I went to another meeting last night. I did run into the issue of self-censorship, although I did share as best I could. Talking with someone after the meeting, he pointed out that the eleventh step explicitly mentions meditation, and he encouraged me to share honestly. His point was maybe someone needs to hear my experience. This guy is really wonderful. He gave me a book by Sogyal Rinpoche several months ago, and he meditates during the meetings. I'll have to think more on it. If it feels right, at some point I may share more directly my thoughts and feelings, rooted as they are in Buddhism. I do want to make sure the motive is right. My motive could easily devolve into defense of intellectual territory. Indeed last night, as I was listening to a woman share about how her urge to drink was lifted almost instantaneously after praying to God, and how she ascribes this to her higher power working in her life, I was definitely moved. But, I noticed the wheels of my mind spinning, trying to reinterpret the event within a comfortable framework. (I.e. `Maybe that wasn't God working. Maybe it was a ripening of past good karma, etc etc.') However, my motive in this case was indeed defensive. Not content to let it be, I desired to interpret the world in my image. This is not Buddhist at all. It is a sign of attachment to concepts. So I decided I had no need to reinterpret. This woman had her experience, it helped her, she's sober, and that's that.
Another thing that struck me about last night's meeting is the amount of wisdom present there. As we went around the table, a lot of people said some very deep things. Simple but deep.
2 comments:
I think comparing A.A. and Buddhism is like comparing apples and oranges. A.A. encourages finding your own "spiritual path." The word "God" was used as a sort of shorthand, but it is always amended with "as we understood him." "Him" had more to do with the English grammar of the time (late 1930s) than an actual description of a deity. In the big book, there are many other phrases to try to approximate a power other than oneself. A.A. is not a Christian sect, nor a religion at all, but most people in this country are Christian, so they interpret the "spiritual path" in a Christian way.
It is probably good for you to keep grappling with these ideas.
jb
I agree that A.A. can and should be interpreted as openly as possible, and certainly Bill Wilson and the other founders tried to do this. However, I find myself engaging in mental gymnastics sometimes. Sure when God is mentioned in the Big Book, it should be taken to mean one's personal higher power, but the array of ideas and techniques in Buddhism is often at odds with the powerful wave of connotations that washes over me when things are phrased in a certain way. In any event, I am content to let that be.
The struggle I'm having now, is whether I should take my beliefs when sharing and try to convert the language into something more in tune with the words that the Big Book uses when describing spiritual things, and that the vast majority (all?) of the members at my home group use. It's hard to speak from the heart when engaging in such mental gymnastics.
I'll give an example. At the last meeting the topic was "Trusting God." As soon as that came up, I started trying to think what that meant to me. Trusting the Buddha? Trusting my Lama? Trusting my own tathagatagarba (Buddha nature)? As these things rolled through my mind, it was suddenly my turn to speak, and I really hadn't come to a conclusion. There is definitely the trusting of a higher power in Buddhism, but the Christian (or at least Theistic) connotation of what it means to "Trust God" is so strong that it was hard for me to get past. Perhaps I can actually share some of my struggles on points like this at a meeting.
By the way, thanks for posting! I like grappling with ideas.
Post a Comment