Passive and Active Spirituality

 Over the last day or so, I have been pondering the meaning of passive and active when it comes to spiritual practice or philosophy. In his book, The Challenge of the Mind, Oryuhu Okawa describes two kinds of religion: one which relies on other beings' powers and another which suggests the inner worth of a person. The latter point of view suggests that human beings could have 'divinity' within them and need not think of themselves as spiritually impoverished or dependent on a spiritual power for salvation. This evening after the group meditation, I also had a chance to listen to Master Sheng Yen's talk about active vs. passive. While Okawa tends to see passive and active forms of spirituality as different (if not opposite), Sheng Yen sees the two as parts of a whole. For instance, in cases where a person is interacting with others, there is always a combination of taking initiative and waiting to hear from others. The former tends to be considered 'active' while the latter is a more passive kind of responsiveness to others.
    I tend to think that there is never a completely active or passive spirituality. For instance, if I think that everything is completely under my control, I begin to wonder who this "I" is, and how does it know it is 'in control' at all? I am reminded of examples where people might think they are doing well in a social situation, only to find that others find them to be too imposing, not giving others space to be themselves. Even when we try to measure ourselves, we are limited by the standards we use or the narrow ways we measure our own achievements. I am also thinking that nobody ever lives in a vacuum, and people have to act within the boundaries of shared customs and rules. John Locke is one philosopher who seemed to stress that even property rights are protected by shared rules. There is on inalienable action that is always right for one person, since we are always living in the context of larger communities. In that sense, in order to be constructively active, one has to also observe others and yield to others to a certain degree. Both are part of human associations.
    I  could also extend the same analogy to spiritual life. If spiritual life is too individualistic and 'action focused', it often loses sight of the sacred mysteries of spirit life. We often don't fully plumb the depths of our being, even when we are taking full charge of our actions (or so we believe).I think in a sense that action is the beginning of spiritual life, in the sense that being active is what allows people to discover how they are in different situations and how the mind works. But in another sense, it's only the starting point, and much of spiritual life is discovering what can't be quantified as an action necessarily, a kind of unspeakable sacredness of being itself. Okawa tends to underplay this in his explanations, where he stresses how Buddha nature is something we need to realize through a structured program of action. But somehow I am afraid that too much activism ends up making spirituality into a sophisticated philistinism, a kind of 'salvation through good deeds'. I think somehow spiritual life needs to preserve the delicate balance between acting upon the world and receiving its mysteries and communities.

Okawa, Ryuho (1994, 2004), The Challenge of the Mind. Great Britain: Time Warner Books
Sheng Yen, "Being Active vs Being Passive", https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cj1lYcWXumY