Destroying Idols

Many fundamentalist christians are vehemently, rabidly anti-catholic. Their main criticism is usually idol worship. After all catholic churches have all those statues. Statues are idols, right? Guilty as charged. Of course this shows a complete misunderstanding of the role of image in catholic theology. But something more subtle is going on in the critics' own backyard. Naturally critics don't like to look at their own backyard. They much prefer pointing out the flaws of others.

The commandment against idol worship is simple when it is restricted to physical images. But of course this is the most restrictive application of the commandment. By far the most dangerous idols are those of the imagination, the mental concepts we have of God that stand between us and the 'real' experience of God. When we think we know God, that He in some way 'belongs' to us, that he is understandable or understood, we cling to our conceptions of God.

This isn't faith at all, but a poor substitute which is more about intellectual knowing than trusting. As I have written before, it is the difference between clinging to wreckage in the water and learning to swim. Christian theologians have sounded this warning through the ages. They talk about the via negativa, the approach to God which depends on saying what God is not.

Buddhists have an interesting teaching in this regard. It is encapsulated in the saying: ' If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him'. The idea being that any Buddha you meet is a concept that leads away from realization of the self. We cling to concepts. Real mysticism is letting go.

Emergent Unity

Let's start with an atom. An atom has particular properties and characteristics. If we combine 2 atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen we get a molecule of water. The molecule has different properties from the atoms that make it up. In large numbers, water molecules have a whole host of properties that make thinking of 'water' a valuable, real concept.

Next the cell. A number of complex interacting molecules is what a cell is. But a cell is 'alive', an emergent property that is not shared by its molecules. Put cells together and you organs and systems. Put those together and you have an organism like us. We have sentience and subjective experience, properties miles away from our constituent molecules.

Why should the enfolding of complexity end there? If we consider the super structure of the whole cosmos perhaps it has undreamt of capabilities and properties. Mystics throughout the ages have experienced ecstatic states where they experience the unity of all things. This is the realm of the sacred, the divine. This is might be what we call God.

Buddhism 101

I've been reading a very interesting book: 'The Naked Buddha' by the Venerable Adrienne Howley, an Australian Buddhist nun. In it she tries to make the basic teachings of Buddhism plain and simple, removing from them the cultural accretions that have gathered around them over the years. I am inspired by this book. I am also reminded of how little headway I have made on my own Buddhist journey.

I'd like to summarize some of the things she says together with my own contemplations. Hopefully this will help some people to understand what Buddhism is to me. I believe it will also help me to clarify my own thinking on these subjects.

To begin with let's be clear on the Buddhist approach to dogma. Nothing should be believed on the basis of the authority of the teacher or scripture. The Buddha plainly asks us to try these things and keep those that work.

Buddhism rests on 3 ideas. You and I will certainly grapple with each of them.

1. Suffering. Everybody suffers. All living things suffer. Not just pain, but dissatisfaction, illness, death. Suffering is the basic problem of existence. Is it possible to reduce suffering? Buddhism tries to answer that question.

2. Impermanence. Things arise and fade away. Everything is in a state of flux, including you and I. It seems as if nothing lasts forever. Whatever it is, this too shall pass.

3. No-self. This is a tough one. Is there really a 'you' there? Is there an essential unchanging essence of 'you'? If you examine this one ruthlessly, you will see that the phenomena you call yourself is really the result of a constellation of physical, emotional and psychological factors, always changing and dependent on outside forces. We hate to give up the idea of a permanent self. No matter, you can just think about that one. Let it sit. Dwell on it from time to time. But above all be honest with yourself and follow your conclusions wherever they take with courage.