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, former candidate for US President (2008 & 2012)
Founder
of The Independent Contractors’ Party
“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