My Philosophy

In Brief The meaning of life is love. The meaning of a particular life is a function of how the person has coped with love's disappointments. Love is a grace. Religion and spirituality derive from the contemplation of love in its purest form, beyond what is possible within this world. Love is quickened by proximity to death. Creativity is the expression of love and its struggles. Although I often express this philosophy in Buddhist language it is not the property of any religion exclusively. All religions are human attempts to connect with the grace of perfect love and to optimise the human response to it. Therapy, religion, enlightenment and spirituality are, or should be, different names for the same thing, liberation from self into a direct encounter with reality.

In More Detail My philosophy is that the best life is to live in grace and the most important thing we can do is try to remember it for the remembering of it itself effects a change, yet memory is also a mystery. What is it that prompts one to remember? When I remember Amida is that a sign that Amida has just reminded me? Who is actually calling to who? I am a Buddhist, I am Pureland, relying upon the unimpeded light of Amitabha Buddha. Light or grace or spirit - call it what you will, comes to us from the Unborn. I am, therefore, a religious Buddhist, not a secular one and to me the key element of Buddhism is to take refuge. This will be true whether one is a Buddhist or not, however. It is important to take refuge in a Buddha, or, to put the same thing differently, it is important that what you take refuge in is a Buddha. A Buddha is one who embodies unconditional love. If your god is a Buddha then you have essentially the same religion as I do, whatever you call it.

Grace can also be called love or the unconditional. We are all trying to love - all trying to live loving lives. However, because of the way this world is, our love is continually frustrated. We all experience many disappointments and we carry the hurt of these disapointments and defeats and this sometimes leads us to act in ways that are destructive. Love thus gets twisted. Even the most 'evil' acts are distantly related to a desire to love, but sometimes it is very distant. To maintain the courage to go on loving through all our disappointments is the central challenge in life. Religion is the awareness of a 'love that surpasses human understanding'. Mindfulness of that love - the love exemplified by Buddhas (irrespective of what religion they belong to) - is the substance of religious practice no matter what cultural trappings it is dressed up in. For religions to quarrel is thus absurd, but it is all too common and is just another example of how love gets twisted.

Grace is not something one earns or deserves nor is it from within oneself nor is it something that one has any control over. In ourselves we are not important. We are beneficiaries. Grace is freely given. So the other thing we can do is remember not to claim credit for it. To live a spiritual life is essentially to do things 'for the love of it'. On the one hand, this is to do things without attachment to a result or reward. On the other hand, everything we does in practice have a goal in view and that goal is closely or distantly related to what we love.

Grace provides the framework within which a meaningful life is lived. Love is the substance of it day to day. The frustration of that love is the 'dukkha' that either drives us into twisted harmful counter-productive activity or enlightens us and puts us onto a spiritual path, that is, a path that expresses our love more directly. Creativity (both practical and artistic) is directly related to love. Creative acts either celebrate or sustain the things we love or they enhance our love, either making things that might not have initially seemed so loveable, or carrying us through our disappointments and defeats in a more constructive way.

Religious practice commonly involves some kind of contemplation or meditation or prayer. These practices keep us focussed on pure love in one or other of its manifestations and this sustains and cultivates the love in our lives. The art of mediation or prayer, therefore, like other art, either celebrates grace or transforms adversity into grace. However, there are limits to what one can do by contrivance. 'Right effort' is effort that flows from inspiration rather than something that can create inspiration in the first place.

When I was a child I had many spiritual experiences which made a big impression upon me. In fact, I spent much of my early life trying to get more of those wonderful experiences - to re-enter that world where everything is radiant; but no matter how I tried, I could never make the real thing happen. It came when it wanted to not when I wanted it to. Such "openings" still come to me, always just as unpredictably as when I was young. No amount of spiritual training or education has made me master of them. They are grace.

I think that grace could be called eternal life - which is a more alive kind of life than mere animate existence. Grounding one's life in grace is thus an antidote to worry. In this respect there is a big difference between remembering grace and remaining alert. Grace protects us so that we do not then need to be always on guard. To remember grace is not the same as trying to sustain a particular state of alertness or a state of mind. It is not possible to sustain any state of mind indefinitely, but it is possible to have a sustaining faith in grace. We are recipients of grace even when we are asleep and we can have confidence in it without having to think about it all the time.

Through grace we are able to love others and truly enjoy this life and all other lives hereafter. Grace appears in the ephemeral world but it belongs to eternity. The person who lives by grace is rooted in eternity rather than ephemerality. This part does seem to be something that one can learn, at least to some extent. One can make a conscious shift from the position of attachment to ordinary things into the world of grace. However, this is only an option if one has a strong sense of the grace-world and this sense is associated with gratitude for eternal life.

Where grace is lacking, there is karma. Karma is the dead side of animate existence. Karma is mechanical, inexorable and deadly, whereas grace is alive, unpredictable and joyous. Grace lifts us above karma. Grace is the only thing that can rescue us. If we do not have the consolation of grace then we go on being dead.

Grace is the key to happiness. When bad things happen, if we have confidence in grace and eternal life, then we can remain grounded in that and not be overwhelmed by the soap-opera of life. This seems to be what religion is all about. There are many people who play around the edge of religion but when some upset comes along in their life they do not rely upon grace but turn back immediately. For such people worldly attachments are really what is more important, but it is a sad state because they are closed to the blessing that is at hand.

Grace is a circular blessing. The more grace enters one's life the happier one is and the more grateful one feels and the more grateful one feels the more easily grace seems to enter. I feel immensely lucky. The Buddhas have always smiled on me.

Spirituality is a matter of living in a simple way and having a practice that enables one to return again and again to the memory of times of grace and the consciousness of its all enfolding blessing so that confidence is always growing. So, in summary, the most important things to do are:

1. remember grace as the epitome of love.

2. don't claim the credit.

3. appreciate whatever comes and make the absolute most of it.

4. have complete faith in eternal life, even though you don't understand it.

5. whenever one meets with troublesome or adverse circumstances, remember to establish oneself in the realm of grace and unhook from the world of transient things - disappointments are part and parcel of life.

6. live fully with no 'no-go' areas - think, feel, imagine, create: sometimes we are joyful, sometimes sad, we rejoice and we grieve, life has many aspects like changing weather; cherish the times when grace breaks into your life but remember it has innumerable forms - do not just be looking for one 'perfect' one.

7. have a regular practice of remembering and celebrating grace.

8. love.

9. count yourself as of no importance and return to childlike simplicity - know that there are many things one will never know or understand - we are all ordinary beings.

10. allow feelings to come and go yet know a deep contentment that fills your days.

Comments

[Elizabeth Lindsey]

Aloha Darmavidya,
Thank you for sharing your luminescence with us. We were blessed by your visit to Hawai'i. May your journey continue to be grace filled.
Mahalo nui, Elizabeth

[Geeta]

Dear Dharmavidya,

Somehow the following article about a parent caring for a Downs syndrome child seems quite Pureland to me. Should be an interesting read.

Article

Lots of love to all in the community,
Geeta

[anne m jones]

'If we have grace, we can remain grounded...when bad things happen'- Thanks Dharmavidya. I came accross your philosophy just after opening a gas bill for £800 (for 2 months!), I stopped ranting and began methodically sorting through the paperwork to see where British gas have made their mistake!

[Maxine Fine]

Grace - the light of Amitabha - enables me to go deeply into my most painful places, to enter the anguish of my friends and even strangers and animals. With a heart of gratitude to celebrate the most poignant loss. To sit still in the joy of the name: Namo Amitofo!

[Lisa McCann]

Hello!
Have you ever considered doing a pamphlet focusing on the 10 items on your list with this blog post as a preface?
Lisa

[Emir Salihovic]

I am going to print this out and read to a group of friends tonight. Enlightening words! Thank you David!
Love,
Emir

[Jakob]

This is both a beautiful and practical summary of your philosophy, thank you.

The phrase "If your god is a Buddha then you have essentially the same religion as I do, whatever you call it." is not of itself arrogant, but there is the potential that some people may find it so.

"...then we share essentially the same religion, whatever each of us chooses to call it" would seem to be very similar in meaning without the risk of misinterpretation.

I am of course being arrogant in suggesting this!

[David Brazier]

Thank you.

[Minsung Sung]

Thank you.
During our meditation in Seoul(13 August 2011), I heard your prayer leading me into a world of
genuine grace. Now I understand what "love and its disappointments" is meant to be.
Thank you for coming to Korea and give us great opportunity to learn from a great teacher of this era.

"Count yourself as of no importance and return to childlike simplicity..."
I will keep this in mind as I am retiring from my teaching job by the end of August 2011.

[Mavis]

David
You say that "love thus gets twisted" and that we can act in destructive ways. Love is, very often destructive. Intense love can lead to a battle almost for survival where both partners struggle to "be" after merging with the other. However, evil---and you say that even the MOST evil acts are distantly related to a desire to love is not, I believe, in any way related to love. Evil is the opposite of love. To even think evil thoughts is the opposite of love. To imagine evil acts is the opposite of love. To speak evil words is the opposite of love. Love "holds" evil destroys. Evil is responsible for all of man's (and womens) inhumanity to man. I can understand the idea that love (and its subsequent attached feelings can lead to evil in a sense) But those who promote this idea have no conception of love. Love does not hurt. It is not love that is linked to evil. It is other emotions or the lack of. Love does not, I believe, get twisted. It is evil that twists everything it comes into contact with.

[David Brazier]

Dear Mavis, thank you for your comment. There are, of course, different ways of thinking about these things. You write, "I can understand the idea that love (and its subsequent attached feelings can lead to evil in a sense) But those who promote this idea have no conception of love" - well, I certainly fall into the category of people who promote such an idea :-). A mother fox loves her cubs and so goes out and kills a hen, which is evil from the point of view of the fowl. A man loves his country and so goes out and kills his country's enemy. A woman loves her child and protects it from another who would harm them even harming the threatener in the process. Of course a great deal depends on what we call "inhumanity". It is human to lie - everybody does. It is human to appropriate things not rightfully one's own - who has not done so? It is human to fight wars - what country that still exists has not been involved in one? The fact that love and evil may, by some definitions, be "opposites" does not mean that they do not lead to one another - they frequently do. The idea that one could live a life of complete purity and never do any harm is not realistic. To love means, among other things, to deeply accept another as they are, which means no matter what "evil" they embody - and all of us embody some. Evil cannot be "responsible" for anything - evil is not an independent actor, simply one way of describing things that human beings do. People always have a reason for what thry do and although what they do may appear evil from the perspective of parties who get hurt, there are always other perspectives to consider. Humans are human. All love something and that gives their life meaning. It also leads them into all manner of trouble and difficulty. They may grow through the experience or they may sink, but all stories are, in principle, understandable. Best wishes - David

[Mavis Pippin]

Dear David

I can understand your views in an abstract way, perhaps going into the philosophical meaning of evil. I mean what I say, in previous comments, from the point of view of reality. I do not agree that when a fox kills a hen that this is evil. A fox is an animal and simply kills to eat or feed its young. Animals are not humans. They were born to kill. And we kill animals to survive. That is not evil. I believe that your ideas on evil are different to mine. I do not believe, however how awful this is, that it is evil to fight someone who threatens you, even if you do have to kill. (my father was a very gentle man who did kill during the war but hated doing so) If someone tried to hurt my family I'm not sure I could kill. Unless forced to do so. To me evil is in the perpetrator, not the victim. A victim of violence has to fight back or, as you say, "sink".

You are right (as everyone knows) that often the person who kills is closest to the victim. Often husband or wife. But your idea of love is different to mine. I believe that where real love is there is no evil. Evil comes from negative emotions, including hate. Love is love hate is hate. Evil is not an actor at all. It is more about the person than an act. One does have to accept people the way they are. I can accept negative ways of being from others but not evil. And this (evil) includes sadistic violence towards another person. From a psychological viewpoint evil is on a continuum. From less to more. I believe this could be true. Hurt, therefore, can be a lesser evil. But, as I've already stated, I believe that where love is real evil cannot exist. Because evil, to me, is sadistic.

[David Brazier]

Dear Mavis, I don't think that you can have it both ways. If evil is an absolute in which love is absent and vice versa, then it is not on a sliding scale, is it? I do not believe in evil in the sense that you seem to mean it - though I confess that your meaning is not that clear to me. You say "I can accept negative ways of being from others but not evil" - so you must see negative ways of being as one thing and evil as something different, but it is not at all clear what the difference is. From the perspective of the person who does something there are reasons for what they do. The soldier kills for reasons. So does the murderer. I used to be social worker to a prison. In the prison were terrorists - or freedom fighters, depending on your perspective. They had their reasons. There are no people who are just evil - there are simply people who have reasons and the reasons vary. If evil equals sadism, I do not think that there is anybody who has not at some time or other enjoyed harming somebody or something - they were probably annoyed at the time and they probably thought that they had reason to be so. We are animals. We kill for all sorts of reasons that are not so different from those of the fox. Drawing a line between some animals and others does not solve the problem, it only adds to human conceit. If there is no "evil" in "real love" then real love must be a fleeting phenomenon that comes and goes because there is nobody from whom what i think you are calling evil is totally absent. I agree that we have different concepts of love and of evil but, I amy be ring, but I am left with the feeling that what you are suggesting does not really add up. Thank you for the discussion, nonetheless.

[Mavis Pippin]

Dear David

I think that I do agree. Love and evil are not absolutes. I do believe that, at a simple level, negative ways of being and evil are different but I also agree that terrorists and freedom fighters do have their own viable reasons for killing. One can, therefore, agree, as you say, that freedom fighters are just as evil as terrorists. For me, however, it depends on the reason behind the act in a different way. I would argue that when one's life is threatened, as in war, for example, one's reason is self defence. Evil comes from people like Hitler. To fight against this is, I believe, not evil. More the destruction of evil itself. Destroy men like Hitler and you have peace (as in Germany). Either way, however, it is always the innocents who suffer most. One does harm others. And one can argue that any wrong action is evil. There is, however, a great deal of difference between angry words and torture for example. The first, to me, is about negative emotions. The second is evil. From either terrorists or freedom fighters. We are human beings, although I do agree that some humans are very close to having a more baser nature. The fox cannot conceive of right action. A fox is an animal. A fox cannot reflect in the same way as humans or feel empathy or remorse. I do not believe that I, myself, am conceited when I hold myself above the animal kingdom. Your idea of love is different to mine. It is not fleeting but always there. We do, however, not always think the best of others. This could be described as evil thoughts. From my viewpoint, however, there are people in this world (some in prison some not) who are inherently evil. It is, however, something that I do struggle with. Is the person evil? Or something else that influences the person to commit evil? In "mind" it is easy, maybe, to really hate others, even where love is present. I can get angry with those that I love. That does not mean that I stop loving them. If, however, I ever thought that I could actually enjoy hurting a person I loved then I would consider myself evil. The word is enjoy. I believe David that anyone who can feel enjoyment in harming somebody or thing does not love.

[David Brazier]

Thank you for the discussion. It does help one to clarify thinking.

I tend to think that there are no real complete innocents. People like Hitler cannot act alone, they are products of a social situation that we all help to create. In Buddhism, there is the wonderful story of Angulimala who is a robber and murderer. Buddha is walking through the land where Angulimala is and A runs up behind him and says, "Stop monk!" The Buddha says, "I have stopped. It is you that must stop now." He means that it is time for A to stop killing people. Buddha's remark also implies that he himself is not a complete innocent - he has in some sense been, in the past, where A is now. A replies that he cannot stop because everybody now expects him to be a ferocious villain. If he stops they will kill him. So long as he goes on they will respect him. There is a crucial point in the life of Milosovitch, the Serbian war criminal, where he is alarmed at what he is getting himself into and he phones home to talk to his wife and she says "You can't stop now." There is a momentum to social events, good and bad, that we all contribute to. People like Hitler are not individually evil, they are a manifestation of our collective fear, greed, hate and delusion. that will not go away just because you kill one man. The activity of Al Quaida has not decreased since the death of Osama Bin Laden. The US keeps murdering Al Quaida leaders but it does not achieve anything. American presidents change but the US goes on acting in the same way more or less. The roots of that struggle are in the sense of outrage and injustice in the hearts of many people about what they feel the other side have done or want to do to their land and culture. As for torture, it is now pretty clear that the governments that we have elected in UK and USA have both employed it and probably still are doing so. Does that make everybody who voted for them evil? Regarding the word enjoy, When we are angry we wish harm and we get a satisfaction from it. Also humans get satisfaction from hunting, from winning a battle or a fight. Collectively we have tamed this into competition and it is a mainstay of our economy in which we we are all accessories. This is the norm. I think, therefore, that we either have to say that evil is a universal characteristic or that it is a false concept. I have tended not to use it because I think it tends to mislead by suggesting a false reification. There is no entity in the world that the label evil designates. I feel much the same about many psychiatric diagnoses. People do things for reasons, some of which are conscious and many not and most of which have a collective dimension as well as an individual one. We are thus faced with complex dynamics, not isolatable qualities. Wisdom consists in (b) finding ways to affect the conditions such that the dynamic tends in a more constructive direction and (a) discerning what a more constructive dimension might be. Even this, however, is often not conscious. Socrates, I think it was, said, "Noone errs of their own free will", just, depending on our experience and vantage point, we construe situations differently. Dale Carnegie in his famous little book "How to Make Friends and Influence People" says that even Al Capone thought of himself as a good man :-)

[Mavis Pippin]

David

I agree. There are no complete innocents. I would still argue, however, that victims of war are innocent. They have usually played no part in what is taking place. You are also right about Hitler and the social situation. That does not make Hitler any less evil. What I actually said was destroy men like Hitler. Not just one man. I am aware that he did not act individually. Without others like him the Jews, a lot of Jews, would still be alive. David I have read the above and I feel that you are simply trying to baffle me with a whole lot of philosophical rubbish. I know that from this way of thinking evil can be simply washed away. It is more theoretical. Evil is complex I agree. But one has to be able to stop somewhere. One has to be able to say to themselves. This is wrong! Just because one is expected to be a ferocious villain does not mean that one has to stay one. Or even be one. We can all make mistakes (as you say even the Buddha) but awareness has to bring enlightenment. I did not say that the US did not torture (or even the British) Everyone seems capable of torture-if they decide to go on this path. There are so many ways for evil people to justify what they do. So that they can feel better about their actions. But anyone who commits an evil act knows that they do this. Evil is evil is evil. Good is good. You are right, therefore, even Al Capone thought of himself as a good man. (Hitler did also as he believed that the Jews would bring Germany down.) The truth, however, was that he was not. No matter how he thought of himself, no matter how much he fooled himself-he was evil. Because he did kill and because he did kill not just other gangsters but also, maybe not complete innocents, but innocents nevertheless. I do agree. Evil is a universal phenomenon. Evil, it would seem, has always been and will always be. This does not mean that we should go into some sort of philosophical mindstream to somehow condone it. Hitler was evil. Maybe he could not stop? And destroying many men like Hitler will not destroy evil. I understand where you are coming from. I, however, am speaking from my own view of evil. Anyone (or any state) that acts against good (and some people are good-Carl Rogers believed in good) with deliberate malice is not a good person.

[David Brazier]

It seems that what you do not like about what I have written is that you take it as condoning. I am not condoning anything. I am not God. I am not in such a position. I don't think you are either. What are you suggesting? That you should be devoting your life to killing people that you put into the category of "like-Hitler". If so, are you getting on and doing it? If not, why not? If you advocate something but do not act on what you say it is not very convincing... Perhaps you are. Perhaps you are campaigning for some people to be hanged. Perhaps you think that they should be tortured first. The problem is that if you were to act on your belief you will put yourself into the evil category yourself and if you do not act on it, what is the point of it?.

The fact that I do not think that evil is a very useful category does not mean that I advocate that people should do the things that you call evil. I advocate that people live as good lives as they can, but I also recognise that different people are in very different perspectives, have different histories, and different reasons. I do not believe in writing anybody off or destroying them.

Carl Rogers believed that there was a self-actualising tendency in everybody and that this tendency was a good thing and that all it needed in order to manifest was the right conditions and that when it did not manifest it was because those conditions were lacking. I do not think that you will find an atom of support for the idea of evil in his writings.

You say "deliberate malice". Malice there certainly is, but it is not generally if ever the result of a rational decision. Malice is an emotion and it springs from a sense of hurt and injustice. Deliberation is something else. Deliberation may come after the arising of malice - if one were feeling malicious one might deliberate how best to get one's revenge. Perhaps one might decide that somebody is evil and then one might feel malicious toward them. In fact, I'm not sure it is possible to feel malicious without the idea that the person toward whom one feels it is evil. The idea of evil is the precursor of malice and deliberation then follows. That is one of the main reasons that I do not like the idea of evil - it leads to malice.

Overall I cannot see how your idea helps. I think it only tends to put one into the very category of people whom you believe should be destroyed. This is not abstract or philosophical only, it is very practical and consequential. Hitler killed Jews after deciding they were evil. I prefer not to think that way.

[Mavis Pippin]

David

I think that we are actually agreeing. You say that you do not condone evil. I agree wholeheartedly. I also agree that I am not God. I agree also that people should live the very best lives that they can. That, if possible, they do not press peoples buttons and enjoy doing so. Carl Rogers may have been right. But there is of course evil in the world. I am so glad David to hear you say that you do not like the idea of evil. I do not either. I do not think that way either David-that the Jews were evil and should be destroyed. As for capital punishment I really don't see how my views would mean anything to anyone unless there was a referendum. I do act on some things David but not in the way that you suggest. My background is therapy and I act at that level only. I am pleased David that I now seem to understand what you mean. Because the evil in the world, and there is evil, is very practical and consequential. Not an abstract concept at all. You say yourself with the right conditions people may self actualise towards good. I am not sure about this? You also say that Hitler killed Jews after deciding they were evil. He acted on it. And sometimes David we can hate evil so much that maybe if we could we would destroy it. If we could David. You may be right about conditions. I try David in my own way to be a good person and I have returned to counselling myself as a client recently to help me do this. He is person-centered and what he said was "I do my best". I believe that this is all I can do. I guess that I did not understand you. I did believe that you were condoning certain ways of being. I am pleased to say that I am wrong.

Best wishes David
Mavis (journeying)

[David Brazier]

Thank you.