Might God, as Pope Benedict seems to articulate, see the world as dualistic? Andrew Sullivan offers up his view:

You’ve read the press accounts in which the Pope allegedly spoke of protecting the rainforests from destruction in the same vein as protecting heterosexuals from homosexuality. The actual text, brought to us by Rocco, is more complex, but essentially argues that the forms of male and female as created by God can know of no complexity or variance. The fact of same-sex sexual and emotional orientation – displayed throughout nature and expressed by human beings since the beginning of time – is, in the Pope’s view, a divine error.

(Bows, Andrew)

The San Francisco Chronicle is being nice.

Gerald, over at The Level 8 Buddhist takes on the use of alcohol:

As the Buddha taught, alcohol and intoxicants cause heedlessness. The more you drink, the more heedless you become. It’s not that you become heedless after X number of drinks only, any amount will impair mindfulness and make it harder to practice Buddhism on some degree or another.

While I agree that the abuse of any substance can impair one’s practice, seeing that our attachments to stories surrounding the substance can also inhibit realization. Getting fundamental about abstinence can be an addiction that veils awakening from our sight. In a similar way, knocking back several shots of tequila in order to numb our experience can do exactly the same thing.

This isn’t to say that the use of alcohol should be embraced among otherwise sober Buddhists. Instead each of us should look to see if we’re caught by our use, or non-use, of any intoxicant be it something tangible or intangible; be it a form or a thought. This leads us into an even deeper level of inquiry where we get to ask ourselves questions like: Is this pint of Guiness an abuse of an intoxicant? What is my relationship to it? Or perhaps, is my abstention from alcohol an appropriate response in this moment? Is my vow not to abuse alcohol the same thing as never using it?

Over at the washingtonpost.com, E. J. Dionne Jr. makes the point in his column that:

By inviting Pastor Rick Warren to give the inaugural invocation, President-elect Barack Obama has alienated some of his friends on the left. By accepting, Warren has enraged some of his allies on the right.

Obama and Warren have helped each other in the past, and both know exactly what they’re doing.

This makes sense. Perhaps it’s a good move although, based on what he’s said in the past, I find it hard to buy into Pastor Warren’s version of spiritual integration:

‘I’m a pastor, not a politician,’ Warren said. ‘People always say, ‘Rick, are you right wing or left wing?’ I say ‘I’m for the whole bird.’

Dionne continues with an interesting point:

Many liberals hope — and a lot of conservatives fear — that the rise of “whole bird” Christianity will break up right-wing dominance in the white evangelical community.

Might Warren use this opportunity to approach things differently? The HuffPo reports:

John Aravosis of Americablog noticed on Friday that Rick Warren’s church website explicitly bans gay people “unwilling to repent of their homosexual lifestyle” from membership at Saddleback. (They are allowed, however, to attend services.)

Now Warren has removed the anti-gay language from the church website.

Evolution of faith, perhaps?

If it feels like I’m picking on Deepak Chopra a lot, pleas know that this isn’t my intention. It’s just that he’s so prolific that he leaves himself vulnerable to spiritual nit-pickers like me.

Over at IntentBlog, Deepak endeavors to define “enlightenment” as:

… the transformation of personal consciousness to universal consciousness. According to the wisdom traditions of the world, this transformation is not an anomaly or departure from human nature, but rather the actualization of human potential.

But this is only half of the equation, from where I sit. Recognizing universal consciousness only gets us to the mountaintop. The view from that height has inspired countless humans to “eff” the ineffable in many different ways throughout human history. But the view isn’t  enlightenment.

Actualizing human potential involves not just the seeing of the view, but rather the deepest possible integration of what has been seen with what might be done. Consciously engaging our experience from this realization offers up an entirely different kind of enlightenment, where awakening to the Absolute inspires a different kind of living, practiced in every moment, with all beings.

If this deeply inclusive participation doesn’t reflect what is seen on the mountaintop, then the enlightenment is only partial; defiled by one’s own personal attachment to the experience of what was seen.

To be fair, Dr. Chopra gets at this point well when he deepens the application of his definition of enlightenment:

As we move more fully into the universal values of the cosmos, we progressively express the qualities of love, compassion, intuition, insight, imagination, and creativity. We find that our thinking and behavior begins to function in harmony with the forces of the universe, and we notice more conscious choice-making , observations of synchronicity around us, the spontaneous fulfillment of our desires, and the manifesting power of our intentions.

And then he says:

Enlightenment means bringing complete light to all areas of life that were in darkness before.

And I agree, as long as that which is bringing the light has the courage and wisdom to let this radiance burn itself away in the process. This keeps the ego from thinking it’s awake. What’s left after this happens is the answer to prayer.

There is a brief piece over at Tricycle talking about Martin Seligman’s test for Authentic Happiness at UPenn.

I think this is all well and good, except for the fact that happiness is a state that ebbs and flows in time and because of this it is by nature temporary. So an “authentic” state, be it happiness or something else, appears to be merely a feeling to which the mind attaches.

Instead of looking to be perpetually and “authentically” happy, wouldn’t it make more sense for us to focus attention on our ability to stay present with whatever our state is, thus increasing an authentic awareness of what we might be experiencing at any given moment? This way we evolve and grow in ways that go beyond states. Additionally, our increased awareness can also include any state we might be in as our awareness becomes more acute, thus generating an ever-deepening presence. Presence isn’t a state, and therefore can’t be bound by time. Put simply, this means that the more aware we become, the more present we can be. The more present we can be, the more that freedom can spontaneously inform whatever state we might find ourselves to be in. From this presence practitioners can see that the most basic and ordinary of all states isn’t the temporary state of happiness, but the the timeless spaciousness of complete joy.

And there is a test for this that doesn’t require a registration of your email: simply look for resistance in your experience. If you’re feeling any kind of resistance, the mind is inhibiting joy.

70 years young. Keep inspiring, Dad.

Love,

Michael

My friend Waylon at elephant journal writes that Obama has…

…done it again: miffed his progressive ideologue left wing frenemies while appealing vaguely to conservative ideologue right wing enemies and directly to middle-of-the-road Americans who want to see the conflicting sides on every issue shut up, come together and actually get something done. Problem is, no one’s happy.

It’s a good read and worth some thought. In spiritual terms I keep wondering where the greed and aversion are most keenly felt for any of us on any of these issues. Uncovering this presents us with the Yellow Brick Road leading straight to an open field, far beyond form. From that spaciousness we can play, engage, lean, and open to all of what is going on in ways that show up as appropriate responses. Even in relation to Salazar’s cool, indoor headwear.