On Blending of East and West

Dear Daddy,


I have really been enjoying your letters...great sermon on What do You Really Want? Good question to ask repeatedly and honestly.


If I have indicated in some way that I have become a Buddhist follower or expert of any kind, please excuse me...I am not. I have run onto some valid concepts etc. to which he seems to have ascribed, and also that I find very much in line with Jesus teachings. The semantics and perspective starting point seems to be the major differences. Like you said, we westerners have a difficult time understanding the eastern way of thinking, and I really believe that semantics has been a lot of the problem...how we interpret the words and their meaning. Some of the material that I have been studying, however, takes references from many different sources including Buddha, Jesus, and a lot from Paul. Other favorite sources seem to be the Rig Veda, the Bhagavad Gita, and the Stanzas of Dzyan, as well as the Yoga Sutras of Pantajali, the Kabbalah, and the I Ching.(One wonders how much and what of this material Jesus had access to and studied.) It seems to me that a study of the similarities instead of the differences must be of great value. Surely the idea that limiting God to some "particular form" is counter-indicative of all that we believe He is. Surely if we believe He has been "actively seeking" to communicate with us, the thread of truth could be found all the different religions commonalties. So many times it seems to me that the same idea has been stated, but just in the context of the area and time that it was revealed. It's really kind of funny how often we seem to try to create God in our own image instead of really attempting to perceive what it means the other way around. But here we are back to the discussion where all our perceptions are being colored by our emotions, past experience, and other thoughtforms.


I found it interesting when you made reference to the idea of the perception of our "inner being" as "only energy", and that the idea that "all we are is only energy in motion" is a limiting one. "Energy" has so many differentiations, connotations, and forms to me. You might as well say that all we are is "only spirit". It seems to me that spirit and energy have a lot in common. Both are mysterious, invisible, powerful, and much closer to our "definition" of God than anything else that I can think of. (and that there is a lot we don't understand about either one) Certainly there is an element of energy and mystery in Jesus' relationship to God. It also seems to make some sense that if we do believe that we are created in God's image (and I do), that spirit and energy would be some of the common factors that we might be able to look at for some clues about this relationship and getting on with this "righteousness" experience. In other words, What is God like in terms of energy and spirit, and how can I be a microcosmic reflection of that? How can I communicate with Him on those terms?


One of the eastern concepts that seems to cause a problem is the idea of the "impersonal Source" of which you spoke. I think a lot of our problem has more to do with the way "It" is defined. One of the customary eastern formulas for getting to a "definition" of what something "is" is by stating what it "is not". As I understand it (and that leaves a lot to be desired for sure) as we westerners have heard an eastern attempt to make statements about "It" without limiting "It" in any way, we have a tendency to interpret that definition as impersonal. But the more I read and study the relationship in their terms, the more it sounds like the same very personal, intimate, motivating, all-consuming relationship that Jesus spoke of and had with God. They speak of self-sacrifice, service, compassion, universal brotherhood, union beyond and encompassing individuality (not to the annihilation of the "I", but to the expansion of it beyond the merely personal aspect), intimacy to the point of total absorption...sounds pretty darn personal to me! How much more "in fellowship" can one get?!


The idea of the Trinity is still there...but more of a Father/Mother/Son thing. I must admit that I like the feminine aspect getting in on the ground floor. (I know, I know, it's all way beyond the male/female thing...but still...) The Son seems to be a natural result of the exchange and "tension" (boy they got that right) between the Father/Mother duality. The macrocosmic trinity has many microcosmic reflections in eastern thought...mental, emotional, physical...or spirit, soul, body...or past, present, future...or vibration, rhythm, stillness...or energy, matter, consciousness...lots of useful analogies when studied with seriousness. There is also something that I don't quite understand about the permutations of 3 (the different ways you can put the three parts together a,b,c,ab,ac,bc,abc) that results in 7 and has something to do with dimensions of consciousness. Like I said, I don't quite understand, but it appeals to the mathematician in me.


Another aspect of the eastern religions that has attracted me has been the kaon, the paradoxical relationships. This stems, of course, from the Father/Mother duality concept. Questions that are meant to "off-balance" our sense of rational mind and move us into a more intuitive dimensions definitely have their place and value. "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" is an example, and the relationship of dark and light, good and evil, yin and yang. The paradox between "infinite becoming" and the "eternal now" is another. Obviously, we can always use improvement. No matter how "righteous" we may get, there will always be another level of "perfection" that we need to work toward. It reminds me of calculus and "the limit as N tends toward infinity". You get into "degrees of infinity" that are relative to "how great a perspective" you are capable of perceiving, how much awareness you have accumulated, how far above the graph of the equation you can stand. (Smells of macrocosmic/microcosmic fractalness to be sure!) Yet, in the midst of this infinite becoming and diversity that encompasses so much of our lives, there stands the "eternal now", the eternal life of which all the "great ones" have spoken that is not dependent on "degrees of infinity". And of which they have assured us we each have access to regardless of our state of "becoming". Seems paradoxical to say the least and amazing grace for sure.


Please take all this in the spirit in which it is meant...that is to say not in an antagonistic or argumentative way or in any manner disrespectful of anything that you have said or taught me. I rather see it as an extension of the same, and that is how I have meant it. Anyway, it is interesting and enlightening to write it down, isn't it?


Love, Lisa
(Feb. 12, 1994)