A way of being
It is Friday the 15th of January, 2016. I began the day as usual: shaved, got dressed, made the bed, got coffee, greeted friends via text or email, and then worked out at the gym. While at the gym I listened to this week’s edition of the NPR program “On Being” with Krista Tippett as host. This morning the guest was Stephen Batchelor, author, teacher, and seeker. His phase de jour to describe this journey of his is secular Buddhism If one looks in the Oxford dictionary, one finds the word secular as originating from the Latin word, saecularis from saeculum – generation, age, period. The word secular evolved to mean: World, “of not subject to or bound by religious rule,” or denoting slow changes in the motion of the sun or planets, “Of a (fluctuation or trend) occurring or persisting over an indefinitely long period.”
Mr. Batchelor is exploring the use of the term secular to denote his attempt to focus on a way of being in the world . He says:
“What I’m looking for is a way to recover what I think is very much at the heart of the Buddhist tradition that I don’t think is “religious” in the sense of a formal religious set of beliefs and practices. But, once again, goes back to seeking a language to address these primary questions. And I feel, in many ways, the approach of what we might understand is the teaching of the historical Buddha is in some ways closer to Hellenistic philosophies, say, the skeptics, or the Epicureans, or the Stoics, who, again, we don’t think of as religious, but nonetheless these were communities of men and women who took these sorts of questions with utmost seriousness, and developed a way of thinking, a way of practicing, a way of living together communally that, to me, resonate very closely with the early Buddhist communities around Gautama.”
My friend, A, wrote in an email last night: “We kicked off our new safety training program today for our Safety Team and Top Management. It is an interesting training which has some leadership training and human performance topics in it. Nonetheless it got a bit controversial with some of our Top Managers as some are still in the mindset that errors are merely the fault of a person and that safety training is pie in the sky.”
My friend, A, is one of those individuals who is able to think in terms of systems and how the various parts of the system interact with each other. Many in the company for which he works, however, find it easier to think in terms of fault of a person as if that person functioned independently of the rest of the system It seems as if many of we humans, individually and collectively as countries, think in terms of individuals (persons or country) causing problems, issues, or situations rather than the historical interaction of the parts resulting in a certain outcome. Religion often attempts to explain the world or our role in the world in terms of the actions of humans in relationship to some divine being and/or first and ultimate cause and effect. On the one hand, one has a divine being who is the first cause and who has created the rest of the universe including some concept of a permanent “home” which we humans call by names such as heaven. While it is true that many religions, including Buddhism and Christianity, talk about the rewards or negative results of how we treat ourselves and others, they also posit concepts of the divine. It seems difficult for us to think of a state of “beingness” which does not need to posit a first cause or a divine being.
Mr. Batchelor, as he says, is more focused on the questions and on a way of being than he is about answers. This, as he says, is in the tradition of the “Hellenistic philosophies, say, the skeptics, or the Epicureans, or the Stoics . . .”
Today, more than ever before in history, many of we humans are attempting to meditate and to learn just to be present without all the chatter which is common for us. Yet, we continue to experience a need to posit a divine being and thus to think in terms of how we came to be as well as what happens after we die rather than experiencing just being present as a community. I suspect that the main purpose of religion is to be present in community. Yet, it seems as if we humans have a need to explain or justify our reason for being in community. It is not enough to just be present with others in a space enjoying each other.
Once we posit a religion which includes a divine being who is by definition more than human, we have to begin to think in terms of who is deserving or how we let go of the limitations of our humanness so as to be able to be present with the divine. Once we have a concept of a divine being and a set of rules, we need to keep track of the beliefs which distinguish this religion from other religions. This in turn leads to some organization which requires another set of rules which in turn .. In the end we have a new interactional system which then has to interact with other systems.
The alternative is what Mr. Batchelor and others are exploring – a prime state of being which just is and which is by “design" interactional. It does not purport to answer the questions of why but how – how can I be present with you in love and, thus, how I can enhance your journey, which then will enhance or maximize my journey which will maximize the journey of the rest of the universe(s).
The problem as Mr. Batchelor talks about is how we live and talk about how we live without using language which resorts to repositing a divine being or an eternal destination.
It is fun to explore this possibility. I am deeply indebted to such people as Mr. Batehelor, Ms. Tippet, and others for reopening this door.
Written January 15, 2016
It is Friday the 15th of January, 2016. I began the day as usual: shaved, got dressed, made the bed, got coffee, greeted friends via text or email, and then worked out at the gym. While at the gym I listened to this week’s edition of the NPR program “On Being” with Krista Tippett as host. This morning the guest was Stephen Batchelor, author, teacher, and seeker. His phase de jour to describe this journey of his is secular Buddhism If one looks in the Oxford dictionary, one finds the word secular as originating from the Latin word, saecularis from saeculum – generation, age, period. The word secular evolved to mean: World, “of not subject to or bound by religious rule,” or denoting slow changes in the motion of the sun or planets, “Of a (fluctuation or trend) occurring or persisting over an indefinitely long period.”
Mr. Batchelor is exploring the use of the term secular to denote his attempt to focus on a way of being in the world . He says:
“What I’m looking for is a way to recover what I think is very much at the heart of the Buddhist tradition that I don’t think is “religious” in the sense of a formal religious set of beliefs and practices. But, once again, goes back to seeking a language to address these primary questions. And I feel, in many ways, the approach of what we might understand is the teaching of the historical Buddha is in some ways closer to Hellenistic philosophies, say, the skeptics, or the Epicureans, or the Stoics, who, again, we don’t think of as religious, but nonetheless these were communities of men and women who took these sorts of questions with utmost seriousness, and developed a way of thinking, a way of practicing, a way of living together communally that, to me, resonate very closely with the early Buddhist communities around Gautama.”
My friend, A, wrote in an email last night: “We kicked off our new safety training program today for our Safety Team and Top Management. It is an interesting training which has some leadership training and human performance topics in it. Nonetheless it got a bit controversial with some of our Top Managers as some are still in the mindset that errors are merely the fault of a person and that safety training is pie in the sky.”
My friend, A, is one of those individuals who is able to think in terms of systems and how the various parts of the system interact with each other. Many in the company for which he works, however, find it easier to think in terms of fault of a person as if that person functioned independently of the rest of the system It seems as if many of we humans, individually and collectively as countries, think in terms of individuals (persons or country) causing problems, issues, or situations rather than the historical interaction of the parts resulting in a certain outcome. Religion often attempts to explain the world or our role in the world in terms of the actions of humans in relationship to some divine being and/or first and ultimate cause and effect. On the one hand, one has a divine being who is the first cause and who has created the rest of the universe including some concept of a permanent “home” which we humans call by names such as heaven. While it is true that many religions, including Buddhism and Christianity, talk about the rewards or negative results of how we treat ourselves and others, they also posit concepts of the divine. It seems difficult for us to think of a state of “beingness” which does not need to posit a first cause or a divine being.
Mr. Batchelor, as he says, is more focused on the questions and on a way of being than he is about answers. This, as he says, is in the tradition of the “Hellenistic philosophies, say, the skeptics, or the Epicureans, or the Stoics . . .”
Today, more than ever before in history, many of we humans are attempting to meditate and to learn just to be present without all the chatter which is common for us. Yet, we continue to experience a need to posit a divine being and thus to think in terms of how we came to be as well as what happens after we die rather than experiencing just being present as a community. I suspect that the main purpose of religion is to be present in community. Yet, it seems as if we humans have a need to explain or justify our reason for being in community. It is not enough to just be present with others in a space enjoying each other.
Once we posit a religion which includes a divine being who is by definition more than human, we have to begin to think in terms of who is deserving or how we let go of the limitations of our humanness so as to be able to be present with the divine. Once we have a concept of a divine being and a set of rules, we need to keep track of the beliefs which distinguish this religion from other religions. This in turn leads to some organization which requires another set of rules which in turn .. In the end we have a new interactional system which then has to interact with other systems.
The alternative is what Mr. Batchelor and others are exploring – a prime state of being which just is and which is by “design" interactional. It does not purport to answer the questions of why but how – how can I be present with you in love and, thus, how I can enhance your journey, which then will enhance or maximize my journey which will maximize the journey of the rest of the universe(s).
The problem as Mr. Batchelor talks about is how we live and talk about how we live without using language which resorts to repositing a divine being or an eternal destination.
It is fun to explore this possibility. I am deeply indebted to such people as Mr. Batehelor, Ms. Tippet, and others for reopening this door.
Written January 15, 2016
RSS Feed