One size fits all.

Fat issue into skinny package

High profile people have a way of finding their opinions published in the news media, and this morning is a good example. Brad Pitt’s mom apparently felt inclined to express her perspective on the presidential competition with the following:  

“Any Christian should spend much time in prayer before refusing to vote for a family man with high morals, business experience, who is against abortion, and shares Christian convictions concerning homosexuality just because he is a Mormon.”

So let me grasp this combo: Christian=family man=high morals=business experience=anti abortion=homophobia. According to Mama Pitt (Brad’s mom), that pretty much sums it up, thus “Vote for Mr. Romney.” I don’t know how Brad feels about his mom’s perspective, but if she were my mom, I think I’d want to hide her under the bed.

First of all, the implication here is that anyone labeling themselves Christian should be held in high esteem. There are ample reasons to question that premise. By way of example, consider the following, from another Christian:

“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.” And “Each one of us today may regret the fact that the advent of Christianity was the first occasion on which spiritual terror was introduced into the much freer ancient world.” 

Lest we forget, that was a quote from Mein Kampf by author Adolph Hitler. And granted his xenophobia in this quote concerned those ‘evil’ Jews, but he wasn’t fond of homosexuals either, never mind that scholars today think he probably was one. 

Between 1933–1945, an estimated 100,000 men were arrested as homosexuals, and somewhere between 5,000 to 15,000 eventually perished in extermination camps due to the orchestration of this fine Christian. So much for high Christian morals and homosexuals. But how about this other: “anti-abortion” wedded to Christians? Is the implication here that these two equate? Can a Christian, or any person of conscience, be against abortion (as an unswerving standard)? The problem with the law either for or against abortion is the expectation of justice. There are occasions when it is just to allow abortion and occurrences when it is just to not allow it. The law rarely acknowledges such wise discernment, and we end up fostering “anti-justice” in our desire to create a one-size-fits-all world.

I am not a high profile person, so my opinions don’t find their way into the published news media. But Dharma Space is my forum, and I can say what I want to my small audience, which might be a wee bit more intelligent than the average bear. What I wish is that all of us would stop such insane lumping together of complex issues and use the brains God gave us all. But perhaps that is expecting too much. 

Mirror Art

Buddhism teaches that the mind functions like a mirror. Whatever comes before a mirror is reflected precisely without discrimination nor bias. It also teaches that we are looking through lenses of discrimination and bias. Consequently, our reflections are filtered to present us with a viewpoint that appears before us as rational and justified. 

Since we are looking through lenses, we can’t see them. Nevertheless, what we see is colored by the lenses, and we naturally assume that life is colored that way. Look into a mirror, and what do you see? You see a face. If you are feeling sad, you’ll see a sad face. If you’re feeling happy, you’ll see a happy face. Our faces “reflect” what we are feeling. What we might fail to see is that others see our faces, and we see theirs. 

They are our mirrors, and we are their mirror. What appears before their mirror-mind is our face reflecting our feelings, and what appears before our mirror-mind is their face reflecting their feelings. Once we see this dynamic for what it is, we can create mirror art. If you want to see a happy face looking back at you, then wear a happy face. If you want to experience kindness, then act kindly. Whatever we put out comes back. Does anyone wish for suffering? No? Then create some new art.

We Are The 100%

The “I’ve got mine; Get your own.” That defines the attitude of those with 1%. Those who are struggling to survive identify with the 99%. Both of these firmly believe their position is justified, and neither side can get along without the other side. 

The 1% have the needed resources. The 99% have the need. The 1%, while they may believe they can get along nicely without the 99%, are suffering from massive delusions. The 99% are also suffering from delusion, thinking they can coerce the have’s to prime the pump of economic recovery.

This divide illustrates the systemic flaw of alienation and opposition, which has never worked, nor will it ever. The solution is not one side in opposition to the other side but rather for both sides to acknowledge that we are all 100% human. If any of us, regardless of seeming points of division, refuse to see that we share a common human race, there is probably not much reason to expect any viable resolution to our common problems.   

Intimacy and Objectification

When we objectify anything, we remove ourselves from it. Often we may say, “I’m just objective” without realizing what we are saying. Subjectivity is more honest. It recognizes the lens of our own being to perceive. We are not objective and will never be. We experience life through our own biases and experiences. When we miss-identify ourselves and adopt the cloak of ego, our bias is self-serving, and the natural result is objectification and alienation.

Objectification is a form of abstraction, such as when an artist represents something through paint, stone, or words. Unless the artist is completely lost, they will be clear about the difference between what they represent and the medium they employ. That difference—always, entails duality. An artist, creating works of art, is an objectification. The work comes from their subjective nature but is expressed as an objective, perceptible form. The thinker is dually creating thoughts. The thinker is an abstraction, and abstractions are not real. Both thoughts and thinkers are objectified condensations about reality, which are cut off from life.

When there is objective separation, true intimacy is not possible. An imaginary self is an impediment to integration. It is an illusionary, one-sided dimension that blocks wholeness and denies intimacy with our real self and, therefore, others. An imaginary self understands itself as independent and can’t see the interdependent connection to others. It is a psychic island cut off from life.

The ego adopts a stance of “what’s in it for me” with expectations of return on investment in an objectified role. Compassion and equanimity are not possible, objectively. There may be the appearance of virtue, but ego-centricity is waiting for that return, and if not provided, disappointment will result. Genuine compassion is intimate and non-discriminatory with repose as its defining characteristic. The only way such a thing can occur is through subjective identification in a non-dual way. When the subjective nature of Self identifies another Self, there is the recognition of unity.