Traveling theatre

The masks we wear.

When I was much younger there was no television, only radio and it was referred to as a “theatre of the mind.” Unlike television, where we see visual performances on screens across the room, we saw performances in the imaginary theatre of the mind. 

In some ways, the imagination was more vivid and pictorial than watching images on a TV screen. Ours was an internal screen (actually our screen was the primary visual cortex located at the back of our brain). What none of us realized then with radio, or now with television, was that the ultimate screen remained, located in our brains rather than across the room.

We all look out upon our moving, conditional, changing world and see what we all take to be real. In fact what we are seeing remain images being projected upon that internal screen—our primary visual cortex. Images are all just shadows of what’s real. And out of that projection, we form an idea of who we are; one self-image built upon other images and none of it real. 

Nevertheless, we take it (our egos/self-images) as real and become persuaded, guarded and protective of that fabricated image, feeling insulted and inflamed when the role requires a different sort of performance. Some are fabricated out of harsh experiences and formed into negative self-images (hateful and hated) while others fabricate theirs out of more genteel material and fabricate loving self-images, with every step in between. 

Regardless of harshness, genteel, or anywhere in between, all of the end results are unreal simply because the material is unreal. The base material determines the end result. As the saying goes, “You can’t make filet mignon out of hamburger.” The fundamental point here is that we all take our ideas of whom and what we are far too seriously, never realizing how conditionally unreal we are actually. 

How much better, for everyone if we all recognized this fact and lightened our emotional/mental load and became what we truly are—performers, acting out changing roles. And as performers, we adapt to changing circumstances with changing roles and play the part as circumstances dictate.

And a part of this traveling theatre is the recognition that we are also real observers. So we play the roles, with a chuckle in our hearts, knowing full well that we can perform as the role dictates and at the end of the day leave the roles behind and go home to ourselves. It is important to us all to see conditional life as just a show. We are the players; all different. Conditional life is the stage, and the real us—all the same, are the observers: as different and distinct as snowflakes yet fundamentally just indiscriminate snow. Distinctive snowflakes melt into indistinct snow and that becomes the water of unity.

Reality and perfection.

I am a subscriber to an email newsletter from Windmill, the header of which says: “You do not need to be ashamed of being imperfect. We were all made that way. You do not have to be ashamed that it’s so hard to work with your imperfections: the very tools you have for doing this are imperfect. We are all truly doing a difficult thing in being human.” 

I enjoy Windmill and think it is helpful in many ways. However, I want to address an essential point in this post within their header: “You do not need to be ashamed of being imperfect.” Due to some fortunate education, which others may not have been afforded, I learned to read Koine Greek—the language used to write the New Testament of the Bible and discovered much of value, not the least of which is how perfection was understood and defined way back then and has continued to find it’s way into modern culture.

The word “perfection,” properly defined in Koine Greek is not some abstract notion of being without flaw. The word (and it’s definition) is enlightening. The word for perfection is teleos and means complete or finished. Aristotle apparently said, “‘Nature does nothing in vain.’ So far, there’s no teleology to explain why you haven’t left the couch for several hours.”

Unfortunately, we still cling to the incorrect idea of being without flaw. I do agree it is impossible to be flawless living as a mortal. However, that is a side issue to what I want to convey in this post, which is reality. Until we get that issue right it doesn’t matter how we understanding anything, perfection included. 

So what is real? Those locked into the physics only, perspective, define reality as tangible, measurable phenomena (in other words objects known through the senses rather than through thought or intuition) or alternatively, a temporal or spatiotemporal (e.g., belonging to space-time) object of sensory experience as distinguished from noumenon. 

From this understanding, we can glean two essential points: There are measurable phenomena and noumenon (a thing as it is in itself, as distinct from a thing as it is knowable by the senses through phenomenal attributes). Noumenon goes by various names, among them Suchness and/or Thusness. Both terms arise from mystics, such as The Buddha or Meister Eckhart, as well as anyone who has plumbed the depths of consciousness to their ineffable core to find the true nature of reality—the basis, or foundation of all things (phenomena).

To repeat myself, what’s real? The realm of phenomena is physics based, and the realm of noumena is metaphysics based. Therefore there is a world, subject to perception (which we naturally assume as all there is). Does that make one right and the other wrong? Not at all. We humans are a mixed bag of both a physical, tangible, perceptible body (our house) and a metaphysical, intangible, unseen noumenal soul.  

Reality is thus like a coin with two sides (heads and tails) and perfection (completion/perfection) entails moving on a pathway leading to an awakening of that which is undetectable, yet the basis of all things. And when, at last, we awaken, it changes everything and we see with new eyes the two-fold nature of ourselves and others, one part of which is complete and the other part is a work in process— birth, change, growth and ultimately death of the “house” with the soul (which never dies) released to move on along the ultimate pathway to indwell another house.

“When you do things from the soul, you feel a river moving in you, a joy.” and, “My soul is from elsewhere, I’m sure of that, and I intend to end up there.”—Rumi

Moral Relativism

This notion has been fairly well broadcast recently. Perhaps it is being revisited due to the rising emergence of radical right-wing popularity. For example, Texas Governor, and aspiring Presidential candidate Rick Perry, recently hosted a national referendum in Houston’s Reliant Stadium—a call for prayer, beseeching God to come to the aid of our beleaguered nation. 

Perry is well known for his staunch opposition to moral relativism and is a proud supporter of the absolute/literal interpretation of God’s word—The Holy Bible. He finds comfort in surrounding himself with those who share his discriminatory views. Among these is the good Reverend John Hagee, who gained notoriety for declaring that Hurricane Katrina was God’s vengeance on the sinful New Orleans population and suggested that Jews had brought the Holocaust on themselves. Another in his camp is one of Hagee’s flock, Elva Spoor, who said she had come with the Cornerstone delegation so “God can bless us and give us rain and turn the nation back to God.” But what about gay people, she was asked? “God says he loves everyone, but he hates the sin,” said Spoor. “God says it is an aberration (did she mean ‘abomination’) to him.”

It is exceedingly unfortunate that political despots, who use the gospel of Christ to achieve their malevolent aims, have manipulated ignorant people to engage in unspeakable horrors. Click here and watch the sad history that emerged in Nazi Germany during an era quite similar to conditions prevailing today. Then read this and see how the apparently innocuous event in Houston bears striking similarities. My purpose here is not to denigrate the beliefs of others but rather to consider such positions through the lens of truth as conveyed by the Buddha, which by the way harmonizes quite well with the teachings of Christ, particularly when it comes to the unconditional nature and love of God for his creation.

There have always been those who have interpreted scripture literally rather than understanding the true intent and spirit underscoring the message. Rinzai Zen Master Bassui Tokushō (1327–1387) is reported to have told his students that to properly grasp the spirit of sutras, they must “first awaken the mind that reads” and then they would understand. In every religion, there have been similar rifts. Early Buddhists (the Hinayana) understood matters differently from the Mahayana—the prior more concerned with individual liberation and the latter concerned with enlightening humanity’s breadth. Similarly, the gospel of Christ is divided into the Old and the New Testament. You could say that the Old was more concerned with the law’s letter, whereas the New was concerned with the spirit.

Yet 2,000 years later, some proclaim themselves to be born again Christians and proceed to spread a gospel of hate emanating from a vengeful God of the Old Testament. Sadly some proclaim themselves to be Zennists but cling to Hinayana preoccupations.

Zen (as well as the true Christian gospel) essentially teaches both differences and oneness simultaneously. All of us are as different as snowflakes but fundamentally just snow. The soul of genuine spirituality is the lack of discrimination—a heart of compassion and unconditional love. Both Gautama and Jesus taught it. Few embrace it. Watch this.