Training in Compassion 17: Five Virtues: Owning Your Nobility

To train ourselves in compassion calls for growing the five virtues: Determination, Repetition, Owning Your Nobility, Reproaching Your Demons, and Aspiring to the Impossible. Today we look at Owning Your Nobility.

As human beings we are inherently noble -- inherently motivated to see life truly, generously, magnanimously. Every human community from the dawn of time has had some form of wholesome, salvific spirituality.

But the pressures of life and the persistence of human folly, embedded as these are in our societies and our communities – and our hearts -- can obscure our noble motivation to be wise and compassionate. That's why we remind ourselves of our noble heritage as human beings and step up to embody it.

Probably our biggest challenge in spiritual practice is simply that we don't take ourselves seriously enough. Owning our nobility, we step into seriousness.

The heritage, the legacy, of being human is to manifest wisdom, compassion, and lovingkindness, to be fully worthy of our lives, worthy of admiration and celebration. We can be perfectly aware of our many faults. Faults are perfectly natural, like earthquakes or floods. But along with these various faults, at the same time, deep within us is this beautiful, noble human heritage.

To own your nobility is to remind yourself every day of who you really are. None of the world's great spiritual exemplars has ever said, "Look at me, how great I am; pay attention to me!" All have said, "I am what you are." True nobility is not about lording it over the peasantry. For example, the Dalai Lama is owning his nobility when he says, as he often does, "I'm just a simple monk. I'm trying my best."

For the full version of this post: SEE HERE.

War, Peace, and Remembrance

I come before you today to talk about Memorial Day – about War, and Peace and Remembrance. Unitarians tend to be on the side of peace, though we haven’t always been, and even today we have diverse opinions about when, if ever, war is justified. I’ll mention the death tolls from the last 6 wars in which the US has been involved, and mention that the two main answers to the question of what they died for are: to protect freedom, and to protect commercial interests of the wealthy. Then I’d like to share with you about the Unitarian minister John Haynes Holmes. His is a name we should all know, as we should know about the Community Church movement he started. Unitarians were a pro-war denomination about World War I, but fifty years later we were a largely anti-war denomination about VietNam – and I was a teen-aged anti-war demonstrator. But I do believe there is something called “warrior spirit” which is an important part of courage, which is something that does us good, and that our literal warriors exemplify. I’ll talk about how, even for me, fighting can sometimes feel right. You may disagree – and that’s OK.

I begin with a poem from Archibald MacLeish: "We Were Young. We Have Died. Remember Us." (It’s in our hymnal, number 583.)

“The young dead soldiers do not speak.
Nevertheless, they are heard in the still houses: who has not heard them?
They have a silence that speaks for them at night and when the clock counts.
They say: We were young. We have died. Remember us.
They say: We have done what we could but until it is finished it is not done.
They say: We have given our lives but until it is finished no one can know what our lives gave.
They say: Our deaths are not ours: they are yours, they will mean what you make them.
They say: Whether our lives and our deaths were for peace and a new hope or for nothing we cannot say, it is you who must say this.
We leave you our deaths. Give them their meaning.
We were young, they say. We have died; remember us.”

Here are some "bullet" points, in more than one sense of the word:

• 116,516 US servicemen died in World War I. The total death toll from that war was about 17 million.
• 405,399 US military personnel died in World War II. That war’s death toll reached 60 to 85 million.
• 33,686 US military died in the Korean Conflict, which claimed in all about 1.2 million lives.
• 58,209 US servicemen and women died in Vietnam, during the American portion of what is also known as the Second Indochina War. Estimates of the total death toll in that conflict range from 800,000 to 3.8 million.
• 4,404 US military died in the Iraq war from 2003 to 2011. Estimates of the total dead in that war range from 177,000 to 1.1 million.
• In Afghanistan, there were 2,459 US military deaths between 2001 and 2021. The Afghanistan conflict during those 20 years, on all sides, claimed , between 176,000 and 212,000 lives.

Our nation, this nation, lost over 600,000 fighting men and women in the six wars mentioned. They were young. They have died. We remember. They were apples of their parents’ eyes. Someone's brother, someone's cousin, someone's nephew, and maybe someone's uncle. Someone's boyfriend. Later, some of them were someone's daughter, sister, niece, aunt, girlfriend. Increasingly, as the wars get more recent, they were someone’s spouse. They were nexus points in communities and families left torn and bereft by their loss.

And for every one of them killed, those wars also killed 100 others – allies, enemy combatants, civilians killed by war-induced epidemics, famines, atrocities, genocides. Et cetera. Let us remember them, too.

I know that our backgrounds in connection to the US military are highly varied, and our attitudes about Memorial Day are diverse. Why did these wars happen? Why did our country enter them?

For some of you, perhaps, it’s very clear why. We fought and killed and died to protect our freedom, to defend our way of life. For others of us, perhaps, it is equally clear that there was a very different reason. They died for corporate profits, or because a political party was looking to get into a war to solidify popular support. Both stories are told about all six of our wars in the last century. The "defending freedom" story is always more popular. The "commercial interests" story, though, is never hard to find for those willing to look.

Let's go back to the first of the six US wars in the last century and a quarter and consider World War I, for example. "The Great War" began in 1914 July when Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia. Germany -- and later Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire -- joined on Austria-Hungary's side. Fighting against them were England, France, and Russia. The US entered the war in 1917 April, and was thus at war for only the last year and a half of World War I. In the years preceding US entry into the war, American banks extended to France and Britain a series of loans totaling $3 billion. Had Germany won, those bonds held by American bankers would have been worthless. J. P. Morgan, England's financial agent in the US, John D. Rockefeller (who made more than $200 million on the war), and other bankers were instrumental in pushing America into the war, so they could protect their loans to Europe.

This was captured in a scene from the 1981 movie, Reds, in which John Reed, played by Warren Beatty, is talking to Louise Bryant, played by Diane Keaton:

“All right, Miss Bryant, do you want an interview? Write this down. Are you naïve enough to think containing German militarism has anything to do with this war? Don't you understand that England and France own the world economy and Germany just wants a piece of it? Keep writing, Miss Bryant. Miss Bryant, can't you grasp that J. P. Morgan has lent England and France a billion dollars? And if Germany wins, he won't get it back! More coffee? America'd be entering the war to protect J. P. Morgan's money. If he loses, we'll have a depression. So the real question is, why do we have an economy where the poor have to pay so the rich won't lose money?”

Why do we have an economy where the poor have to pay – have to die -- so the rich won't lose money? It was a good question then. It's a good question now.

The Unitarian minister, Rev. John Haynes Holmes, opposed World War I and urged his congregation in Manhattan to

“strike . . . at the things which make war— first, militarism; second, political autocracy; and third, commercialism."

In his 1917 sermon, “A Statement to My People on the Eve of War,” Rev. Holmes declared that the armed men fighting,

“are grown from the dragon's teeth of secret diplomacy, imperialistic ambition, dynastic pride, greedy commercialism, economic exploitation at home and abroad....This war is the direct result of unwarrantable, cruel, but nonetheless inevitable interferences with our commercial relations with one group of the belligerents. Our participation in the war, therefore, like the war itself, is political and economic, not ethical, in its character.”

Holmes’ opposition to World War I make him a pariah to Unitarian denominational leadership, which was seeking to have him expelled from Unitarian ministry in 1918 when he saved them the trouble by resigning his denominational credentials. Holmes then urged his church to follow him in parting ways with the Unitarians, which it did in 1919, changing its name to the name it has today: Community Church of New York. For Holmes, denominationalism was divisive, while a community, based on common life, united.

Holmes described the community church as based on these principles:

It substitutes for loyalty to the single denomination, loyalty to the social group.
It substitutes for a private group of persons held together by common theological beliefs or viewpoints, the public group of citizens held together by common social interests.
It substitutes for restrictions of creed, ritual, or ecclesiastical organization, the free spirit.
It substitutes for the individual the social group, as an object of salvation.
It substitutes for Christianity...the idea of universal religion.
It substitutes for the theistic, the humanistic point of view,...the idea of present society as fulfilling the "Kingdom of God" -- the commonwealth of man.
The core of its [the Community Church's] faith, as the purpose of its life, is "the Beloved Community."

Rev. John Haynes Holmes' community church concept was an inspiration to other congregations who adopted the name – including the congregation in White Plains, New York, which I served for 10 years. Rev. Holmes many years later rejoined the Unitarian ministry. Community Church of New York returned to being Unitarian, and White Plains Community Church became Unitarian. But they carry the legacy: the word “Community” in their name, which signified an effort to transcend denomination – an effort spurred on by an anti-war minister’s finding no home in what was then a pro-war denomination.

Two generations later, I was a teenager in a different Unitarian congregation, and a different war was going on. Both my grandfathers had been too young to fight in WWI; my father was too young to fight in WWII, and I was too young to fight in Viet Nam. By 1968, when my family moved to the Altanta area and began attending the Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Atlanta, being anti-war did not put one at odds with most other Unitarians. Indeed, most UUs opposed the Viet Nam war, and many of our congregations were hotbeds of anti-war activism. Many of my earliest memories as a Unitarian had to do with learning in church about why we should get out that war -- and going from church with other Unitarians to demonstrate against the war.

If Memorial Day is for expressing gratitude to the soldiers who fought and died in wars because they gave their all for our freedom, some of us are really on board with that. Others of us have a hard time seeing US war-fighting as having any connection with any freedom other than the freedom of US companies to make exorbitant profits.

In the midst of whatever cynical exploitations may be at work, however, I do believe there is such a thing as a warrior spirit courageously defending of his or her people from the oppression of conquest.

If ever American soldiers were truly fighting for freedom, it was the regiments of African American soldiers in the Civil War. So-called “Colored regiments” began forming after the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863. One of them, the 54th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry, featured in the 1989 film, Glory, was led by a Unitarian, Colonel Robert Gould Shaw (played by Matthew Broderick in the film), whose Unitarian faith in human equality accounted for his willingness to take the assignment. Another was the 1st Michigan Colored Regiment. Sojourner Truth provided the Michigan regiment with new words to the popular tune to sing as they marched toward battle. (Though Truth claimed authorship, some historians think she may have taken almost all the words from the "Marching Song of the First Arkansas Colored Regiment," written by that regiment's white officer, Captain Lindley Miller.) Sweet Honey in the Rock has recorded that song.

“We are the valiant colored Yankee soldiers enlisted for the war.
We are fighting for the union. We are fighting for the law.
We can shoot a rebel further than a white man ever saw
As we go marching on.

Look there above the center where the flag is waving bright.
We are going out of slavery. We are bound for freedom’s light.
We mean to show Jeff Davis how the Africans can fight
As we go marching on.

We are done with hoeing cotton, we are done with hoeing corn.
We are colored Yankee soldiers just as sure as you are born.
When the Rebels hear us shouting, they will think it’s Gabriel’s horn
As we go marching on.

They will have to pay us wages, the wages of their sin.
They will have to bow their foreheads to their colored kith and kin.
They will have to give us house-room or the roof will tumble in.
As we go marching on.”

Now THAT is fighting for freedom.

Peace and justice must go together, and where there is no justice, the only peace there can be is the temporary peace of suppression and enslavement. When it comes to oppressed peoples fighting against an unjust system, my heart is stirred with support for them.

Are there nonviolent ways to resist oppression? Yes. But a campaign of nonviolent civil disobedience was not an option -- it wasn't something that US blacks in 1863 would have had any way of conceiving or organizing. Could victims of more modern genocide have responded with Ghandi-like civil disobedience? Maybe, sometimes. Always? I only know I don't have the heart to blame an oppressed person for fighting back with the only means they can think of: violent force.

So thank you. Thank you, fighters, warriors. Thank you for being unwilling to accept domination passing for peace. You died or risked death because you feared death less than you loved hope. Your example shows the rest of us that we, too, can commit our lives to a greater purpose, a purpose for which we may be willing to die.

Abstractions like “country” and “freedom” are the terms we hear from people far from the battlefields when they talk about what the fighting was for. Those in the midst of such battle have little thought of such abstractions. They are motivated in the moment by concrete and immediate loyalty to the mates fighting beside them, not to the large ideals they will later invoke, if they survive. Thank you, fighters, for embodying the value of concrete connection to the people around us right here and now.

We today are what we are because of fighters. There’s that joke that goes: "I'm in favor of sex. I come from a long line of people who had sex.” So, too, we must also acknowledge that we come from a long line of victors in battle. The victors generate more descendants than the vanquished – and even the vanquished are around to be vanquished because they succeeded as a people in previous fighting. Thus each of us has an ancestry made up of those able to fight and win. We all come from a long line of warriors – and we wouldn’t be here without their ability to fight, to kill, their willingness to die. For most of human history, if there were any communities or tribes of pacificists, they were either under the protection of people who were willing to fight, or they were soon subsumed and conscripted or exterminated.

Thank you, fighters. You entered situations more fearful than anything permanent civilians like me can imagine, yet you did not let your fear control you. Because you showed us what courage is, we are better able to bring courage to our peaceful pursuits.

The phrase “warrior mind” refers to a state of being concentrated yet relaxed, smoothly sizing up a situation and deploying strategies to overcome obstacles and challenges. Every time we confront difficulties rather than fleeing from them, we are drawing on the skills of our warrior ancestors – skills which today’s warriors continue to embody. Thank you, warriors.

It falls now to us to build a way to transcend our heritage of violence, to utilize warrior mind for the creation and defense of institutions of peace. Let us be fierce for justice.

Essential for success in battle – and thus essential for the tribe's survival for millennia of human history – was the capacity for discipline and organization and courage. That capacity was also essential at Selma in 1965, and before that in Gandhi’s nonviolent campaigns in India. Grateful for the warrior virtues, let us continue to seek ever more effective ways to bring those virtues to the nonviolent resistance to oppression.

Let us also remember this on Memorial Day. If Memorial Day can be described in two words, "thank you," it can also be described in another two words: "I’m sorry." Some of the deaths in war were not much about nobility and courage, let alone freedom. Sometimes politicians and generals made unfortunate choices when better alternatives were available. Some of that killing and dying served no purpose at all. Good people died, families were bereft, and I’m sorry.

Beyond the gratitude, beyond the regret, Memorial Day is simply remembering. Ultimately, the meaning of Memorial Day is described not in two words, but in one: Remember.

The dead say: “We were young. We have died. Remember us.” For all who died in warfare or as a consequence of the war, tears.

Amen.

Training in Compassion 16: Five Virtues: Repetition

To train ourselves in compassion calls for growing the five virtues:

• Determination,
• Repetition,
• Owning Your Nobility,
• Reproaching Your Demons, and
• Aspiring to the Impossible.

Today we focus on repetition.

Familiarization is the key. To get out of an old way of being, get deeply familiar with a new way. We take our own point of view so much for granted. The world may not be as we think it is. In fact, it is virtually certain that it is not.

There's nothing wrong with habits as such. Habits can be very helpful in carrying us through without having to invest the energy for figuring out from scratch what to do in every situation. Habits help us conserve energy for times when we will need it. But our habitual way of seeing things, in many instances, large and small, is often distorted, too narrow – limiting our possibilities and our love.

This is why spiritual practice takes time, effort, support, and lots of repetition, repetition, repetition. Little by little our way of seeing the world and ourselves can shift. With effort, the mind can be trained. So choose your spiritual practice, and stick with it. Support your path with daily journaling, study, and meditation. Add further supporting practices such as mealtime grace, keeping sabbath, and getting enough sleep. Stick with these practices -- familiarize yourself with them so thoroughly that they become second nature.

New pathways in the brain are built through familiarization with a new approach. Repetition gradually establishes a new habit that is not, like the old ones, unconscious -- but instead is a habit you have thought about and chosen to cultivate for reasons that come out of your best motivations. It's a matter of brain-washing yourself, but in a good way: washing out an otherwise musty brain, freshening it up.

Left alone with its unconscious habits, the mind goes down predictably dull and often disadvantageous pathways. Just as physical exercise, over and over, changes the body, spiritual exercise, over and over, changes the brain and keeps it toned. Repetition is the true soul of spirituality.

* * *
For the full version of this post: SEE HERE

Teisho: On Not Slurping Dregs

I take refuge in Buddha -- the awakened nature of every being. I take refuge in dharma -- the path of understanding and love. I take refuge in sangha – the community that leaves in harmony and awareness.

In celebration of the Buddhist holiday Vesak I am today offering a Teisho – the Japanese word for a Zen talk. It’s traditional for a Teisho to begin by reciting the three refuges, and then to read a case – a koan from the tradition – to serve as the springboard for the talk.

The American Zen master Reb Anderson wrote an essay, “Guidance in Shikantaza.” Shikantaza translates as “just sitting” – no object, no goal, no particular focus. It’s a main approach to meditation in Zen. Shikantaza practice, Anderson writes,

“is not merely stillness; it is complete presence in stillness. There is not the slightest meddling. It is physical and mental non-interfering. It is thorough intimacy with whatever is happening.... [In this way, zazen] opens the door to a full understanding of how self and other dependently co-produce one another.”

Anderson concludes this essay, “We can’t do it by ourselves, and nobody else can do it for us.” Nobody else can do it for us: we must, each of us, take up the task. AND we can’t do it by ourselves: We have to do it together. It takes a village to awaken a being.

So, with that prelude: Here’s the case – the koan. It appears as case number 11 in the Blue Cliff Record, which is 100 cases compiled by Xuedou in the 11th century.

Huangbo addressed the assembly and said, "You are all slurpers of dregs. If you go on studying Zen like that, where will you have Today? Do you know that in all the land of China there is no Zen teacher?"
Then a monk came forward and said, "But surely there are those who teach disciples and preside over the assemblies. What about that?"
Huangbo said, "I do not say that there is no Zen, but that there is no Zen teacher."

That’s the case – the koan – for us to look at.

Huangbo was a 9th-century Chinese Zen teacher and abbot of a monastery. Huangbo says there’s no Zen teacher, but there is Zen. No Zen teacher means nobody to do it for us, nobody whose words we just have to learn, whose posture and movements we just have to imitate. If you’re looking to your teacher for the truth, you’re just gobbling up dregs. But there is Zen: there is this thing that we do together. Whether it’s traditional Zen with rakusus, bows, chants, bells, clappers, incense, altars, mats, cushions, and sitting cross-legged in silence for 25 to 45 minutes at a time -- or whether it’s the Zen of Unitarian Universalism with stolls, chalice lightings, hymns, choirs, candles, folding seats, responsive readings, listening to a sermon for 20 minutes at a time, and also bells – there is this thing that we do together.

Practice – whatever form spiritual practice takes -- is a joint venture. The great 13th-century Japanese Zen teacher Dogen insisted: the practice is the enlightenment. We do it together – we practice together and in that practice manifest our inherent enlightenment together. We do it together, or we aren’t really doing it at all. A private, solo retreat can be wonderful as long as, at the end of it, you come in and see how you stand up in the context of your spiritual leader and guide and your fellow practitioners on the path with you.

It’s ultimately a joint venture, even when you’re by yourself. The Buddha, according to legend, reached a great realization while practicing on his own – but he wasn’t far from five friends. The story goes that Siddhartha Gotama left home at age 29 to pursue spiritual liberation. He left behind a wife and small child to, in other words, go find himself – yeah, that’s the story. He found a teacher and advanced quickly, but wasn’t satisfied. He left that teacher, found another teacher and advanced further, but hadn’t found liberation. He left that second teacher and was soon followed by five friends who joined him in practicing extreme asceticism. Finally, he abandoned extreme self-denial for the middle way: neither indulging in sensual delight nor denying himself basic sustenance.

He split off from the five friends for, essentially, a private solo retreat. Six years had gone by since he left home. He sat, by himself, beside the Neranjara River, under a pipala tree, also called bodhi tree, for a week. And as dawn was breaking on the seventh day, he looked up and a little to his right, and saw Venus, the morning star. That pinpoint of light triggered a cascading psychic reaction that felt like a complete opening, an awareness of the one-ness of all things, a falling away of all the usual ego protections and defenses.

What he said at that moment was: “Behold, all beings are enlightened exactly as they are.” That was his moment of awakening, the moment when Siddhartha Gotama became the Buddha, the awakened one. Soon after he’d had his morning star experience, he met back up with his five friends to whom he gave an accounting of himself. He came back to a community of accountability. We have to have Sangha – community.

Huangbo urges us not to be gobblers of dregs. The term is literally, “eaters of wine-dregs” or of “brewer’s grain” – it’s the dregs left over after the wine or brew has been made and siphoned off. Huangbo is saying, “You think you’re getting the real thing, but you’re just taking in the dregs of it.”

“If you go on studying Zen like that,” he says, “where will you have Today?” He’s talking about students who travel around from one teacher to another – doing a retreat here or a few visits with a group there. As soon as they’ve heard a few talks from, and had some interviews with, one teacher they’re ready to move on to check out the next one. They are dilletantes -- spiritual tourists.

Not that there isn’t a time for exploring the field and getting a broad exposure. Huangbo himself studied with a number of masters before coming to Baizhang, from whom he received dharma transmission. So, no, I don’t think Huangbo is implying you should commit your life to the first meditation center you happen to walk into or to this church after just one visit. Give yourself some time and experience a number of different practice and teaching styles. The purpose, though, is not to keep on accumulating different experiences – as if faith communities were toys and you believed that whoever dies with the most toys wins. The purpose is to get a rough sense of what’s out there, so you can find one to settle down with.

If there is never anything about the faith community that makes you go, “Wait. That makes no sense” – then that’s a sign that place might be, for you, a place of more complacency than growth. The perplexing and exasperating can be a nudge toward liberation, toward spiritual growth.

“If you go on studying Zen like that,” says Huangbo – or, as it reads in another translation, “if you keep visiting temples and masters here and there in a lukewarm manner,” (Sato) – “where will you have Today?” Even if you are settled down with one teacher and sangha and they are solid, and you’ve been there for years, you might still be kinda slurping on some dregs. If you’re living on second-hand concepts, where will you have Today? Another translation gives, “when will there ever be a day for you?” Or: when will you come into your own.

The spiritual path aims to bring you to yourself, to your own, to the day, every day, that is for you. That’s having your Today: experiencing for yourself and in your own way the eternal quality of this day, of this hour, of this moment – seeing for yourself that, Chinese Zen figure, Yunmen, would say a century later: every day is a good day.

And some of Huangbo’s students did have their Today. One of Huangbo’s students – perhaps in the hall on the day he called them all slurpers of dregs -- was Linji – Rinzai, in Japanese – the founder of one of the two main lineages of Zen today.

Then a monk came forward and said, "But surely there are those who teach disciples and preside over the assemblies. What about that?" Huangbo said, "I do not say that there is no Zen, but that there is no Zen teacher." There’s no teacher – no one who can do it for you. There is no one outside you, so no one to fix you from outside. There’s no Zen teacher -- but there is Zen – all of us together co-creating practice, co-creating enlightenment.

If there is to be Zen, as Huangbo says there is, what is our task? If there is to be Unitarian Universalism, how shall we live it? What is the work that all the bells, clappers, mats, cushions, altars, incense, bowing, chanting, and getting together in a room with our friends to be very still and quiet together is supposed to facilitate? What is the work that hymns and sermons, forums, connection circles and religious education classes, operating budgets and capital campaigns, hospitality volunteers, and grounds clean-up days, is supposed to facilitate?

This congregation has a mission. We say the work is: love radically, grow ethically and spiritually, serve justly. And doesn’t love radically really include the other two? From the drive to love as radically as we can, as whole-heartedly and as whole-beingly as we can, comes the impetus to serve justice, and the path of our own growth ethically and spiritually.

The new graphic of Unitarian Universalist values places justice, equity, pluralism, interdependence, transformation, and generosity as petals of a flower centered on love. So the essence of the work is love – radically love.

And love goes with understanding. In Thich Nhat Hanh’s Old Path White Clouds, he has the Buddha explain,

“love cannot exist without understanding. Love is Understanding. If you cannot understand, you cannot love. [Spouses, siblings, parents and children] who do not understand each other cannot love each other. If you want your loved ones to be happy, you must learn to understand their sufferings and their aspirations. When you understand, you will know how to relieve their sufferings and how to help them fulfill their aspirations. That is true love.”

So if our task is to love radically, then it must be to understand – specifically, to understand suffering: our own and others. If our task is to love radically it must be to comprehend suffering. We have “been thrown into this world at birth” and are “constantly subject to illness and breakdown" (Batchelor) Each breath could be your last. Rather than pushing that thought out of mind, carry it in or near the front of your mind all the time. “We keep meeting what we do not like, losing what we cherish, and failing to get what we desire.”

Pay attention to features of life we easily fall into overlooking or ignoring – the tragic dimension of life. Otherwise, writes Stephen Batchelor, we

“become enamored, seduced, and captivated by what is merely agreeable, which leads to cycles of reactive and addictive behavior.” (Batchelor 71)

Comprehend suffering. Wrap your mind around it – wrap your heart around it. Take it in. Comprehend in the sense of encompass: encompass the totality of what life includes.

This is our task: keeping our eyes open to the totality: all the beauty and all the tragedy -- keeping our hearts open to all the ambiguity, strangeness, and ineffability of life.

“To comprehend dukkha is to comprehend life intimately and ironically with all its paradoxes and quirks, its horrors and jokes, its sublimity and banality” (Batchelor 73).

To comprehend suffering is to meet the reality of life with “an understanding that is openhearted, clearheaded, compassionate, and equanimous.” This is the task we take up on the cushion, and it is the task we take up in our lives.

The possibility of comprehending suffering is the possibility of loving radically. That’s the Zen path, the Unitarian Universalist path, the path of any spiritual tradition worthy of the name. Anything else is just slurping at the dregs.

We can’t do it by ourselves, and nobody else can do it for us. We must, each of us, take up the task – for ourselves and for all beings. We have to do it, and we have to do it together. Friends, we have to.

Training in Compassion 15: Five Virtues: Determination

To train ourselves in compassion calls for growing the five virtues:

• Determination,
• Repetition,
• Owning Your Nobility,
• Reproaching Your Demons, and
• Aspiring to the Impossible.

Today we focus on determination.

When we are exhibit determination to live compassionately we learn to take ourselves seriously as dignified spiritual practitioners. Your strong determination will teach you that, whatever your shortcomings, you also have within you a powerful energy to accomplish the spiritual path and the way of compassion.

What is it that you most would like to accomplish or manifest with this one short, precious life you have been given? We want to be good people, and we want to fulfill our highest human destiny.

At our best we all have high purposes, noble goals, even if we are modest about them. But we forget them. We get lost in the details, absorbed in the problems.

To practice strong determination is to intentionally stay connected to our higher goals and to remind us that we truly are spiritual practitioners; we are heroes; we can make effort; we can do what needs to be done to live a noble life.

The concrete practice is to concretely remind yourself. Compose your words of reminder, forthright, resolute, and bold.

"I am a spiritual warrior, and though this may not be apparent to others, inside it is clear to me. I refuse to be stuck for good with my ordinary limited point of view; I'm leaving that behind. I'm going forward!"

That's the spirit of strong determination.

So compose your words of determination and repeat them to yourself from time to time.

Such affirmations don’t do much by themselves, but in combination with attention to all the other trainings in compassion, these words will facilitate your growth.

* * *
For the full version of this post: SEE HERE.