Back at home

It is funny and exciting where this whirl of events called life leads us...
This morning I decided to pick up some theological reading, Introduction to Christianity by Joey Ratzinger, to start my day off with some profundity. I began with some hesitation, or actually before I even began reading I started to doubt my selection. When one has in their grasp, oh say twelve books, that one has begun, perhaps read a chapter or two, and then set down for that distant "later" of attention and reflection... well, it can be tough to step back into that shadow of wisdom.

Anyway, I picked this vintage Theology 101 required text up on page 68 or so and what would you know, I entered into a discussion on the single most personally important topic of the last couple years of my life: faith and trust.
Ratzinger was talking about three basic movements in the history of human thinking: the earlier period of contemplation of the eternal, the brief historical period where metaphysical truth became manifest in "facts" and events from the past, to the contemporary (I guess this is called modernity) period of "techne" or as Ratzinger says "makeability". According to Ratzinger it is a mistake to adopt wholesale any one of these positions (duh), however in laying all three out he makes some interesting observations. For one, the brief historical period where myth became meaning allowed Christian belief a short-lived victory: finally the "grand truth" of Christianity and the adventure of Jesus was brought down from el cielo, the heavens, and put in its proper context in the physical life of our planet. Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately as we'll see in a moment, the epoch of history was quickly overtaken by the time of "techne" where woman became less concerned with what is, and more and more keen on exploring and experimenting with what could be. [Hence, bombs, buildings, medicine, and dog food.] SO, we land in a time when recollection is all the more necessary: we must remember the dual facts of is-ness, the glory of what abides in this world, and also potentiality and what we can make of the world. We will not be mere custodians of the past, wiping dust off the relics and realities of old and longing for a story of our own; nor should we be merely future-oriented, trudging forward ever forward without learning the language of self, the art of reflection, and the joy of being.

Well, that's my take on it anyway. Getting back to the trust and faith stuff, Ratzinger said this statement, which I opine to be a bodaciously potent idea: (with regard to Christian belief) "Essentially, it is entrusting oneself to that which has not been made by oneself and never could be made and which precisely in this way supports and makes possible all our making" (p. 70).
Ok, way to bring together 3 movements in the history of thought with one existential and spiritually relevant conception of trust.
What most caught my eye were the words "not been made by oneself". Belief is trusting that which has not been made by oneself. I recall a passage or 1392 from the Dalai Lama's "How to Practice", and Bhante Gunaratana's "Mindfulness in Plain English". A lot of the writings I have reviewed containing Buddhist content seem to speak a lot about an idea of selflessness which extends beyond the commonplace idea of being kind or generous. What amazed me first about Buddhist ideas is their profoundly delicate manner of critiquing down into the human consciousness to lift out facts of celestial significance. Here, in relation to Ratzinger's text on belief, I think we have an example of just that phenomenon of immersion-up understanding.

According to the Dalai Lama, "The fundamental cause of suffering is ignorance- the mistaken apprehension that living beings and objects inherently exist" (p. 138). Now aside from the whole suffering deal in Buddhism - ok we cannot merely say "aside from" that deal, because it happens to be, as far as I can tell, pretty central. And I suppose I believe that one who rids them"self" of suffering must necessarily be acting to remove suffering from all "selves", and more pertinently, from the negative energy of hate in the world, but... This is too much to take on right now.
Instead, I'll just reiterate the part about the mistaken apprehension that living beings and objects inherently exist.
That is, I exist, and have every right to say such silly things as "why yes, I exist". However, the sub- or unconscious assumptions that often run in parallel with such identity affirmation are in fact false (so says senor Dalai Lama). For instance, I exist in respect to my immediate experience of consciousness in the world. However, the idea of an I, of me, of an Alex that is a separate or sealed-off being in the world is false. "I" refers neither to my mind, nor to my body, nor to some other "higher" faculty of spirit or consciousness; rather, "I" is a miraculous conception of the mind which allows me to make some sense of the small slice of [Yahweh] which I've been given to tend.
Ah-hah! So "I" puts me in contact with the slice of being which I, quite confusingly at present, inhabit. Yet it does not represent any real definition of character or being. Rather "I" is a confluence of events whose continuance and history is only artificially cut-off from all other beings when I say "I am Alex" as opposed to the rest of the world. Furthermore, and here's the kicker and the meaning of inherent existence brought to light: I did not make myself. I did not set my'self' up in this world. haha, "I" am just here!
And what better way to live than to celebrate this presence of an "I" which I have not created, which simply abides, and to recognize its intimate connection with all that is possible. And here we loop around to Ratzinger: If I entrust myself, as Ratzinger says, to "that which has not been made by oneself", I am merely standing in what the Dalai Lama might call a state of enlightenment. And furthermore, if I recognize the connection of that which is with the process of making that which will be... Well, then I think I've understood a basic definition of karma as action. That is to say, actions have consequences.

Now if you are still reading this, I'll give you the part I like best: Ratzinger gives me a Christian understanding of faith. An understanding based in the metaphors of God and Jesus. And he even plunges deep into the "what the heck does this have to do with life on earth?" question by citing real experiences and linguistic developments in society and the biblical tradition. That is, he shows that what the Hebrew text wants to say about faith is just what the Buddhists as far as I can tell want to say about faith, and is just what Ratzinger ends up summarizing about faith, and that which all human beings can comprehend without knowing: "Faith is trusting God, the all, the root of all".
AND the Dalai Lama tells me what this means existentially (and we all know how important the existential questions are to Alex). He says something like: "reflection will show us how flawed and commonplace a belief in one's inherent existence really is. "I" do not exist in the way "I" believe; rather I use this identity Alex to make sense of the slice of God I have been given- mind, conciousness, feeling- which only appears to be cut-off from the rest. I use this identity Alex to take care of and unite with the broader "I" in others- feelings, relation, presence. Therefore, I am in fact my relationships, not "Alex" the one of many. I am Alex in relationship with all beings, as an active organ of the Being that some call God.

Hence, a quote my wise friend Ariel shared with me from Santa Teresa de Avila:

Christ has no body now but yours
No hands, no feet on earth but yours
Yours are the eyes through which He looks compassion on this world
Christ has no body now on earth but yours

Oh, I equivocated. This is my favorite part:
A simple difference in approach to Being I've noticed: Alicia, for instance, glories in being. She enjoys it and that is not to say she is passive in it; rather she is more than anyone I know in the flow of being, seeking to remain faithful to its interdependence and capacity for connection, and joying in the warmth this nest of being offers, even when things are cold.
I, on the other hand, "Alex", want to understand more than anything. I have always wanted to understand, and it has often lead me to despair. For I have not balanced well always the need to simply stand sometimes. Stand with others in this Being, let the spontaneous connections play and jubilate, and don't bother too much to reign it all in for inspection. This, if you follow me, is what I have been doing in Suchitoto, El Salvador, and what I have been learning to do all my life. I have been letting my true identity out to play. In yoga classes, in conversations with friendly strangers and strangely frienders, and in quiet moments of prayer in which I feel God holding all. Trusting this holding is the belief I think Ratzinger speaks of, as opposed to understanding it necessarily, or even ignoring it and focusing instead on what can be done with all this stuff.

That said, I'm going to go play. If at any point I gave the impression that I know what I am talking about, haha, that is because I was trying to give that impression. Have a great day, peace!