Introduction
Today I’m going to begin by commenting on material I encountered on the Unity Church website at http://www.unity.org. I don’t have any particular interest in Unity Church, but I noticed that some of their material triggered a response deep within me. So I want to share some of that with you.
Then I'll make some comments under these headings:
- You don't have to find a congregation in order to worship.
- What are your practices?
Unity Church
From the Unity Church website:
“The five basic ideas that make up the Unity belief system are:”
[NOTE: My comments are indented and follow each numbered point taken from that website.]
1. God is the source and creator of all. There is no other enduring power. God is good and present everywhere.
But what is God? For instance, to say Michelangelo was the source and creator of great works of art gives us no idea of what kind of person he was, but instead only gives us an inferential means of knowing anything at all about this man. Quite often in the art world, we find artists to be eccentrics who are really marginal (if not outright detestable) human beings who had managed, through their art, to put their best foot forward.
God can't be "present everywhere," for if He were, He'd have to be "present" in evil. That wouldn't be possible if God were always good.
Then there's the issue of the Creation itself. Since God was perfect, He should have let well enough alone and not created anything. Since He was the only thing in the universe and in fact was the universe prior to the Creation, then the introduction of created things introduced imperfection and things that were not God into that universe. Can an entity responsible for introducing imperfection be considered perfect after that?
During one of the few times I presented publicly, I asked my audience what they considered to be the ultimate power of God?" One man responded quickly though predictably, "The ability to create other Gods entirely equal to Himself." I used to give that answer myself until I thought of something even more radical. Since the ability to create (or more precisely, the ability to create something from nothing) is considered a uniquely Godly power, I offered its opposite: "Then so must be the ability to Dis-Create - that is, to turn something into nothing." A more radical part follows: "Wouldn't it be amazing if God could Dis-Create Himself, so that the Universe would be godless? And even more amazing if, after Dis-Creating Himself, Re-Created Himself as He was before? And even still more amazing if He Created, Dis-Created, and Re-Created Himself on a routine basis?"
My only purpose in asking such questions is to whet the appetites of others so they stop and think about what God is. For God isn't what the local Muslim imam or country preacher says He is, even if these (usually) men try to quote scripture to back them up. God is what you say He is or at least He is in a functional and applied way - that is the truth of the matter.
2. We are spiritual beings, created in God’s image. The spirit of God lives within each person; therefore, all people are inherently good.
Instead, I would say, "We are beings who have spiritual potential but it's not necessary for God to exist for this to be so." We know we exist; we can't be as sure that God does. In second place to the knowledge of our own existence, we know other people exist. We can learn an awful lot by trying to connect to the existences of those entities whose existences are universally accepted. Trying to connect to other entities not knowable as we know ourselves and our fellow humans is fine, but shouldn't stand in the place of knowledge of ourselves and human others.
If, however, it is true that "the spirit of God lives within each person," then it doesn't become necessary to seek a direct and personal connection to an external entity of Whom direct knowledge is (to say the least) limited to only a precious few. If we can connect to "the spirit of God [that] lives within each person [or, more precisely, within each created being]," that should be sufficient.
3. We create our life experiences through our way of thinking.
Our way of thinking is important but far more important is how we act. Quite often, we are pulled in different directions by conflicting thoughts and desires even while in the midst of taking action that favors one of those conflicting thoughts. These conflicts can be difficult to overcome as we seek serenity, but after all is said and done, no matter what we think, we end up doing something (or other). And even if we are massively indecisive and do nothing at all, well...doing nothing is a form of taking action, though it be a non-action. And all actions (active or passive) have consequences some call karma.
4. There is power in affirmative prayer, which we believe increases our connection to God.
Maybe we should try harder to put God first, care only about Him, and let the chips fall where they will, firm in the faith that however those chips fall is the will of God. It's okay to want things or to want one's life to have certain accomplishments or outcomes. But it's also okay if none of our desires are fulfilled if that be the will of God.
5.Knowledge of these spiritual principles is not enough. We must live them.
True enough - action must be taken. However, after action is taken based on "knowledge of these spiritual principles," sometimes the unexpected results of our actions causes us to rethink either our knowledge of these principles, the principles themselves, or both.
The Nature of Humankind
[Again, my comments are indented and follow each of the numbered points taken from the Unity website.]
1) We are each individual, eternal expressions of God.
Does "eternal" mean that we've always existed (as in having had past lives) or only that after we're born into this one-and-only life, we exist eternally from that point on as a soul either ending up being damned or saved based on the consequences of our one life as lived on this planet at this time?
2) Our essential nature is divine and therefore inherently good.
Some hold the view that within each of us is the capacity for great good and great evil (the Dr. Jekyll vs. Mr. Hyde view) or for occasional good and evil depending on our circumstances, mood, etc. The purpose of Buddhist practice is to reach a place called the Stage of Non-Regression (or not backsliding). Each disciple knew he had been born into this world with a heavy load of defilement due to sinful actions in past lives. But each one practiced meditation, compassion, and almsgiving hoping to erase the pending onslaught of karmic retribution which was to be the result of his sins catching up to him. This view is called Lessening Karmic Retribution.
To say we have only one essential nature seems more hopeful than accurate; accuracy perhaps lying in this: We are a composite of natures, some more dominant in particular individuals than in others.
3) Our purpose is to express our divine potential as realized and demonstrated by Jesus and other master teachers.
I take "divine potential" to mean "Buddha nature" or the capacity to become completely and exclusively good. A lot of my fellow Buddhists don't fully appreciate exactly what a Buddha is, but I urge them to read the Lotus Sutra which gives a description of the supernatural powers of such an accomplished one. One such power: The ability to generate an infinite number of (for lack of a better word) clones of ourselves so we could be simultaneously present anywhere in the universe where people were eager to hear the teachings. The acquisition of this ability (its cause) is born of the desire of the disciple to save all living beings; that is, it is born of great compassion.
I got into an argument at one local Buddhist meeting (of the Soka Gakkai International - USA) when I spoke of working toward attaining Buddhahood. I was informed that we're already Buddhas (huh?) and that Enlightenment isn't a destination but an ongoing journey during which we manifest our Buddhahood in our daily lives. I simply reminded them that the Lotus Sutra (which they claim to follow) speaks constantly of when certain individuals were predicted to become the next Buddha by a currently living Buddha.
I like the reference above to "other master teachers." Even the Buddha taught that not everyone would benefit from his teaching but could benefit from others. He didn't insist that he was the one and only possible path to salvation/Buddhahood. He went even further on his deathbed by telling his disciples, "Don't follow persons, follow the Law."
4) The more we awaken to our divine nature, the more fully God expresses in and through our lives.
Another word for Buddha is "A Fully-Awakened One." What is called "God," I simply think of as a universal though impersonal Law. A lot of people get stuck (due to our ingrained patriarchal, male-dominated history) on needing to believe in God as a human-shaped father figure. Due to my belief in the ability of teachers to shapeshift, I believe there are enlightened entities who show themselves as human-shaped father figures (alleged to be gods) if that is what is required to move particular individuals closer to perfection of understanding and of being.
“Our Teachings” - All numbered points are from the Unity site, followed by my indented comments.
1) Heaven is not a place, but a state of consciousness; we create our own heaven and hell here and now.
We also create our own heaven and hell that we'll live in after our death and into our next lives - all based on actions taken in this life and prior lives.
2) We all have an innate capacity to know God through direct experience.
Perhaps we have this "innate capacity," but I'm hard put to imagine there could be more than (maybe) ten people on the entire planet who have ever spoken to God and had Him speak back - which is what I would take "direct experience" to mean. But even in the case of ordinary mortals who have had ample opportunities to interact with others (that is, to "directly experience" them), how many times have we heard them later exclaim, "I thought I knew this person - I had no idea he was capable of doing something so horrible."
3) The “Christ” is that part of God that is in every person. There is a spark of divinity within all people, just as there was in Jesus.
Then what is the difference (if any) between Jesus and other people? Since we all have that spark of divinity within, then it must be possible for a common mortal to become the equal of Jesus. But that runs into the claim that Jesus was divine - some even saying that He is God or at least a co-equal part aka the Trinity.
4) Prayer works.
I would instead say, "Prayer can be effective but its results aren't always guaranteed or predictable." I knew a heavy smoker who developed oral cancer. He was a top Chicago-area Buddhist lay leader. So he decided to chant four hours per day to overcome his cancer. After all, there were known instances of others who had done exactly that. But in his case, he died anyway. Some might say this is proof that chanting doesn't always work. But I would add the word "yet." I am confident that his chanting served to erase a sizable portion of his bad karma, but it wasn't enough to erase the part that caused him to get cancer in the first place. Maybe his death from cancer was not overcomeable with the amount of practice he had already invested. Maybe cancer was a teacher he had to have in order to feel the pain necessary to become more compassionate toward the sick.
Of course, what I don't like about such a view is it lacks falsifiability. If "prayer works," then it must work all the time, though it must be asked "how much prayer and how sincerely must it be offered?" If no test can be proposed the failure of which would disprove "prayer (or chanting) works," then to continue to believe that "prayer works" becomes only a matter of belief which in the face of failure is explained away rather than ending up being seen as proving prayer doesn't work.
5) We are here to set a positive example and be a role model for others.
We can do this without having any religion or spirituality at all.
6) We are here to make the world a better place.
Even an atheist could embrace that view, while knowing that nothing happens by itself and a better world is preferable - that is, he knows he has to work toward this goal. I guess the question becomes, "How much effort and of what kind do I want to personally expend?" If a person were told that committing 90% of his waking moments to working in a food pantry would improve the world by .00000001%, he'd have to ask himself, "Is it worth it?"
Jesus
"We see Jesus as a master teacher of universal truths and as our Way Shower" - Unity website.
Does Unity see Jesus as having eternally co-existed with God and as God having manifested Himself in human form - as in the Trinity? Does Unity say anything about Jesus being the sole path to eternal salvation?
I have heard the claim that Jesus died for our sins and that by accepting Jesus, one was guaranteed heaven (barring backsliding, of course). I've always had a problem with my salvation being dependent on what someone else did, having put it this way:
"Saying that someone died for my sins, is like saying, Let me make love to your wife instead of you doing so; it will be as if you made love to her."
I take responsibility for my own actions by realizing I died for my own sins. But I do realize that having good teachers can help me to advance spiritually. Maybe I could save myself by myself, but it would be hard to do. Besides, it must be remembered that we are never by ourselves, even if we can't see the individual spirit teachers that surround us and are dedicated to us.
The Bible:
"Unity founders Charles and Myrtle Fillmore studied the Bible... The Bible continues to be a valuable spiritual resource for us." - Unity website.
Would Unity be tolerant of those who read the Bible but interpreted in ways other than the Fillmores’? What about the 300 gospels mentioned below? Are they considered part of the Bible embraced by Unity?
Over three hundred other gospels were ordered to be destroyed [by the Council of Nicea, which was dominated by the supporters of St. Paul] - including all Gospels written in Hebrew. An edict was issued stating that anyone found in possession of an unauthorized gospel would be put to death.
:UNQUOTE.
I'd like to address this claim from the Unity Website:
Affirmative prayer is the same method of prayer Jesus taught when he said, “So I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours” (Mark 11:24).
I'd be more comfortable with this change: "...believe that you will receive it." The actual quote urges us to be self-deceiving. And worse, if someone should ask us if got that thing we'd prayed for yet. If we were to answer "I have already received it" but in fact had not, then we'd be guilty of lying. I've always been bothered by the lack of this commandment within the Abrahamic traditions and the Buddhist ones: "Thou shalt not lie."
You don't have to find a congregation
in order to worship.
I myself was part of a Buddhist congregation until I was kicked out for being a (for lack of a better word) heretic. I miss a lot of the people and the warmth of fellowship offered by most of them. But it didn't take me long to treasure my new status as a solitary practitioner. I realized that, if it's traditional friendship that I want, I would have to take action toward gaining that. However, that's complicated by the fact that I love everybody but don't attach to any one person or group of persons exclusively. It can rightly be claimed that the Buddha didn't have any friends, though his disciples would have died for him - just as he would have died for them. I suspect the same could be said of Jesus.
I enjoy the give-and-take of sharing personal experiences with others, but I am careful to keep in mind that that kind of relationship can serve to limit our vision as well as to expand it.
What are your practices?
I did some rethinking about something I learned decades ago, which was this: In ancient India, whenever two wandering monks would happen to cross paths, they had a universal greeting: "Who is your teacher and what are your practices?"
What I failed to appreciate until now is the meaning of "what are your practices?" I assumed the answer would be a simple statement of the practices taught by one's teacher. But instead, what is being asked is "What are your practices?" That is, these two monks were inviting each other (notably, out of earshot of both teachers and fellow congregants) to share notes on what each of them personally practiced.
In my case, I start my answer with, "My teacher is Shakyamuni Buddha whom I (unlike any other Buddhist on the planet) believe to still be alive today, is always close by even though I don't see him, and is trying to teach me by nudging me in certain directions so I learn by experience rather than words. After all, at a certain point, words fail and experience must become the teacher." This bothered my congregation because they accept Nichiren of Japan (born 1222 AD) as their teacher, but aren't bothered at all by the fact that Nichiren never claimed to be a Buddha but instead claimed to be a disciple of Shakyamuni Buddha.
As for my practices, I simply pointed out what Nichiren himself acknowledged - that the Lotus Sutra is the highest of the Buddha's teachings (as claimed by Shakyamuni himself), and is in fact the highest teaching of all Buddhas in the universe (though not all Buddhist schools accept that claim). And in that Sutra, we are urged toward the highest practice, which is "to read, recite, and ponder the Lotus Sutra."
The hardest part for my fellows to accept was my rejection of the primary importance of chanting "Nam myoho renge kyo." Since that practice isn't even mentioned in the Lotus Sutra, how can that chant be considered so important? The irony, of course, is that I probably wouldn't have even encountered the Lotus Sutra or been attracted to it unless I had chanted Nam Myoho Renge Kyo. So, even though the group I joined was (as it turned out) fatally flawed, I owe them a debt of gratitude for having influenced my thinking. Whenever a bad person or group can influence in an unintended but good way, that is called having a "poisoned drum" relationship with that person.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle, just another member of the Virtual Samgha of the Lotus
“Maybe Kurt Vonnegut's son summed it up best (and here I paraphrase): ‘We are here to help each other get through “this thing,” whatever “this thing” turns out to be.’”
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment