idea.

I can see this in some ways, but I am not sure I totally agree with this. In my mind, I think enlightenment could better be compared to sanctification, the process of becoming holy. Some would argue that when a person is “saved” he or she is also santified instantly. While this is true in some regards, and the saved individual is holy from that point on in God’s eyes, it makes sense to say that, as we are still imperfect and make mistakes we are not truly sanctified at that point.

The concept of enlightenment can furthur explain this. Everyone has the seed of enlightenment in them, but not everyone realizes it. Even those that realize that they do have the seed and cultivate it, still do not fully understand it. When a person fully realizes his or her enlightenment and embraces it fully, they are one with the Buddha inside him or her. When a person is completely sanctified, he or she become s one with the Holy Spirit (God) inside of him or her.

The comparison seems to be accurate furthur still when comparing the two religions historically. In Buddhism, there has been one Buddha in this age. He was the only one who was completely awakened and enlightened. Similarly, in Christianity, Jesus Christ was the only sanctified (some may argue that he was not really sanctified since he was always completely holy, but I do not really care to go into a debate on that topic today) human in this age. There have been many who have been saved, but only one that has been sanctified. There have been many who have realized that they are enlightened, but only one that has been fully enlightened.

I am still thinking this through and would love to hear what other people have to say. Please leave a comment and let me know your take on the topic!