I have noticed a progressive detachment from identification of 'myself' as a Christian - for many years I have said, anyway, I prefer to be Christian, not a Christian. I see this dissolving of identity in my writings, I feel it in serving others as a Chaplain. In some inexplicable, but loving and gentle way, I sense a fulfillment of the Christian faith given me as a child. I see this as fulfillment, or fruition, and I sense it odd how persons who claim to have taken the Christian path seriously for many years to still hug and defend their faith, and some feigning to be inclusive toward those not of it, when simply tolerant, not inclusive.
I no longer tend to grasp for some experience of Christ. Indeed, at times, I sense more a rising of Buddha-awareness - whatever to call it, I do not know - during serving others. Yet, to change one attachment for another, is not the way, either. And, of import is that to detach does not mean to reject, but it does mean to un-become at one experiential level, or embrace, of consciousness to be-come at another, more embracing. All levels of consciousness have an extent of embrace, or inclusion, and to that extent are, we could say, inclusive. For example, fundamentalist-radical anything is inclusive of its own way, and nothing else, regardless of how many other ways it tolerates. Also, liberalism can be as intolerant as fundamentalism. And, some of us have a counter-intolerance - when moving toward inclusiveness, we become intolerant of the intolerance we were before part of - so, now, we are intolerant of intolerance. Transcendence, spiritually, is of even intolerance of intolerance. For now, let us, however, keep the simple spectrum of movement of embrace, or lack thereof, from intolerant, to tolerant, to inclusive as workable for our purposes.
* * *
I said years ago, in speaking and in writing, that the purpose of Christianity is to transcend Christianity - that applies to all religious and spiritual paths, even social and political paths. As a Christian, not to allow this transcendence to happen within myself - for it goes from within to without -, is to treat both Christ and Christianity as a fetish, an idol, an excuse not to grow up and outward to embrace everyone in a pure, non-ideological Love without appellation - Pure Love, Pure Embrace. This embrace, or extent of inclusion, is not a feeling, though particular feelings are associated with it - more subtle than prior feelings. We have to have time to adjust to living with these more subtle feelings. Pure Love is present, but feelings of love may not be. For a time, this can be confusing. If I have given myself to this Love, why do I not feel it always? Why sometimes I cannot feel loving at all? I do not always feel loving, but to be in Love by Love, I do not have to feel loving, and often will not. Possibly, most of the time I will not. Sometimes, I do not even feel lovable. Feeling love and feeling loving and feeling lovable arises and ceases, arises and ceases, ... and one never knows for sure when the arising or the leaving. We learn to act from Love, not feelings of Love. We learn to act from being lovable. Feelings are present, good, feelings are not, okay, act from Love, anyway. Likewise, the intent to act from Love does not mean I will be always good or wise at loving. Sometimes, I may make the wrong choices, choices that do not turn out for the best. I am to act with the intent of Love, anyway. And, then, sometimes not acting is the action that arises from Love.
I have always, it seems, felt close to Love, but those who know me well could testify I have not always acted lovingly or demonstrated wisdom in expressing Love. I have acted, anyway, and Love has taught me Itself through the suffering and scars of my failures to live up to my aspirations inspired by Love Itself. Thankfully, Love transcends our success or not, in our estimation, or that of others, at loving.
* * *
I have never been a Christian, Buddhist, or anything - not I, only the story gathered around the innocence of I. I cherish all I have been given as part of the story, and the story is a human story, and sacred. The stories of my patients are holy, and my story, too. I love the Christ, but I do not love Christianity. I respect the Buddha, and Buddhism in varied forms has been influential in my life over many years, but do not love Buddhism.
A reason so much so-called spirituality is not very spiritual, is we cannot transcend that we have not embraced. Inclusivity has a remarkable way of being prepared for by deep devotion to exclusivity, commitment to limited ways of being prepare us to naturally transcend to more embracing ways of being. I feel, in some odd way, and unexplainable to those who have not this joy of transcendence, that ardent devotion to Christianity, which began as a child, was itself the ground for the potential and realization of transcendence. Possibly, persons who have transcended the religious or spiritual path given them, and traversing the rejection and isolation that can entail by those who see them as unfaithful, are those not unfaithful to the path, but most faithful for surrendering to its inherent potency of and intent of fulfillment beyond itself. Possibly, Jesus, for example, would rejoice to see one who loves him release emotional attachment to him. Maybe Buddha would congratulate a Buddhist who is weaned from ardent devotion to Buddha. To use Christ, as a point, only to deepen a devotion to Christ may not, after all, be the way of Christ.
This related to a recent happening in giving a short talk - really, a very short wisdom devotion, with practical meaning for everyone, of any faith or no faith - in which I quoted a student of the Zen Buddhist Teacher D. T. Suzuki. The person many would say is possibly the most devout and professional Christian in the room turned head downward, refusing to look at me, and seemed unable to do more than tolerate my brief, well-intentioned words. My intuitive sense was total dissociation from what I had to say, partly, I sensed, for I referred to Buddhism. I had heard this person talk enough prior, to sense the person a good person, conservative in both religious and political ways - tolerant, rigid. I say that, to say this, I sense sadness for persons who have opportunity and intelligence to surrender to transcendence of allegiances in religion and spirituality, but cannot, or will not, say "Yes" to a more open, kind embrace that would only make us all more compassionate, loving, and helpful beings on this Earth. Now, many persons have not been well-exposed to opportunities to process through such possibilities, as is the case with many patients I serve, and I rejoice with them in the faith they have, and meet them in Love where they are. For Love is present equally in all places, and all we need do is say "Yes" to It. Love only wills to meet Love, everywhere, in and through everyone. Love transcends the most exclusive and most inclusive of ways.
* * *
Truly, to the extent I detach from what is limiting, I am opened by and for Grace more. Grace leads to Grace, but only by consent. Grace consents to us, and we consent to Grace, Grace in Grace. If we wish to huddle together in our social, political, familial, religious, or spiritual think-a-like huts, Grace will let us. We will miss the blessing of a Love always present but out of our reach, for lacking our humbled "Yes." In consent to Love by Love, the fecund Emptiness is, amazingly, found to be boundless Love, the Nothingness, to be the fount of Life.
* * * CLOSING BLESSING * * *
Grace and Peace to All
The Sacred in Me bows to the Sacred in You
*Move your cursor over photos to see photographer and name of photo.
