Guest Post

Alcoholics Anonymous and Buddhism

by John Barleycorn Waynedale News, July 9, 2007

I first met a Buddhist monk in the mid 1970’s and later during the late 1980’s and my most recent encounter with Buddhist thought happened in April 2007 when my son gave me a book titled The Monk and the Philosopher, a father-son dialogue between a French philosopher named Jean-Francois Revel and his son Matthieu Ricard, a Buddhist Monk.

The similarities between Buddhism and A.A. are too numerous to list in a 600 word news article, but I can say this: I only found one minor difference between the two disciplines, philosophies or systems. Buddhism stresses “spiritual perfection” while A.A. instead stresses “spiritual progress.”

Both A.A. and Buddhism are altruistic programs of suggested “daily actions.” Buddhism states that altruism is a cause of happiness, and hatred a cause of unhappiness while A.A. refers to its program as being an “altruistic program” and it further claims that any life run on “self-will” can hardly be successful.

Buddhism and A.A. have both withstood the test of time and that is not the case with many western fad-sects that run on counterfeit spiritual theories. Fad movements have fancy facades and attract numerous adherents, but they soon collapse because of all sorts of spiritual contradictions, internal scandals, and sometimes abominations. By contrast A.A. and Buddhism are both growing in the West because their meetings and centers are places where, for the most part, people find friends who share common aspirations and want to join in and help each other study, practice and achieve individual spiritual harmony.

Although A.A. has a “singleness of purpose” that specifically deals with the fatal malady of alcoholism, by Carl. G. Jung’s definition, this problem is caused by a “spiritual malady.” Chronic alcoholism and other addictions are but symptoms of a greater malady which is “spiritual in nature.” Both Buddhism and A.A. are spiritual in nature and based on altruism, daily prayer/meditation, and a few other simple daily actions, such as doing the next right thing and saying thanks to a power-greater-than-ourselves, especially at the end of each day.

Neither Buddhism nor A.A. practice the obsessive ritualism that is found in Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and many other Christian religions, as well as Islam and Judaism. Neither Buddhism nor A.A. promotes a specific Deity.

Buddhism and A.A. are programs of attraction instead of promotion and both deplore expanding their philosophy by any type of coercion whatsoever. By contrast, Christianity, Judaism and Islam do not hesitate to promote their beliefs by swords, guns, bombs, sheer numbers or political force. Buddhist and A.A. principles can be found in all world religions, but without the same dogma, rituals and superstitions.

According to Matthieu Ricard, “Faith becomes superstition when it goes against reason and gets cut off from any understanding of the deep meaning of ritual.” But ritual does have a deep meaning. The Latin word ritus in fact means “correct action.” It calls for reflection, contemplation, prayer and meditation similar to A.A.’s 12 Steps and Traditions.

Buddhist meditation promotes emptiness, love, and compassion while A.A promotes love and tolerance. A.A.’s say “humility is the key to spiritual progress,” and Buddhism pays homage to wisdom in order to develop humility and both systems emphasize the need to eliminate false pride from the individual’s character.

I do not know the Dali Lama’s policy on money and finances, but I do know that A.A. will not accept any donations from any individual, corporation, etc., for more than 3,000 dollars and there are no dues or fees for A.A. membership; A.A.’s only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking alcohol.

————————————————————

source: Hindsfoot Foundation - A not-for-profit organization founded in 1993 for the publication of materials on the history and theory of alcoholism treatment and the moral and spiritual dimensions of recovery.

also: John Barleycorn was the Old English mythical figure who represented the magic spirit of the barley and wheat and other grains that produced alcoholic beverages. When you attempted to “kill John Barleycorn” by burying the grains of barley and wheat in the ground, he would just “come back to life again” by sprouting forth in new green sprouts. As the psychiatrist Carl Jung explained, the only force more powerful than the spirit of John Barleycorn, was an even greater Spirit, that of the Higher Power whom alcoholics meet in the A.A. program.

The Weight of Mountains

Thomas Merton, writing on the crisis of civilization, noted, "It is a crisis of sanity first of all. The problems of the nations are the problems of mentally deranged people, but magnified a thousand times because they have the full, straight-faced approbation of a schizoid society, schizoid national structures, schizoid military and business complexes, and, need one add, schizoid religious sects."

We're all familiar with such clichés as "the War on Poverty", "the War on Drugs", or "the War on Terrorism", but the use of these terms to me, is like throwing stones at a mirror. Or to quote Pogo “We have met the enemy and he is us". Or to be more effusive, in the words of Walt Kelly creator of Pogo, "There is no need to sally forth, for it remains true that those things which make us human are, curiously enough, always close at hand. Resolve, then, that on this very ground, with small flags waving and tiny blasts of tiny trumpets, we shall meet the enemy, and not only may he be ours, he may be us."

I believe what Walt Kelly was saying (as I believe in what Walt Kelly was saying) is that we are all of us responsible for the myriad problems that afflict our world, private, public and political. By this I do not necessarily mean that we are to blame for the problems, simply that we are, all of us, together, responsible for the solutions. "When we know how to reduce the torment, but we do not do it, then we become the tormentor." (Primo Levi) Its all about recovery, whether of a world, a country, a system or an individual, recovery always begins and ends with the Self.

"Is a mountain heavy? It may be heavy in and of itself, but as long as we don't try to lift it up, it won't be heavy for us." This metaphor as presented by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, is one that his teacher, Ajaan Suwat, often used when describing how to stop suffering from the problems of life. According to Bhikkhu, "You don't deny existence--the mountains are heavy--and you don't run away from them...You deal with problems where you have to and solve them where you can. You simply learn how not to carry them around. That's where the art of the practice lies: in living with real problems without making their reality burden the heart." As a foundational step in mastering this art, it's useful to examine the basis for Ajaan Suwat's metaphor--the Buddha's teaching on dukkha--to obtain a greater concept of how far the metaphor extends.
Dukkha is a central concept in Buddhism, the word roughly corresponding to a number of terms in English including sorrow, suffering, affliction, pain, anxiety, dissatisfaction, discomfort, anguish, stress, misery, and aversion. The Noble Eightfold Path, as taught by the Buddha, is the way to the cessation of dukkha, the fourth part of the Four Noble Truths. The Four Noble Truths in Buddhism are the fundamental insight or enlightenment of the Buddha, which led to the formation of the Buddhist philosophy.

1. Dukkha: There is suffering. Suffering is an intrinsic part of life also experienced as dissatisfaction, discontent, unhappiness, and impermanence.
2. Samudaya: There is a cause of suffering, which is attachment and desire.
3. Nirodha: There is a way out of suffering, which is to eliminate attachment and desire.
4. Magga: The path that leads out of suffering is called the Noble Eightfold Path.
This outline form is exactly that used by doctors of the Buddha's culture when diagnosing and prescribing for a disease: identify the disease, its cause, whether it is curable, and finally, the prescribed cure. Thus the Buddha was treating suffering as a disease in need of a cure. He said, “I, the teacher, am like a doctor. My teachings of dharma practice and path are like medicine, and the followers are like a community of patients. It is up to the patients whether they follow the doctor’s instructions or not, and whether or not they take the medicine regularly. If he could heal the patients he would, but without the patients participation through continuing to take the medicine, it is very difficult if not impossible.”

Because of its focus on suffering, Buddhism is often called pessimistic. But since Gautama Buddha presented a cure, Buddhists consider it neither pessimistic nor optimistic but rather realistic. It is not about beliefs or creeds or dogmas, rather it is about practice or application. How we live and act, within ourselves and within our world. Buddhism is not a set of beliefs to subscribe to but a way of life--the way of sane, harmonious, and balanced enlightened living. It is through this way of choosing to live sanely that we can begin to tip the scale and act to counterbalance the schizoid world outside our Selves.

The Four Noble Truths was the first sermon given by the Buddha after his enlightenment.
The Noble Eightfold Path can be summarized into three broad categories: panna (wisdom), sila (virtue or morality), and samadhi (concentration or mental discipline).

Wisdom
1. Right Understanding (or Right View, or Right Perspective)--samma ditthi
2. Right Thought (or Right Intention, or Right Resolve)--samma sankappa

Virtue/Morality/Ethical Conduct
3. Right Speech--samma vaca
4. Right Action--samma kammanta
5. Right Livelihood--samma ajiva

Concentration/Mental Discipline
6. Right Effort (or Right Endeavor)--samma vayama
7. Right Mindfulness--samma sati
8. Right Concentration--samma samadhi

The Buddha focused his teachings on the matter of suffering, not to depress himself or us with how overwhelming or hopeless our problems are, but because he had discovered a method for transcending it. In Ajaan Suwat's mountain metaphor, the heaviness of the mountain stands for dukkha as a common characteristic: the suffering inherent in all compounded (put together from causal forces and processes) experiences. 7 The fact that the mountain is heavy only for those who try to lift it represents dukkha as a noble truth: suffering comes only with clinging--"the clinging that turns physical pain into mental pain, and turns aging, illness, and death into mental distress."

The Buddha taught dukkha as an ordinary attribute to cause us to reflect on the things we cling to: are they really worth our holding on to? If not, why not let them go? Why carry around the weight of the mountain? The process of letting go of (versus clinging to) can open our hearts to something very positive and precious: that form of nirvana, completely devoid of suffering that only comes from letting go, like blowing out the flame from a candle.

This concept is well illustrated in a Zen Buddhism Koan--Carrying a Girl Across a River.
One day, a Buddhist Monk named I-hsiu (One Rest) took his young student to go to town to do some business. As they approached a small river, they saw a very pretty girl walking back and forth looking very concerned. "Lady", asked I-hsiu, "you look very concerned. What is troubling you?" “I want to cross the river to visit my dad who is very sick, but the bridge had fallen. Where is the next nearest bridge?" "The next closest one is many miles away. But don't worry, I will carry you across the river." So I-hsiu carried the girl on his back and walked across the river stream. Once they reached the other side, he put her down and saying farewell to each other, went on their ways separately. Observing the whole thing, the young student was rather uneasy. He though, "the Master taught us that women are man-eating tigers yet today he carried a pretty girl on his back across a river! That does not make any sense. Didn't the Lord Buddha teach us to keep a distance between a stranger girl?" Over the next couple of months the whole thing was still bothering him in his mind. Finally, the student could not stand it any longer and raised the issue with I-hsiu. Upon hearing this, I-hsiu burst into laughter: "I had put down this girl ever since I had crossed the river. You must be very tired still carrying her around for the last two months."

I think that I heard this concept quite often in another context, although it took some time for the truth of it to penetrate the fog of my dysfunction: "Let Go, Let God" or in the Pith instructions of Dzogchen “Let go and let be”. In our addictions (and virtually anything in life can become an addictive object of attraction or aversion) we want more of what we can never get enough of and we want less of what we always have too much of. And we carry the resultant suffering like a burdensome mountain with us wherever we go, whatever we do. To understand how to let go of this clinging to attraction or aversion, we'll examine the Pali word for clinging--upadana: the act of taking sustenance, such as a plant absorbing sunlight or a fire consuming fuel.

According to Thanissaro Bhikkhu, this act of taking sustenance applies to the mind as well. When the mind clings to an object, it is feeding on that object. "It's trying to gain nourishment from sensory pleasures, possessions, relationships, recognition, status, whatever, to make up for the gnawing sense of emptiness it feels inside. Unfortunately, this mental nourishment is temporary at best, so we keep hungering for more. Yet no matter how much the mind may try to possess and control its food sources to guarantee a constant supply, they inevitably break down. The mind is then burdened with searching for new places to feed."

So suffering boils down to, as Alice found out "feeding our heads": we feed it with our possessiveness and control, our craving and our loathing, but instead of nourishing us it gives us food poison and the toxicity spreads to those around us. To end our suffering we must starve our minds, cut off this toxic diet until we neither need it nor desire it any longer. However, when we endeavor to shut off this food supply, our minds addicted to dukkha, seek out new sources of suffering and stress. It is not enough for us to simply cut out the current or familiar thoughts that feed our negativity, we need to cut of the desire to seek out suffering that has become ingrained in us.

The Pali canon describes four ways in which our mind feeds and clings:
1) clinging to sensual passion for sights, sounds, smells, tastes, and tactile sensations;
2) clinging to views about the world and the narratives of our lives;
3) clinging to precepts and practices--i.e., fixed ways of doing things; and
4) clinging to doctrines of the self--i.e., ideas of whether or not we have a true identity, or, if so, what that identity might be.

And I might as well emphasize here, because we'll get back to this point again and again, we are talking not only individual minds but community, military-industrial complex, national, and global minds and mentalities a well. Review this list for yourself right now and think about how and in what ways it holds true for you. Now substitute an organization or a country, say the marines, or Halliburton, or the United States and rerun this exercise again from that perspective. Eerie, isn't it?

Like a monkey trapped in a cage, jumping from bar to bar, seeking escape, our minds jump from clinging to clinging. No matter where we jump we land on more cage. Perhaps there is no way out? But then how did we get in the cage in the first place: contemplate; strategize. The Buddha stopped all his jumping around and instead sat resolutely and in intense meditation underneath the Bodhi tree until he discovered that in his cage (as in all cages) one of the walls is actually a door, and by grasping it skillfully, it swings wide open. Freed at last, he spent the last 45 years of his life teaching others trapped in their cages this revelation.

He taught the Three Jewels, The Four Noble Truths, The Noble Eightfold Path, and the Five Precepts. "So we start the path to the end of suffering, not by trying to drop our clings immediately, but by learning to cling more strategically. In terms of the feeding analogy, we don't try to starve the mind. We simply change its diet, weaning in away from junk food in favor of health food, developing inner qualities that will make it so strong that it won't need to feed ever again."

The Pali canon lists these five qualities as 1) conviction in the principle of karma-- our happiness depends on our own actions; 2) persistence in abandoning unskillful qualities and developing skillful ones in their place; 3) mindfulness; 4) concentration; and 5) discernment. Of the five, concentration--at the level of jhana (intense absorption)--is the strength that the Buddhist tradition most often compares to good, healthy food. Discernment arises as the fruit of the labor of concentration. It contemplates the disadvantages of having to feed, something that goes against the grain of denial, since feeding, in every meaning of the word, is our principal way of relating to and taking pleasure in the world around us. "Our most cherished sense of inter-connectedness with the world--what some people call our interbeing--is, at its most basic level, inter-eating. We feed on them and they feed on us. " Inter-feeding is not always pretty.

In our relationships we sometimes nourish and are sometimes nourished; sometimes we poison and sometimes we are poisoned; but in all genuine relationships, even if only with ourselves, some sort of physical or mental nourishment is taking place. We can hardly imagine a self or a world where feeding, even if it leads to suffering, and it inevitably will, isn't an intimate and inseparable part of our selves. This is where the Buddha's teachings on dukkha become a radical intervention into our lives (or into the lives of communities, industrial-military complexes, nations and the world). Like a Zen slap, it rattles us out of our denial and delusions regarding our suffering. It lays bare the fact that our physical, emotional, and psychic pain is brought about by our clinging and that even our pleasure and joy when clung to become stressful in as much as everything the mind latches onto is by its very nature compounded, and therefore, inconsistent, unsteady, and impermanent. "When we see stress as a characteristic common to all things we latch onto, it helps dispel their allure. Pleasures begin to ring hollow and false. Even our suffering--which we can often glamorize with a perverse pride--begin to seem banal when reduced to their common characteristic of stress. This helps cut them down to size."

Dukkha is inherent not only in the objects on which we feed, but also in the very act of feeding itself. If we believe we have to feed we become enslaved to our appetites. The mind isn't free to wonder where isn't any food, and where there isn't any food are precisely the places we need to go. Once we realize that the feeding’s not worth the price it exacts, we lose our compulsion to feed. "This is where you discover something unexpected: the mountains you've been trying to lift are all a by-product of your feeding. When you stop feeding, no new mountains are formed."
No longer need nor can I blame my childhood, my job, my family, my country, or my "karma" for my anguish, grief, and despair; they are but mountains, I set them down. No longer can I rationalize drinking, food, work, sex or relationships as medication for my anguish, grief and despair; they are but mountains, I set them down. Their weight is no longer a problem. Once I quit trying to hold them up there remains nothing to hold me down.

One of the great lessons of Gandhi's life remains this: through the spiritual traditions of the West he, an Indian, discovered his Indian heritage and with this his own "right mind." And in his fidelity to his own heritage and its spiritual sanity, he was able to show men of the West and of the whole world a way to recover their own "right mind" in their own tradition, thus manifesting the fact that there are certain indisputable and essential values--religious, ethical, ascetic, spiritual, and philosophical--which man has everywhere needed and which he has in the past managed to acquire, values without which he cannot live, values which are now in large measure lost to him so that, unequipped to face life in a fully human manner, he now runs the risk of destroying himself entirely.

The mind that was awakening in Gandhi was at once both Indian and global: valuing inclusion rather than exclusion. His was a mind of love, of understanding, of infinite capaciousness, rather than one of hate, intolerance, accusation, rejection, or division. The spirit of non-violence arose from an inner realization of spiritual unity within Gandhi himself. His concept of non-violence and satyagraha ("holding onto the truth") that he offered up to the world was only possible because he had realized it within himself. For Gandhi, the first and most essential thing of all was the inner unity, "the overcoming and healing of inner division, the consequent spiritual and personal freedom, of which national autonomy and liberty would only be consequences." For Gandhi, the liberation of India was only a step to the liberation of all humanity from not only the tyranny of violence by others, but also, and primarily, in themselves.

I propose that Hungry Ghosts arise out of the disease process (dukkha, samudaya and nirodha) and in order to put them to rest, to return them to the human realm, we must treat (magga) the disease, whether it has taken root within ourselves or within our society or civilization at large. Remember, as much as anything, Buddha was a physician, who first healed himself and then taught others the art of self-healing.

I wish for such a world. The question is what can I, Michael, help do to bring this wish to fruition? What can any of us do? It depends. I will approach the answer from two perspectives, first from a more global outlook and than from an individual viewpoint. In looking at the global issues, I feel both hopeful and overwhelmed. I am aware that there is much to do and I have a very small, if any voice, in these "big doings". I imagine I feel rather like Samwise as he contemplated the destruction of the "One Ring". But through A.A I learned a powerful truth that allows me to hold on to the hope and let go of the overwhelmed.

God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change,
courage to change the things I can,
and the wisdom to know the difference.
-The Serenity Prayer-

The Spiritual Agnostic: Part 2

Essential Spirituality

What is it that draws a person to spiritual life? From as far back as we can remember, we can each sense a mystery in being alive. When we are present with an infant in the first moments after birth, or when the death of a loved one brushes close to us, the mystery becomes tangible. It is there when we witness a radiant sunset or find a moment's silent stillness in the flowing seasons of our days. Connecting to the sacred is perhaps our deepest need and longing.
"...A mystery in being alive." It is this that we experience as we open the door, there it is for those who can see it--the mystery. It is as Albert Einstein held in Living Philosophies, "The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious--the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and science." It is the mystery of our spirituality--difficult to understand or explain, a truth perhaps beyond human understanding. But there it is, none-the-less.

Which brings us back to the issue of semantics, and a bit of a conundrum. In discussing Essential Spirituality, we are in essence discussing essential mystery. What is it? We don't know, it's a mystery, but we discuss it anyway. There is a Zen saying that goes something like this: "All instruction is but a finger pointing to the moon, and those whose gaze is fixed upon the pointer will never see beyond." Likewise, Anthony De Mello, the Indian Jesuit priest, would talk about theology as "pointing a finger at the moon, and we would come to mistake the finger for the moon." Or contemplate the disciples absorbed in a discussion of Lao-tzu's dictum: "Those who know do not say; those who say do not know." When the master entered, they asked him what the words meant. Said the master, "Which of you knows the fragrance of a rose?" All of them indicated that they knew. Then he said, "Put it into words." All of them were silent.

The great Thomas Aquinas, toward the end of his life, wouldn't write and wouldn't talk; he had seen. Not being Thomas Aquinas, we will attempt to discuss the essentials of spirituality bearing in mind the mystery and the moon.

As a spiritual agnostic, it seems that at the core of spirituality is an essentially and essential philosophical question: "What is the meaning of life?" The sincere desire to answer this inquiry reveals the most basic assumptions about who we are, what our relationships are, and what are our beliefs. This question becomes intensified by our awareness of life as ephemeral. With the knowledge of our death we seek to find or make meaning of life. We have looked in the mirror of life and asked as we stare back into our eyes, "Who am I?" and "What am I?" and perhaps, "Why am I?" And we see a body, and we are aware of these thoughts, but who or what is aware of the awareness? For a moment, the door might open and we get a glimpse, but too often the essence remains a mystery.

If you could get rid of yourself just once,
the secret of secrets would open to you.
The face of the unknown, hidden beyond the universe,
would appear on the mirror of your perception.
-Rumi-

With all this being said, in the context of The Spiritual Agnostic, how do we, as agnostics, operationally define spirituality and of what does it consist? Historically, the focus on spiritual belief systems has been based predominately on religiosity. For example, Brother Wayne Teasdale in his book The Mystic Heart, explores what he calls interspirituality, "a genuine and comprehensive spirituality that draws on the mystical core of the world's great religion traditions." In Essential Spirituality, Roger Walsh examines seven practices that he has identified as common to the major world religions. What about spirituality outside and apart from the context of religious traditions? Will the essentials be the same, or similar? Possibly, but historically, a significant obstacle to the development of an agnostic view of spirituality has been the conflation of the notion of religion with the concept of spirituality.

All of this is slowly changing. It is now increasingly understood that, although metaphysical or theological beliefs can inform spirituality for some individuals, there is a clear distinction between spirituality and the concept of religion. Although there is not yet, and probably never will be, an agreed-on definition or construct of spirituality in the literature, a growing body of research indicate that it is broader than religion and relates to the universal quest to make sense out of existence, a characteristic of human "being".

Therefore, as we ask, "What is essential spirituality?" we can add to the rich offerings of the world's religious traditions the philosophical renderings of naturalists, cognitive-behaviorism, science and more. For example, there is reason to believe that, to some degree, spirituality is hard-wired into the human nervous system. Recent experiments using thermal imaging indicate that brain activity during "transcendent" experience is highest in the limbic system, that part of the brain which is associated with emotions and motivation, and in the connecting hypothalamus, amygdala and the hippocampus. Studies of praying Franciscan nuns and meditating Buddhist monks reveal that certain religious experiences, like meditation and prayer, are linked to increased activity and changes in the structure of the brain and nervous system.

Perhaps by examining representative definitions of, and elements in, spirituality from both a theistic and non-theistic standpoint we can discover common ground regarding the concept and construct of essential spirituality that will prove beneficial on our individual spiritual explorations. Wayne Teasdale considers spirituality as "an individual's solitary search for and discovery of the absolute or the divine. It involves direct mystical experience of God, or realization of vast awareness, as in Buddhism." He further emphasizes that it carries with it a conviction that the transcendent is real, and it requires a degree and type of spiritual practice that serves as a catalyst to inner change and growth. While primarily personal, it also contains a social dimension. "Spirituality, like religion, derives from mysticism."

Teasdale goes on to identify nine elements in a global or universal spirituality, which are part of interspirituality itself. The first element is a fully operational moral capacity (in touch with compassion, love and mercy, is kind and other-centered). The second element is solidarity with all living beings (interconnectedness of everyone and everything; one vast system, which is itself a system of systems). Next comes deep nonviolence (the attitude and practice of non-harming) followed by humility (including modesty about oneself but is essentially a virtue related to what is, rather than what seems to be. The fifth unifying element is spiritual practice (contemplative forms of prayer, meditation, sacred reading, music and chanting, yoga and certain martial arts, hiking and walking); then mature self-knowledge (moving beyond denial--denial of our faults and limitations, our buried motives or hidden agendas-- and beyond judgment of others, beyond projection on others our own need for inner work). Elements seven through nine include simplicity of life (concerning our relationship with the planet, the natural world, other species, and other human beings), selfless service and compassionate action (a positive contribution to ease the enormous suffering among the poor and oppressed, the ecological degradation of the earth, and threats to world peace and stability), and a prophetic voice (Vigorously acknowledging the unjust events and policies in the world, including economic. social, and political injustice, and providing leadership through witnessing and response).

Roger Walsh defines spirituality as referring to direct experience of the sacred and spiritual practices as "those that help us experience the sacred--that which is most central and essential to our lives--for ourselves. Walsh identifies seven spiritual practices to "authentic" religions and that he calls perennial practices. These are as follows: transforming your motivation (reduce craving or attachment and redirect motivation or goal); cultivating emotional wisdom (attaining unconditional love through reducing barriers, cultivating attitudes such as generosity or gratitude, use of devotional practices, and recognizing the true nature of Reality); living ethically (acting out and reinforcing positive emotions--"Whatever you do, you do to yourself"); concentrating and calming your mind (through meditation, continuous prayer, or bhakti we develop concentration on something besides neurosis); awakening your spiritual vision (see clearly and recognize the sacred in all things); cultivating spiritual intelligence (develop wisdom and understand life); and expressing spirit in action (embrace generosity and the joy of service).

Thomas Prugh, in Alcohol, Spirituality, and Recovery, discusses "practical spirituality" and provides ten common components, including: regular renewal of basic trust (the sense of belonging in the world); sound values to support and guide relationships, and a meaningful life philosophy; relationship with and commitment to an integrating object of evocation (a central value in one's systems of values, a "higher power"); regular energizing experiences of transcendence (the experience of the "vertical dimension", peak experiences); reconciliation and forgiveness; regular renewal of self-acceptance and self-esteem (promoting the value of constructive living in the present while planning responsibly for the future); renewal of realistic hope and a sense of future possibilities; development of the "higher self" (what religions call the "soul"); nurturing interaction with nature and other people; and participation in a community with shared spiritual values.

Thomas W. Clark, Director of the Center for Naturalism posits that "authentic" spirituality invokes an emotional response--what he calls a spiritual response--that can include feelings of significance, unity, awe, joy, acceptance, and consolation. Such feelings are intrinsically rewarding and are, therefore sought after in their own right, though they also help us in dealing with difficult situations involving death, loss, and disappointment. The spiritual response then helps us meet our affective needs for both celebration and reconciliation.

Spirituality also involves a cognitive context: a set of fundamental beliefs about oneself and the world that can both inspire the spiritual response and provide an interpretation of it. Our ideas about what ultimately exists, who we fundamentally are, and our place in the greater scheme of things form the cognitive context for spirituality. "By contemplating such beliefs we are temporarily drawn out of the mundane into the realization of life's deeper significance and this realization generates emotional effects. But equally, the spiritual response thus generated is itself interpreted in the light of our basic beliefs--namely, it is taken to reflect the ultimate truth of our situation as we conceive it."

Together with the emotional response and the cognitive context, which are "linked tightly in reciprocal evocation and validation", comes what is generally called spiritual practice. According to Clark, because intellectual appreciation of fundamental beliefs alone may not be sufficient to in inducing an especially deep experience, various noncognitive techniques can help access the spiritual response. These may include activities such as dance, singing, chanting, meditation, and participation in rituals and ceremonies all of which can help us in moving from our heads to our hearts and beyond.

Research by Martsolf and Mickley (1998) indicates that spirituality provides individuals with Meaning (significance of life; making sense of situations; deriving purpose); Values (beliefs, standards and ethics are cherished); Transcendence (experience, awareness, and appreciation of a "transcendent dimension" to life); Connecting (increased awareness of a connection with self, others, God/Spirit/Devine, and nature); and Becoming (an unfolding of life that demands reflection and experience; includes a sense of who one is and how one knows).

Research into nonreligious 11 spirituality conducted by the Centre for Social science Research, School of Nursing and Health, Central Queensland University, revealed that essential spirituality focused on the here and now, rather than a religious perspective, as the most important element in meaning-making. Additionally, though nonreligious, spirituality was steeped in transcendental values or references such as a reverence for life; respect for others; appreciation of the gift of existence; and openness to wonder about the universe. Other significant findings of the study indicated that: (1) a distinction is made between religion and a belief in God; (2) although meaning is not derived from a religious framework there is a sense of the profound--that life has meaning; (3) there is a sense of unknowing and that understanding the ultimate meaning of life is beyond the intellectual faculties of humans; (4) there is a comfort or ease in accepting and living with the fact that it is not possible to understand the meaning of life: and (5) the strength to deal with demands and challenges of serious illness comes from within the individual rather than from a dependence on an external spiritual force, be that religion, or a transcendental being. Such strength is described as: individual; a product of childhood experiences; and supported and reinforced by the caring of significant others.

Certainly, there are many more definitions and dimensions of spirituality we could reference, indeed each of us could develop our own right now, and may want to. The critical thing to keep in mind is that there is no one answer to our question, what is spirituality? Certainly various religions and sects within religions may promote their vision or version, but even here it is not so cut and dried. Add the mystical traditions, New Age vagaries, and the inclusion of agnostics, atheists, rationalists, scientists, and others, and the possibilities are legion. Spirituality is, therefore, very much in the eye (and mind and heart and perhaps, soul) of the beholder.

The Spiritual Agnostic:

There is a marvelous Indian story of a boy who leaves home in search of truth. He goes to various teachers, walking endlessly in various parts of the country, every teacher asserting something or other. After many years, as an old man, after searching, searching, asking, meditating, taking certain postures, breathing rightly, fasting, no sex, and all of that, he comes back to his old house. As he opens the door, there it is: the truth is just there...Truth is not something to be attained, to be experienced, to be held. It is there for those who can see it...
-From Meeting Life: Writings and Talks on Finding Your Own Path Without Retreating From Society by J. Krisnamurti-

Spirituality is like that. It does not exist "out there". It is not the personal domain of any church, synagogue, mosque, temple, ashram, cult, or guru, to be doled out in return for one's belief, behavior or beneficence. It is not a destination to be reached at the end of a journey or a gift to be opened at the conclusion of a great ceremony. Spiritual derives from the Latin spiritus, meaning "of the breath", and like the breath, it is a part of each of us and sustains each of us---it is our birthright.

The Spiritual Agnostic explores spirituality as an integral, though often unrecognized, unappreciated, or untapped element of each of us. We are taught in Western culture to think in terms of pieces of ideas or concepts. We view our bodies, minds, emotions and spirit as if each is a separate passenger on the bus of us, rather than understanding that together, integrated, it is us. We believe that our bodies, organs, and systems are totally separate from our thoughts, emotions, energy fields and our spiritual selves. If we acknowledge our spirit at all, we tend to do so as if it hung in the closet of our being to be donned at a specific time and place of worship or prayer, than carefully replaced until needed next.

We do not integrate spirituality into our everyday lives. We do not realize that perhaps our spiritual lives or a lack of spirituality may be causing some of our health or emotional problems or discomfort. Many of us do not know how to develop a personal spirituality so that we are connected to the greater universe. Or we who consider ourselves agnostics, atheists, rationalists, or naturalists may resist the urge to flex our atrophied spiritual muscle because we fail to understand the difference between organized religion, dogma and spirituality.
This is too bad, because eventually, ultimately, in starving a part of us we inevitably experience dis-ease. But take heart, it needn't be this way. All we need do is return home, open the door, and there it is, its just there. And how we choose to acknowledge it and embrace it is up to us. As Ram Dass indicates "The spiritual journey is individual, highly personal. It can't be organized or regulated. It isn't true that everybody should follow one path. Listen to your own truth." But keep in mind; the longest journey is the journey inward.

The Spiritual Agnostic has been written as a type of travelogue or guidebook for this inward journeying. It is not intended to tell one where to go, or even how to get there. It is a literary companion that may aid, comfort, clarify, or inspire. It may point out interesting features and facets of the spiritual landscape to be encountered. It may even provide ideas, information or instruction that prove valuable. But it is not a Triple A road map with the quickest or most scenic route highlighted in yellow for our convenience. Embracing and nurturing our spirituality is not meant to be convenient, it's meant to make us whole--as in holistic.
But first, on the surface, the term spiritual agnostic might seem a bit oxymoronic, however this is really a case of semantic confusion rather than anything created by an inherent discord or disconnect in terminology. Prior to diving too deeply into the depths of spiritual agnosticism, therefore, it might be wise to grab onto the safety line of semantics. Semantics (from the Greek semantikos, or "significant meaning", derived from sema, sign) is the study of meaning, in some sense of that term. It is about the use of a word more so than the nature of the entity referenced by the word. It is often heard in the argument, "That's only semantics," when one tries to draw conclusions about what is true concerning the world based on what is true about a word.

Agnosticism is the philosophical view that the truth values of certain claims--particularly theological claims regarding the existence of God, gods, or deities--are unknown, inherently unknowable, or incoherent and therefore, (some may go so far to say), irrelevant to life. The term agnosticism and the related agnostic were coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in 1869, and are also used to describe those who are unconvinced or noncommittal about the existence of deities as well as other matters of religion. The word agnostic comes from the Greek a (without) and gnosis (knowledge).

Although Thomas Huxley coined the word agnosticism, the philosophical underpinnings did not originate with him, as if he were writing the word and the concept on a blank slate. On the contrary, Huxley was relying upon a long philosophical tradition of religious and epistemological skepticism when he argued that we should approach the question of the existence of God in the "agnostic" fashion he described. No one before Huxley would have described themselves as agnostics, but we can identify philosophers and scholars who insisted that they either didn't have knowledge of Ultimate Reality 5 and gods, or that it wasn't possible for anyone to have such knowledge--both positions associated with agnosticism.

Perhaps the simplest and earliest statement of a basic agnostic position was made by Protagoras who was purported to have said: "As to gods, I have no means of knowing either that they exist or do not exist. For many are the obstacles that impede knowledge, both the obscurity of the question and the shortness of human life." Other ancient proto-agnostics included members of the skeptical school of philosophy including Pyrrho and Sextus Empiricus. Modern philosophers including David Hume, who continued the tradition of skepticism, also continued the promotion of agnostic principles.

Hume argued there isn't enough evidence for anyone to believe in miracles, God, or immortality on purely empirical or logical grounds--arguments still in use today in one form or another by agnostics. He also made room for agnostic theism by arguing that faith in things like gods or immortality might exist even in the absence of independent evidence. Immanuel Kant provided further support for agnosticism by arguing that belief in God must rest on faith and cannot be achieved through unaided reason or empirical investigation. This, then, would assert that all theists must, in reality, be agnostics.

When Huxley first coined the term agnosticism, he had in mind a methodology that limited our claims to knowledge to only those ideas that are adequately supported by evidence and logic. However, R.H. Hutton, a colleague of Huxley who helped popularize the term, frequently misrepresented the concept in his own writings by describing it as "belief in an unknown and unknowable God." Thus serving as a description of agnostic theism but ignores the possibility of agnostic atheism.

Herbert Spenser influenced the way we understand agnosticism by arguing that the term should be applied to the idea that the existence of God or any Ultimate Reality is unknowable in principle therefore, we should not make any positive or negative statements about its nature. In as much as Huxley's understanding and use of the term was already commonly described by the name rationalism, Spenser's usage gained considerable popularity.
Much of the influence and interest in agnosticism at the time was fueled by the emergence the theory of evolution as espoused by Charles Darwin. 7Those who adopted the label agnostic for themselves were part of an emerging cultural milieu in which established Christian orthodoxy was fighting a desperate but losing battle against the advance of science, especially what became known as Darwinism. Intellectuals, philosophers, and individuals from all walks of life were finding the dominance of Christianity to be stifling, while the discoveries of science and technology were taking on their own air of transcendence and promised salvation.
Agnosticism may simply be the state of not knowing whether God or gods exist or not, but it is also possible to take an agnostic stance and apply it in different ways. The broadest distinction is that between strong agnosticism and weak agnosticism. Strong agnosticism (also called hard, closed, strict, or absolute agnosticism) represents the view that the question of the existence of deities is unknowable by nature or that human beings are simply ill equipped to judge the evidence. Weak agnosticism (also called soft, open, empirical, or temporal agnosticism) is the view that the existence of God or gods is currently unknown but isn't necessarily unknowable; therefore one will withhold judgment until more evidence is available. Another variation between the two is that weak agnostics state only that they do not know if any deities exist or not. The possibility of someone else knowing for sure is not excluded, strong agnostics claim that no one can, or does know if any gods exist.

Other variations include:
• Apathetic agnosticism--the view that there is no proof either of God's existence or nonexistence, but since God (if there is one) appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic or moot.
• Ignosticism-- the belief that the concept of God as a being is meaningless because it has no verifiable consequences, therefore it cannot be usefully discussed as having existence or nonexistence.
• Model agnosticism--the concept that philosophical and metaphysical questions are not ultimately verifiable but that a model of malleable assumption should be built upon rational thought. This branch of agnosticism does not focus on a deity's existence.
• Agnostic theism--this view is held by those who do not claim to know of God's existence, but still believe in such existence. Whether this is truly agnosticism is disputed. It may also imply the belief that although there is something that resembles (or at least appear to us as) a god, or gods, there remains doubt over its true nature, motives, or the validity of the claim to be 'God" rather than superior, supernatural being(s).
• Agnostic spiritualism--the concept that there may or may not be a deity, (or deities), while maintaining a general personal belief in a spiritual aspect of reality, particularly without distinct religious basis, or adherence to any established doctrine or dogma. Note: it is the position of this book that any agnostic, weak or strong or any variation thereof, can practice spiritual agnosticism--the key is applied spirituality that is not reliant on any particular religion practice or religious dogma.
• Agnostic atheism--the view that God may or may not exist, but that the non-existence of such is more likely. Some agnostic atheists would at least partially base their beliefs on Occam's Razor.

Agnosticism is sometimes mistakenly confused or interchanged with atheism, which in its broadest sense is the absence of theism (the belief in the existence of deities). This encompasses both people who assert that there are no gods, and those who make no claim about whether gods exist or not. Therefore, agnosticism is distinct from, but compatible with, atheism, as it is with theism. This is because agnosticism is a view about knowledge concerning God, whereas theism and atheism are beliefs (or lack thereof) concerning God. For example, it is possible to believe in God but to believe that knowledge about God is not obtainable or knowable. Some go so far as to claim that there is nothing distinctive in being an agnostic because even theists do not claim to know God exists, only to believe it, and many even agree there is room for doubt; and atheists in the broader sense do not claim to know there is no God, only not to believe in one.

Likewise, there is general confusion between the terms spiritual, spirituality, and religious. Spirituality is, in a narrow sense, a concern with matters of the spirit. The spiritual, concerning as it does eternal verities regarding humanity's ultimate nature, is often contrasted with the temporal or the worldly. The central defining characteristic of spirituality tends to be the belief in a supernatural realm of existence, opposed to materialism, which posits that only the material world truly exists. As with some forms of religion, the emphasis of spirituality is on personal experience with that supernatural realm. It may be an expression for life perceived as higher, more complex or more integrated with one's world view, as contrasted with the merely sensual.

An important distinction may be made between spirituality in religion and spirituality as opposed to religion. In recent years, spirituality in religion often carries connotations of the believer's faith being more personal, less dogmatic, more open to new ideas and myriad influences, and more pluralistic than the faiths of many established religions. It can also connote the nature of a believer's personal relationship or "connection" with their god or belief system, as opposed to the general relationship with the Deity understood to be shared by all members of that faith.

Those who speak of spirituality as opposed to religion generally believe that there are many "spiritual paths" and that there is no objective truth about which is the best or only path to follow. Rather, adherents of this definition of the term emphasize the importance of finding one's own path to whatever god or higher power there is, rather than following what works for others.

Others sometimes considered being of a more "New Age" disposition hold that spirituality is not religion, per se, but the active and vital connection to a force, spirit, or sense of deep self. As cultural historian and yogi William Irwin Thompson puts it, "Religion is not identical with spirituality; rather religion is the form spirituality takes in civilization."

According to Wayne Teasdale, being religious 14 connotes belonging to and practicing a religious tradition, while being spiritual suggests a personal commitment to a process of inner development that engages us in our totality. Of course, many who consider themselves religious are also spiritual, but not all; and many individuals who consider themselves spiritual are also religious, but again, not all. Spirituality is a way of life that affects and includes every moment of existence. Spirituality embodies a contemplative attitude, a disposition to a life of depth, and the endless search for ultimate meaning, direction, and belonging. An individual who is both spiritual and religious is committed to spiritual growth as an essential, ongoing life goal, while being nurtured and supported by their religious traditions.

If this appears counterintuitive to some, we need look no further than the Buddha and Buddhism to provide us the consummate example of this interplay between spirituality and agnosticism. An elementary aspect of Buddhism’s appeal to countless peoples over the past two and a half millennia is the fact that its central figure, commonly referred to by the title “Buddha” was not a god, or a special kind of spiritual being, or even a prophet or an emissary of one. On the contrary, he was a human being like the rest of us who quite simply woke up to full aliveness.

The Sanskrit word Buddha means “the awakened one” and derives etymologically from the same Indo-European root that gives us the English word bud. In a sense, the Buddha was a sentient being who managed to bud and then bloom into total consciousness of his nature, or, to use a more traditional expression, into enlightenment.

Likewise, the Buddha did not preach a creed or another "-ism". Rather he taught a method (dharma practice). The dharma is not something to believe in but something to do. He did not reveal or revel in an esoteric set of facts about reality, instead he challenged people to understand the nature of anguish, let go of its origins, realize its cessation, and bring into being an authentic way of life. When asked what he was doing, the Buddha replied that he taught "anguish and the ending of anguish". When asked about metaphysics, he remained silent. He said the dharma was permeated by a single taste: freedom. He made no claims to uniqueness or divinity and did not have recourse to a term we would translate as "God." The Buddha wasn't against the idea of God. He simply and intentionally chose an agnostic position, which in itself raises an interesting, and in the case of spiritual agnosticism, significant question. Is Buddhism a religion, and therefore, can religion exist without a belief in (or a need) for a god, and if so, can an agnostic be religious?

According to many Buddhist, the answer to the first part of the question is "yes, but..." It is a religion because it involves the elements of belief, faith, and self-transformation, which are characteristic features of religions. Stephen Batchelor, in his book Buddhism Without Beliefs, notes that "as the dharma emigrates westward, it is treated as a religion--albeit an 'Eastern' one. The very term 'Buddhism' (an invention of Western scholars) reinforces the idea that it is a creed to be lined up alongside other creeds." In this sense a religion is a set of beliefs which we take comfort and direction from but which cannot be conclusively proved objectively as true or false.

...But Buddhism can also be viewed, just as legitimately, as a philosophy of life, as a psychology, and as a science. According to Peter Morrell, "Philosophy of life is your belief system which may or may not be applied to your life. I would term a religion an 'applied philosophy' by which you lead your life and through which you hope to improve it...Buddhism is better described as an 'applied religious philosophy'. It is a set of ideas about man and the world, but it also has the life-transforming quality of a religion when, and only when, it is applied."

Buddhism is also the most psychological of religions. It is significant that the intricate workings of the human mind are more fully dealt with in Buddhism than in any other religion and therefore psychology works hand in hand with Buddhism more so than with any other religion. Moreover, the remarkable insight into the workings of the mind derived through investigation makes Buddha the supreme psychologist cum scientist.

As to the last part of the question, a belief in God or gods is not a prerequisite for religion and, therefore, not necessarily a factor in the religiosity of a spiritual agnostic. Sociologists and anthropologists see religion as an abstract set of ideas, values, or experiences developed as part of a cultural matrix. Other religious scholars have put forward a definition of religion that avoids the reductionism of the various sociological and psychological disciplines that relegate religion to its component factors. Religion may be defined as the presence of an awareness of the sacred or the holy. What this presence is remains very much in the eye of the beholder. The Encyclopedia of Religion describes religion in the following way:

"In summary, it may be said that almost every known culture involves the religious in the above sense of a depth dimension in cultural experiences at all levels--a push, whether ill-defined or conscious, toward some sort of ultimacy and transcendence that will provide norms and power for the rest of life. When more or less distinct patterns of behavior are built around this depth dimension in a culture, this structure constitutes religion in its historically recognizable form. Religion is the organization of life around the depth dimensions of experience--varied in form, completeness, and clarity in accordance with the environing culture."

All of this by way of saying, in terms of the spiritual agnostic, we need not become too preoccupied or frozen over the fear of crossing the 'boundaries' between religion and agnosticism, or even atheism for that matter--the critical component is our spirituality. In fact, the Reverend Samuel A. Trumbore of the First Unitarian Universalist Society of Albany advocates an agnostic spirituality in his congregation because he believes it to be one of the best ways he has found to satisfy the calls for spirituality within the congregation.

As spiritual agnostics we choose to define ourselves in two essential ways, connecting to the sacred as our purpose while rejecting or avoiding dogma as our vehicle. Of course, we need not define ourselves at all if to do so seems confining or restrictive, but like one's name or personal demographics it provides a sort of shortcut to describing certain aspects of ourselves to others, and perhaps to ourselves as well. In as much as, by definition, we reject dogma, or a particular belief or set of beliefs that a religion holds to be true, there is no hard and fast "rules" as to what constitutes spiritual agnosticism, but we can probably settle on some guiding principles.
A common theme or strand in spirituality is a desire to cultivate one's spirit, cultivate the vital essence that animates living beings. The power of our spirit, our life energy isn't constant but tends to ebb and flow and wonderfully can be intentionally enhanced. We may look at individuals such as Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, or the Dali Lama and fixate on their enormous presence, penetrating insight and disarming love as attributes to honor, esteem or hold in awe, but in truth are merely signposts pointing to the spiritual potential within each of us. The vital and animating principle in such individuals extend our conception of what an animating principle can be and give us the hunger to develop and augment our own vital principles that give us life.

Some believe that this vital principle comes from God. Agnostic spirituality does not presuppose this is so, nor does it reject the idea. It may be the reality that the Holy Spirit is actually at work in our lives without our knowledge or awareness. The practice of an agnostic spirituality will be independent of belief in or dependence on a supernatural being for its efficacy. Agnostic spirituality belongs to the liberal tradition of following the guidance of people like Jesus rather than worshipping their image and asking for their intercessory support."

The spiritual agnostic will operate on the principle of direct observation and experience. Rather than adopt the word of others for what is good and true at face value, as is the case in much organized religion, the spiritual agnostic will want to touch and taste and trust the truth through their own heart and mind receptors. Additionally, this observation and experience will be tempered by as much learning, wisdom and knowledge as the world has to offer because our senses cannot always be trusted and our truths are limited by our ignorance. The human capacity for denial, self-deception and delusion, for seeing what we want to see, and believing what we want to believe, is so fundamental it needs to be balanced by an awareness more expansive and inclusive than are own. This is in keeping with a long and valued practice.
Do not be satisfied with hearsay or with tradition or with legendary lore or with what has come down in scriptures or with conjecture or with logical inference or with weighing evidence or with liking for a view after pondering over it or with someone else's ability or with the thought 'The monk is our teacher.' When you know in yourselves: 'These things are wholesome, blameless, commended by the wise, and being adopted and put into effect they lead to welfare and happiness,' then you should practice and abide by them...
-The Buddha, Kalama Sutta-

The spiritual agnostic may or may not allow room for the supernatural to be part of their spiritual pilgrimage. As noted earlier, a central defining characteristic of spirituality is belief in a supernatural realm of existence, wherein supernatural refers to forces and phenomena that are beyond ordinary scientific measurement. However, there are those that hold that naturalism may serve well as a basis for spirituality, both to inspire the spiritual response and to provide a plausible cognitive context for our ultimate concerns. First, it is clear that under naturalism connection with the world is built into every aspect of our being. We're joined to the cosmos and the everyday world as described by science in countless ways: the elements composing our bodies are the products of the Big Bang and stellar evolution, most of our DNA is shared with other beings; our perceptions and sensations are all mediated by processes involving photons, electrons, ions, neurotransmitters and our character and behavior is fully a function of genetics and environment. We are, therefore, fully linked with our surroundings in time, space, matter/energy, and causality, a construct beautifully captured by Trinh Xuan Thuan in The Quantum and the Lotus.

We are all made of stardust. As brothers of the wild beasts and cousins of the flowers in the fields, we all carry the history of the cosmos. Just by breathing we are linked to all the beings that have lived on the planet. For example, still today we are breathing in millions of atomic nuclei from the fire that burned Joan of Arc in 1431, and some of the molecules from Julius Caesar's dying breath. When a living organism dies and decays, its atoms are released back into the environment, and eventually become integrated into other organisms. Our bodies contain about a billion atoms that once belonged to the tree under which the Buddha attained enlightenment.

This view may be referred to as naturalistic spirituality or even spiritual atheism in that there is a denial of the supernatural as a component of spirituality, but it is important to keep in mind that in this context supernatural is virtually synonymous with the existence of a causal agent, (e.g., God). Other spiritual agnostics make room for the supernatural where the term is not presumed to equate to the existence of a god or gods. Albert Einstein is the source of a quote that captures the spirit of agnostic cum naturalistic spiritualism poignantly. "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed."

So here we are, spiritual agnostics, abstainers of belief in a causal agent in love with the mysterious. Explain that to your parent, spouse, friend, partner, child, neighbor. What is the sound of one face staring? One might ask, wouldn't it be simpler (i.e., more normal) to just get off the fence and belong to a church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or ashram if one wants to pursue the spiritual, or suck it up, embrace atheism and go about our lives in the material world? Well, yes, possibly, but that isn't the point and for us it's not a satisfactory or acceptable option.

Alan Watts in his book, Buddhism the Religion of No Religion, provides some potent rationale for taking the road less traveled. In terms of following the religious path, he cautions "All religious comments about life eventually become clichés. Religion is always falling apart and promoting lip service and imitation. The imitation of Christ, for instance, is a perfect example. It is a terrible idea because everyone who imitates Christ becomes a kind of a fake Jesus...One might say that the highest kind of religious or spiritual attainment shows no sign that it is religious or spiritual." Likewise, "How can you be neither religious nor nonreligious? That is a great test...The theist is caught by God or the belief in God, but the atheist is equally caught...he is trapped by his opposition to God as a theist is caught by his idea of God. Atheists who advertise their disbelief in God are very pious people...'There is no God, and I am His prophet." Perhaps the spiritual agnostic's road, while lest traveled, is not so rutted after all?

The Dharma of Addiction Michael Fitzgerald

In very many cases he knows quite clearly that he is destroying himself, that for him liquor is poison that he actually hates being drunk, and even dislikes the taste of liquor. And yet he drinks. For, dislike it as he may, the experience of not being drunk is worse. It gives him the ‘horrors’ for he stands face to face with the unveiled, basic insecurity of the world. Herein lies the crux of the matter. To stand face to face with insecurity is still not to understand it. To understand it, you must not face it but be it,”
-Alan Watts-

It appears to me that a common theme runs throughout the various stories and interpretations of hungry ghosts; people are reborn into a non-living hell as a result of their cravings on earth. And in this hell their cravings are both intensified and unfulfilled. Everything they become and do to appease their unappeasable hunger and thirst only makes them crave and suffer more. In my cravings and addictions I have felt like the hungry ghost.

The Buddhist scripture, The Dhammapada, tells us that “from craving arises sorrow and from craving arises fear”. In our sorrow and fear comes our pain. When we try to medicate or numb our pain chemically, we become addicted. When we try to smother it in the comfort of our family and friends we smother the love of family and friends. What are we to do? To whom or what can we turn?

The Buddha noticed that everyone who lived experienced pain. He also noticed that nothing people tried removed the pain; they only made it worse. He said, “Birth is suffering, old age is suffering, illness is suffering, death is suffering; grief, lamentation, pain, affliction, and despair are suffering: to be united with what is unloved, to be separated from what is love is suffering; not to obtain what is longed for is suffering”. I can certainly attest to the truth of this teaching, but the Buddha’s wondrous insight was to see the pain as a symptom of a greater underlying problem. The answer lay not in numbing the self with intoxicants, or food, or overwork, or to assuage it emotionally through others, or love or sex addictions, or compulsive religiosity, but to reach beyond the symptom to the disease itself: a misperception of our place in the universe.

Alcohol/Drug Addiction

The Buddha described addiction to intoxicants as one of the six causes of ruin. It brings about six main disadvantages: loss of wealth, quarrels and strife, a poor state of health, a source of disgrace, shameless and indecent behavior, and weakened intelligence and mental facilities. It may be for these reasons that the Buddha incorporated a teaching against the use of intoxicating liquids as a part of his "Five Precepts", a condensed form of Buddhist ethical practice.

Traditionally, Buddhists articulate their commitment to daily morality by subscribing to the five “precepts”. The precepts are simply that, principles intended as a general rule or guide for action. There are three basic modes of training in Buddhist practice: morality, mental culture, and wisdom. The Pali term sila is loosely represented by the English word, morality. The word sila denotes a state of normalcy, a condition which is basically unqualified and unadulterated. When we live out sila, we revisit our own basic goodness, our original state of being, unperturbed and unmodified. Killing a human being, for instance is not basically human nature; if it were, humans would have died out long ago. A person commits an act of murder because he or she is blinded by fear, hate, greed, rage or the like. These negative emotions are factors that alter people’s nature and make them into something other than their true self, like the transformation of Doctor Jekyll into Mr. Hyde. To practice sila, therefore, is to train in preserving one’s true nature, not allowing it to be modified or overshadowed by negative forces.

The Five Precepts:
1. To refrain from killing
2. To refrain from stealing
3. To refrain from sexual misconduct
4. To refrain from false, harsh, and idle speech
5. To refrain from intoxicants

We may summarize the five precepts in relation to the spiritual qualities that they are likely to produce and promote as follows. The first precept helps to promote goodwill, compassion, and kindness. The second can be instrumental in developing generosity, service, altruism, non-attachment, contentment, honesty, and right livelihood. The third precept helps to cultivate self-restraint, mastery over the emotions and senses, renunciation, and control of sensual desire. The forth precept leads to the development of honesty, reliability, and moral integrity. The fifth precept helps to promote mindfulness, clarity of mind, and wisdom.
-The Five Precepts, Chieng Mai Dhamma Study Group-

It is practice among some Buddhists to meditate daily on the five precepts. Daily meditation aids us in our resolve to practice these precepts as a part of who we are and not stray from them out of confused and foreign emotions.

I undertake the rule of training to refrain from killing living creatures.
I undertake the rule of training to refrain from taking what is not given.
I undertake the rule of training to refrain from wrong conduct in sexual pleasures.
I undertake the rule of training to refrain from false speech.
I undertake the rule of training to refrain from distilled and fermented intoxicants, which are the occasion for carelessness.

What keeping the precepts does is that it liberates you from the very confined behavior of following your desire, anger, and ignorance. In fact, not keeping the precepts means staying with a way of behaving which is repressed, self-destructive; not sound of self or in relations. Keeping the precepts means turning away from tunnel vision, a very wide range of behavior; and not keeping the precepts means keeping a very, very narrow range of behavior, because you’re just stuck in the same habit of “I, my, me”.

It may be of benefit to note at this point that Buddhism, whether you think of it as a religion, philosophy, psychology or any combination there of, is considered 'non-theistic'. The Buddha himself made no claim to divinity and did not have recourse to a term we might translate as 'God'. Therefore, the 'Five Precepts' are not the Eastern equivalent of the Western 'Ten Commandments'. Essentially, they represent ethical and moral principles governed by examining whether one's action or intent is likely to be harmful to one's self or others.
Along with being non-theistic, there is no 'Buddha Bible' to dictate the ultimate law or truth. For forty-five years, the Buddha taught, over and over again, to monks, nuns, nobility and laypersons, "I teach only suffering and the transformation of suffering". The Buddha described himself as an open-minded teacher whose lessons were open to all people. Before he died, Buddha refused to select a successor believing that all individuals should be responsible for their own liberation.

Do not be satisfied with hearsay or with tradition or with legendary lore or with what has come down in scriptures or with conjecture or with logical inference or with weighing evidence or with liking for a view after pondering over it with someone else's ability or with the thought "The monk is our teacher." When you know yourselves: "These things are wholesome, blameless, commended by the wise, and being adopted and put into effect they lead to welfare and happiness."
-The Buddha, Kalama Sutra-

The fifth precept covers all intoxicants that alter the state of consciousness and are physiologically addictive. Intoxicants, especially alcohol, are part of our Western culture. Many individuals enjoy an occasional drink to socialize or unwind. Alcohol, especially wine, is part of many religious observances. Why then the precept against its consumption?
For one thing, drinking alcohol is not part of the Buddhist culture. While it is true that alcoholic consumption was prevalent before and during the time of the Buddha, he never approved of the practice. The fact that something is commonly practiced does not necessarily mean that it is good or wholesome. The fifth precept is based on respect for mental health. It guards against the loss of control of one’s mental facilities. It is particularly important to those who meditate because, by refraining from taking intoxicants, they can more easily cultivate awareness, attention, and clarity of mind.

There are people who drink alcohol and get drunk, who destroy their bodies, their families, their society. They should refrain from drinking. But you who have a glass of wine every week during the last thirty years without doing any harm to yourself, why should you stop that? What is the use of practicing this precept if drinking alcohol does not harm you or other people? Although you have not harmed yourself during the last thirty years by drinking just one or two glasses of wine every week, the fact is that it may have an effect on your children, your grandchildren, and on society. We only need to look deeply in order to see it. You are practicing not for yourself alone, but for everyone. Your children might have a propensity for alcoholism and seeing you drinking wine every week, one of them may become an alcoholic in the future. If you abandon your two glasses of wine, it is to show your children, your friends, and your society that your life is not only for yourself. Your life is for your ancestors, future generations, and also your society. To stop drinking two glasses of wine every week is a very deep practice, even if it has not brought you any harm. That is the insight of a bodhisattva who knows that everything she does is done for all her ancestors and the future generations. The emptiness of transmission is the basis of the Fifth Precept.

Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia, defines drug addiction as the compulsive use of drugs, to the point where the user has no effective choice but to continue use. Drug addiction has two components: physical dependency, and psychological dependency. Physical dependency occurs when a drug has been used habitually and the body has become accustomed to its effects. The person must then continue to use the drug in order to feel normal, or its absence will trigger the symptoms of withdrawal. Psychological dependency occurs when a drug has been used habitually and the mind has become emotionally reliant on its effects, either to elicit pleasure or relieve pain, and does not feel capable of functioning without it. Its absence produces intense cravings, which are often brought on or magnified by stress. A dependent person may have either aspects of dependency, but often has both.

Alcoholism is defined as a dependency on alcohol characterized by craving (a strong need to drink), loss of control (being unable to stop drinking despite a desire to do so), physical dependence and withdrawal symptoms, and tolerance (increasing difficulty of becoming drunk).
In a 1992 JAMA article, the Joint Committee of the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence and the American Society of Addiction Medicine published this definition for alcoholism: "Alcoholism is a primary chronic disease with genetic, psychosocial, and environmental factors influencing its development and manifestations. The disease is often progressive and fatal. It is characterized by impaired control over drinking, preoccupation with the drug alcohol, use of alcohol despite adverse consequences, and distortions in thinking, mostly denial. Each of these symptoms may be continuous or periodic"

Gerald G. May, M.D., in Addiction and Grace, defines addiction as "any compulsive, habitual behavior that limits the freedom of human desire. It is caused by attachments, or nailing, of desires to specific objects. Five essential characteristics mark true addiction: (1) tolerance, (2) withdrawal symptoms, (3) self-deception, (4) loss of will power, and (5) distortion of attention."

The Mayo Clinic indicates that physical dependence on alcohol--alcohol addiction--occurs gradually as alcohol consumption alters the balance of some chemicals in the brain, such as gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), which inhibits impulsiveness, and glutamine, which excites the nervous system. Alcohol also elevates the levels of dopamine in the brain, which is associated with the pleasurable aspects of drinking alcohol. Excessive, long-term drinking can deplete or increase the levels of some of these chemicals, leading the body to crave alcohol in order to restore positive feelings or to avoid negative ones.

Other factors that may lead to excessive drinking that contributes to the addiction process includes:

• Genetics--Certain factors may cause an individual to be vulnerable to alcoholism or another addiction. For example, an imbalance of certain brain chemicals may predispose one to alcoholism.
• Emotional state--High levels of stress, anxiety or emotional pain can lead some people to drink alcohol to combat the turmoil and pain. Certain stress hormones may also be associated with alcoholism.
• Psychological factors--Possessing low-self esteem or suffering from depression may make one more likely to abuse alcohol. Having friends or a close partner who drinks regularly, but who may not abuse alcohol may lead to excessive drinking on one's part since it may prove difficult to distance oneself from these "enablers" or at least from their drinking behaviors.
• Social and cultural factors--The glamorous way that drinking alcohol is portrayed in advertising and in the entertainment media gives many people the idea that it's socially acceptable or even advantageous to drink excessively.

In Conclusion

Andrew Weil posits that we are all addicted. He believes, along with Roger Walsh, that addiction is the fundamental problem facing our future survival. For example, upcoming global catastrophes have much to do with addictive behavior. The world population explosion is connected to sex addition. The destruction of rainforests and ocean and atmospheric pollution is tied to the addiction to power and money.

Addiction is fundamental in all aspects; it is a profound central dilemma at the core of being human. It is also at the center of all the specific problems that we face in the world today. It is a universal problem and all of us are caught up in addictive behavior. Weil claims, "that the essence of addiction is craving for an experience or object to make yourself feel all right. It's the craving for something other than the self, even if that's within the realm of the mind. I also feel addiction is something that's fundamentally human; it affects everybody". He also states that this addiction to an inner experience is rarely discussed in the Western world but it is in Buddhism. In Buddhist psychology, addiction is considered to be a grave impediment to enlightenment. That's one of the reasons we meditate-to endeavor to get some freedom and release from thought.

From a Buddhist perspective, it seems to me that addiction is the contradictory aspect of the Dharma. According to Peter Morrell, the teachings of the Buddha are entirely designed to help us to become joyful and contented people, by reducing or eliminating those things from our lives which cause us, and others, suffering. This is accomplished through helping us to reflect more deeply upon the consequences of our actions, and by increasing those things that bring us joy and contentment. Since there is no authentic "good" or "bad" in Buddhism, what exist are simply actions that bring us greater happiness or greater sorrow and pain. "To live skillfully, therefore, is to live in harmony with these principles. In general, it means to reduce our selfishness, to give more to others, to increase our happiness and to stop those things that harm self or others--to adopt a life of non-harming. Non-harming to self and all beings."
I can tell you from experience that I have found addiction to be a maladroit, egocentric, joyless and excruciating substitute for living. For me it is the Anti-Dharma.

Tanha translates as desire, graving, thirst, want, longing, yearning. Tanha is a term for wanting to have or wanting to obtain. It also encompasses the negative as in wanting not to have. We can crave for the presence of agreeable emotions, and for disagreeable feels to be absent. The significance of tanha extends beyond the desire for material objects or sense pleasures. It also entails the desire for life (or death for the suicidal), desire for fame or infamy, and desire for, or aversion to, certain mental or emotional states of being. Tanha is sometimes translated as addiction, but this is by far too narrow a definition. The meaning of tanha is far-reaching and covers all desire, all wanting, all craving, irrespective of its intensity.