Hmmm, Buddha and Fowler Stage 6?

So I spent the weekend with kind of a double dose of things I don't necessarily agree with and for the most part, I let it roll over and pass around me.  I will not criticize here or voice my disagreements.  I am an observer, a guest.  I try to view things with what the Buddhist's call equanimity.  To understand both sides.  To me this is to understand that all of this,  belief systems, thoughts, people, are all a natural part of the universe.  There is nothing that is not natural or separate from the Universe.  We are all pieces.  Your piece and my piece are not necessarily better than the other,  the Universe certainly doesn't respect either more than the other as the ultimate end is the same.  This kind of reminds me of Fowler's stage six of stages of faith.

There is one thing I disagree with this chart on.  It makes it look like a progression and that one stage is better than the other.  I don't necessarily think this is true.  Individuals find their needs met by different systems.  Mine happens to be the basic non-supernatural tenets of Buddhism right now (Secular Buddhism).  Could it eventually change?  Well nothing is permanent.  At this moment it is what makes the most sense to me and fulfills my needs.  Which of course, ultimately, are not needs.  How's that for an obscure Zen paradox?

So this community stuff the chart talks about seems a lot like the wider definition of a Sangha or the concept of oneness.  It makes a lot of sense to me.  We become more focused on the whole as opposed to a piece of it.  To some there is a belief that peace is something you are that is given to you  through devotion.  This is fine.  For others peace is something you cultivate, and ultimately, when you are able to accept things, experiences, fate, other people with their idiosyncrasies and beliefs, the natural bi-product is peace to some extent.  Anyway, just some musings today.  Do good, be kind, help where you can, build your community everywhere you go.

Oneness Canoe

Believe it or not this thought occured to me during meditation last night. Having been involved in teaching boy scouts aquatic skills in the past, I am familiar with the problem of two people in a canoe switching places. This usually turns into comedic gold as both plunge into the water in an awkward dance of chaotic flailing. Little known though is that there is a proper way to switch positions in a canoe which avoids this. 

If there is a way to switch positions in a canoe without taking a spill why don't more people do it? Well, the issue lies in people having a tendency to solve problems such as this in a fashion that maintains equality, as two may pass at the same time. Two people pass each other side by side. It happens throughout each day of our lives, one person and another without any sort of thought, naturally avoid crashing into one another or falling down. Each alters their path completely independent of the other to avoid the pain of trying to occupy a space which is mutually exclusive. Life doesn't work that way in a canoe unfortunately. 

Everything about operating a canoe in tandem fashion ties the two operators together. No movement one does is not felt by the other. This often leads to contention, of course. One either learns quickly to work in harmony with their partner or they do not move from the place they are in. So, we start to come to the meat of the matter. This harmony is not accomplished from the the two ego's co-existing. There is no side to side switching of positions. It is only when one lets go of the idea of pride and the concept of self that success is accomplished. The two must function as 1 in cooperation. There is no side by side in the process, only the submission of the one to allow the two to succeed. One must lay down and let the other pass over. The process of laying down creates stability as the center of gravity is lowered. This means that the larger of the two gives the most benefit from submitting to the common good by taking the low role. The strong submits to the weak and both benefit. On the Mormon/Christian side of this it probably most closely approaches selflessness, on the Buddhist side this is oneness. Neither side really sacrifices all for the other but both benefit from the ability to work as one. In fact, even for the canoe to exist much interaction occured to produce it and the materials to build it. Of course there really isn't anyway to not be a part of the great whole. 

We are all part of nature, the planet, the universe and can't change that. What we believe, what we do, what we say, is part of this great whole. These affect us, and all that contacts us. To fight it doesn't really change the nature of it but it does change our own piece of it in a way. To accept and work with it rather than fight it allows a smoother flow and inreased harmony. Ironically, this decreases our personal suffering as well as those around us, so perhaps selflessness is not a complete fit, but neither is selfishness. I guess it is just oneness.