Mormon Koans

Along with meditation, among the methods that Zen uses to enlighten the student is the koan. We can roughly define a koan as a short story or anecdote meant to demonstrate the deficiency of logical thinking, so that the student learns to learn in more meaningful ways. Here are some examples:

The Turtle in the Garden

A monk saw a turtle in the garden of Daizui's monastery and asked the teacher, "All beings cover their bones with flesh and skin. Why does this being cover its flesh and skin with bones?" Master Daizui took off one of his sandals and covered the turtle with it.

A Philosopher Asks Buddha

A philosopher asked Buddha: `Without words, without the wordless, will you you tell me truth?
'The Buddha kept silence.

The philosopher bowed and thanked the Buddha, saying: `With your loving kindness I have cleared away my delusions and entered the true path.'

After the philosopher had gone, Ananda asked the Buddha what he had attained.

The Buddha replied, `A good horse runs even at the shadow of the whip.'

Quite intentionally, these koans make absolutely no logical sense, and any attempt to understand them through conventional thought will fail. Despite this, they still have a hint of profundity behind them that you can't express in words. Thus, in order to have any hope at understanding a koan, one must abandon the thinking processes that we use in everyday life, and learn to perceive some other way. This new method of apprehension is precisely a direct insight into the nature of reality, which can only be experienced, and not conveyed.

Now, I was reading the Book of Mormon the other day, and I came across a passage that I found troubling. Probably very familiar to you, it is as follows:

"For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my first-born in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility." -2 Nephi 2:11

Many people might find this passage profound or even mystical. I, however, don't. To me, this scripture tells me that the world will always be bifurcated, whether between good and evil, God and Man or Self and Other. Thus, it blatantly opposes (no pun intended) the ideal of unity that I so aspire to. But this is not merely my problem. This scripture also presents an issue of inconsistency, as other scriptures blatantly contradict it. Here's an example:

"Unto whom I have committed the keys of my kingdom, and a dispensation of the gospel for the last times; and for the fulness of times, in the which I will gather together in one all things, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth" -D&C 27:13

This passage, along with countless others that speak of oneness with God and each other, presents a conundrum: if there is opposition in all things, and if that opposition is desirable, why is our ultimate goal to become one? In other words, how do you reconcile unity and conflict? There are several possible answers, but I have found that they always favor one side at the expense of the other, leaving you no better off than you were before. In my opinion, this problem defies solution because no one can solve it by using their intellect alone. By way of explanation, it is a koan. And by this I don't just mean that it's incomprehensible; it (or any other spiritual problem) also causes the insightful reader to realize that their intellect isn't up to the job of understanding God's mysteries. In other words, by trying and failing to understand the problem intellectually, you realize that the only way to figure it out is by faith, for it is faith that both the koan and the spiritual problem engender in us. By experiencing both, we stop adhering to the intellectual obstacles that stand between us and the divine, and in both we transcend them to receive a direct experience.

As a final thought, there are many more koans to be found within Mormonism. The church's position on Proposition 8 could be considered one of them, as could (my favorite) the contradiction between God's body and his infinity. But, remember this: their ultimate purpose is not to confound, it is to enlighten. It is by going through this trial of faith that we emerge better men and women, able to see things a little more like God sees them.

Mysticism in the Media: Journey

SPOILER WARNING: If you haven't played Journey, don't read this post until you have.

I played Journey (a video game published by thatgamecompany) last weekend, and I can honestly say that it is the most spiritual game I have ever come across.

Journey consists of two travelers (you and someone online) trying to cross a desert in order to reach a holy mountain. On this "journey", completely lacking dialogue, you encounter many things which would not make sense if I tried to describe them to you. But these things are its very strength, for omnipresent in the game is a sense of the unspeakable. The marvelous beauty that permeates the game doesn't quite make sense intellectually, but it hints at some higher meaning that can't be expressed in words. On this note, many points throughout the game give one a feeling of transcendence, by which I mean they offer a taste of something greater than or above our everyday experience. It is the only game I have ever played that instilled in me a sense of reverence, along with those of wonder and awe.

I am so enthralled with this game that I want to share it with you in its entirety. I want to show you the parts that were beautiful and transcendent to me. For that reason, here is an hour-long YouTube play-through. If you feel intimidated, don't worry; I will list the times for each part I find significant, so you can skip to them.

The first moment I really knew that this game was special happened at 2:10. As the Journeyer climbs atop a sand dune, we see an enormous mountain in the distance, topped with a bright light. It immediately conjured up cultural memories of divine mountaintops like Mount Sinai, and stirred the emotions connected with them. But more importantly, it gave me an overwhelming impression of "bigness", giving me an equally staggering realization of my own nothingness when compared with the divine.

The next significant moment actually happens in several places. The first instance occurs at 6:45 The journeyer sits meditatively in front of a stone altar, surrounded by the light the pillars around him provide. Immediately we cut to some kind of vision. He sees the outline of some kind of being, shrouded by light. It then proceeds to stylistically show him the way forward. In the next instance, at 15:30, we see it clearly for the first time: a being much like the Journeyer himself, only bigger and clothed in white. It then almost affectionately leans over him and again shows him the path ahead. This being clearly represents the divine, but it does not merely copy his shininess or his love. It also exhibits the mystery of divine, the incomprehensibility of the God so lacking in most depictions of him.

After an interim encounter at 25:50, another instance begins at 32:20. The Journeyer attempts to cross a chasm, but falls into a pit. He attempts another vision, but alas, this godly being looks away, as if disappointed. This immediately made me think of the times when I had failed in my pursuit of the virtuous and thus let down God. Needless to say, it struck a chord in me. And yet, the being still shows him the way forward: there is still hope, even if laden with suffering.

After two more visions, the next scene begins at 1:08:20. The desert has turned to ice, and the Journeyer trudges on through the snow, growing weaker by the second. He keeps going until the very last moment, even going as far as to crawl. But ultimately he cannot go on anymore, and he falls down and expires. At 1:09:30, the screen fades to white. Suddenly, you see the Journeyer again, only standing behind him are not one, but six of the divine beings. They surround him with light, and all of a sudden his scarf (what enables him to fly, and what had been cut short in a brutal blizzard) is magnificently restored. This is nothing less than resurrection, in all its connotations. Not only is the body restored to its magnificent fullness, but the Journeyer now has the grace of whatever beings brought him back to life. This scene is an artistic representation of the infinite grace of God - no matter to what depths you have sunk, he will always help you ascend.

Now, what happens from 1:11:05 on I shall not put into words, because I believe that would negate its beauty. It suffices to say that it is one of the most amazing and spiritually significant things I have ever seen portrayed in media, and that it exhibits the ideal of transcendence and even reverence in a way I wouldn't have thought possible.

Journey is amazing. I have never experienced any video game (or perhaps any other form of media) quite like it, as it is nothing less than a mystical experience packaged in game form. Finally, if you haven't played the game, (and therefore, if you're reading this, didn't heed my warning) please go do it as soon as you can. It's an experience you will never forget.

Why God?

I feel that at this point in my blog's lifetime, I should write an apology. By that I don't mean that I am going to say that I am sorry for the things I have written. Instead, what I mean by an apology is a defense of my beliefs and opinions, much like Plato's famous dialogue. The first belief I will defend (and the subject of this post) will be the existence of God, something that I hope will enlighten believers and unbelievers alike.

But first, a disclaimer: by God I do not (yet) mean the God of Mormon doctrine, body and all. A defense of that concept will hopefully come later. Instead, I mean God in the most general sense: a conscious entity from which all things derive their being (in one way or another).

To begin, let me ask you a question: does anything ever last? The inevitable answer that I have come to again and again is "no". Everything, whether it is a nation, a work of art, or even a human life will be ultimately extinguished, meaning that there is absolutely nothing you can do to ensure the immortality of you or anyone you love. You will die and be forgotten, and there is nothing you can do about it.

But there's more. Have you ever thought about how enormous the universe is? One article says that it is 28 billion light-years across (for perspective, a light-year is about 5 trillion miles). And in all that space, how much of it will you see in your lifetime? The cold, hard truth is that you as an individual will only experience a tiny fraction of one percent of this enormous place we live in. What's more, even the world close by is as inaccessible, as you will never live in the body of another, think another's thoughts, or see through another's another's eyes. This makes me exclaim: what a huge waste of space! You will only ever be you, and that you will only ever see one grain of sand on that beach we call the universe.

This infinite world tells me that I will never partake of it, as I am only a finite speck. When confronted with this limitedness, you'd think the only reasonable response would be hopelessness. But I have another way. To the whole universe, I scream "NO". I simply refuse to believe that it could be so poorly designed, and I insist that it must be run some other way. In order for the universe to be worth living in at all, there must be something that connects us to the infinite. This thing is God, and without it suicide is the only rational option.

The majestic truth at the heart of the idea of God is that I come from him, as everything that I am, along with everything else in the universe, derives its being from my magnificent creator. This means that my essence, who I ultimately am, is shared with all other things. I am a branch on the tree of which God is the trunk, a river which flows into a divine ocean. God is the promise that I am connected with the entirety of being, that I can take part in the infinite. Ultimately, in a universe without God, I am nothing; in one with God, I am everything.

I believe in God because the only universe worth living in includes him. Some may say this is wishful thinking, and they may be right. However, I don't think that this is a problem. Call me ignorant if you want, but I would rather be happy and deluded than hopeless and right.

The Heterogeneous Church

John Winthrop (1587-1649) was an English-American lawyer famous for being one of the founders of Massachusetts. Here's a painting of him:

However, he is arguably most well known for a sermon he gave en route to America, entitled A Model of Christian Charity. In it, he famously uses the term "a city on a hill", taken from Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, to describe how the settling Puritans should be an exemplar to the rest of the world. But to me, the most important part of the sermon is how he treats the problem of inequality. He says that inequality in wealth as a part of society is not necessarily a bad thing, for the following paraphrased reasons:

1. So that God could have more opportunities to manifest his glory (in the rich man, the poor man, etc.).
2. So that there can be more opportunities for people to show the goodness of God (like how the rich man doesn't abuse the poor, or how the poor man doesn't rebel).
3. So that people need each other (if there were no poor, there wouldn't be anyone to do the dirty work; if there were no rich, there wouldn't be any employers)

Although I'm quite liberal, and therefore am hesitant to say that there shouldn't be economic equality, these are nonetheless amazing ideas. Rather than apply them to the rich and poor, here I will show several examples of how they apply to the inequalities and heterogeneity in the Church.

First, one of the main complaints about the Church from non-members is that women do not have the priesthood. It is the doctrinal issue which every non-misogynistic member must necessarily struggle with at some point in their lives, as it seems to be extremely unfair. I do not deign to understand the mysteries of God and the church's doctrines, but perhaps we can better understand this policy if we appeal to Winthrop's three reasons. Perhaps part of the reason women do not  have the priesthood is so that there can be multiple ways for people to follow God. Being a priesthood-holding father involves a different set of responsibilities than a non-priesthood-holding mother. This doesn't mean that one path is any better than the other. On the contrary, each is distinctly vital to the success of the family and the Church. But the really important bit is that this set of multiple paths to God is infinitely more fulfilling than if there were only one. Imagine if everyone had exactly the same set of responsibilities as everyone else: there would only be one way to do good, meaning that the piano of God's goodness would only be playing the same note over and over again. For the goodness of God is varied and diverse, and can be expressed in as many ways as can be imagined.

You can apply the same principles to the hierarchy of the Church. The prevailing spiritual ideal since the Enlightenment is that people should seek for spiritual truth on their own, without being bogged down by any organized religion. While the Church's doctrines agree with this sentiment to an extent, (we emphasize personal revelation a lot) it is unavoidably true that it is an institution, and not merely a group of people searching after spiritual truth. In this religion, a person simply can't worship merely as the Spirit prompts them. Members are supposed to go to meetings, fulfill callings and learn from lessons. It would seem, at least on the surface, much better if we could follow the promptings of our own hearts, and worship how we please. After all, isn't that a much more democratic and egalitarian way of doing things? John Winthrop would disagree. For if someone worships in the ways that the Church approves of, they fulfill another democratic ideal: interdependence. When a member goes to Sacrament Meeting, he or she can't be spiritually filled unless certain people (the deacons, the priests, the speakers, etc.) do their jobs. In so many words, it causes worshipers to need each other. These institutions of worship make sure that we aren't all cut off from each other, as they tie us together in an intricate net of responsibility and love.

In summary, we are infinitely better off being diverse and heterogeneous than we would be if we were uniform and homogeneous. It lets us enjoy the benefits of variety and the virtue of interdependence. It ultimately makes us a better people.

The Resurrection According to Rob Bell

In the past, I never really got Easter. It celebrates Christ's resurrection, but a big part of me has always asked "what does that have to do with me"? The atonement is understandably very important, but Easter celebrates something that happened three days later, that has nothing to do with Christ's all-encompassing sacrifice. Compared with this atonement and my own resurrection, the actual bodily arising of Christ seemed like just a mere historical event to me, without any impact on my life. Then, I saw this video:

It is by Rob Bell, who is, as far as Protestants go, my favorite preacher. He is renowned for putting a shiny new coat of paint on Christianity, to make it more accessible to a modern audience. But he is also very good at seeing to the heart of the Christian story and understanding the common themes that tie all the doctrines together, kind of like a less-eloquent C. S. Lewis.

This video is an example of that tendency. He takes the resurrection story, something that people usually see on the surface level, and analyzes its personal and metaphysical connotations. Essentially, he says that the resurrection of Christ means that nothing good will ever be lost or forgotten. While we may be tempted to think that all good things will ultimately come to an end, he says that "every fair act of business or trade" and "every kind word" matters. Resurrection means that though despair, worry, evil or death may seem to win the battle, it is only a temporary victory, and that hope, goodness and life will win the war. It means that the world is and ultimately will be a good place, where everything virtuous, lovely, of good report or praiseworthy lives and goes on.

What I took away from this is that when we celebrate Easter, we aren't necessarily celebrating Christ's resurrection alone. We are celebrating the inevitable resurrection of the entire world, including me, you and everything good that you've come to know.

I leave this message with you, hoping that we all will see that goodness and life will win the war, and that evil and death will lose. Happy Easter!

Clarification

I would like to make a clarification concerning this blog and all past and future blog posts. While at times it may seem that my posts claim to state an absolute truth, that is the wrong impression. In reality, all of my posts are merely my opinion. In fact, they could be completely false.

So, if I say in a future blog post "this is so", realize that I do not actually mean what I write. I am always open to the possibility that I could be wrong. Keep that in mind.

One Eye: Meister Eckhart and D&C 76

Eckhart von Hochheim, also known as Meister Eckhart, was a German mystic and theologian who lived in the 13th and 14th centuries.

Highly controversial in his own time, his ideas are a beautiful interpretation of the time's Christian faith. One of the my favorites of these ideas is as follows:

“The eye through which I see God is the same eye through which God sees me; my eye and God's eye are one eye, one seeing, one knowing, one love.” 

This wonderful quotation expresses an idea I hold very close to my heart, that God experiences what we do. He thinks our thoughts, hears the things we hear and sees the things we see. Interestingly enough, the D&C expresses almost exactly the same idea in Section 76 (verse 94):

"Those who dwell in his presence are the church of the Firstborn; and they see as they are seen, and know as they are known, having received of his fulness and of his grace." 

This expresses that those who dwell in God's presence shall "see as they are seen" and "know as they are known". These expressions, although they may seem cryptic, are actually quite clear. For what does it mean to "see as you are seen"? I would imagine that it signifies my potential ability able to see through God's (or anyone else's) eyes and look at myself. Because I potentially perceive the world through the eye with which God is already looking, we would have "one seeing".

The above scriptures also has another implication. Namely, if we "see as we are seen", the vision "in-to-out" and "out-to-in" are the same. This means that inside and outside are really just two ends of the same thing. This scripture magnificently unifies subject with object, signifying that they are one. This personally brings me immense comfort, as I oftentimes feel cut off from the rest of being.

Thank you for reading. Please comment!