LSP30: Spirituality: Don't Let It Become Your Personal Addiction Playground

I wrote the following paragraphs in response to a question posted recently in an online spirituality forum.  The question was, "Why must those who claim to be Spiritual be so afraid of honest debate?"

Honest debate is a good antidote for the problems created by top-down philosophical authority (a.k.a. Revelation).  But first it's helpful to understand the obstacles that get in the way of honest debate.

________________________________________________________

It's easier to see the effects of status addiction in spheres of life such as politics or business, as a recent article in The Atlantic by Jerry Useem highlighted: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/07/power-causes-brain-damage/528711/. But the same thing happens in spiritual and religious circles because, like it or not, we only have so many brain networks. The biological networks you use to build knowledge, authority, relationships, and organizational planning in the business world are the same networks you use to build knowledge, etc., in the religious or spiritual world. You can't separate the networks (though many unethical spiritual teachers will tell you you can). So if you're vulnerable to the problems of addiction -- especially status addiction -- you're not immune to the problems caused by too much power or too much infallibility in the spiritual world. Like everybody else, you have to deal with the biology God has given you -- not the biology you'd like to think you have. Photo credit JAT 2017.

Another point to consider is the neuroscientific perspective, since a person who's on a spiritual path is still a human being who's dealing with all the realities of biology, chemistry, and physics. 

The human brain is vulnerable to addiction issues. (Actually, many other species are vulnerable to addiction issues, too, but this isn't the place for that discussion.) Addiction issues can really get in the way within spiritual circles, especially when the addiction is to status.

Status addiction is a physiological addiction -- a biological addiction -- that's no different (as far as the brain is concerned) than better known addictions such as alcohol or substance abuse. It hasn't been examined much in scientific studies. I hope this lack of scientific interest will soon change.

Status addiction often expresses itself as the "Right to Be Right" -- a psychological need to present a belief or an opinion as a "universal truth" that can't be challenged. This status-driven "Right to Be Right" is often seen in both scientific and theological circles, where the payoff for being "right" can be quite large. (Note that acquiring money isn't the key issue here; acquiring status points is the goal, so an ascetic who's given up all money and belongings can still be suffering from a self-devouring status addiction.)

When a status addict's "Right to Be Right" is challenged, he or she will respond as all addicts do (until they begin to confront their personal addictions): they'll do whatever they have to do to protect their daily "fix."

I've had personal encounters with a number of status addicts who've chosen the spiritual world as their personal addiction playground, and let me tell you -- it ain't pretty when you confront them.

As with any form of addiction, a Twelve Step Program could prove very helpful for dealing with the intense cravings of status addiction and the unloving behaviour that often results.

Hope this helps.

Blessings,
Jen

LSP29: The Presence of God

This morning, I read an online interview with author Gregg Braden in a New Age magazine called OMTimes.  The magazine says Gregg Braden is "internationally known as a pioneer in bridging science, ancient wisdom and the real world!"  If you go to Wikipedia to learn more about Gregg Braden, you'll find only a brief entry with a very short introductory paragraph followed by a list of his publications.  I find it interesting that Braden's Wikipedia entry has been so heavily redacted.

The interview in OMTimes can't be downloaded, so I spent some time copying quotes from the article (including all the punctuation and capitalization):

"Since 1986 Gregg has explored high mountain villages, remote monasteries, and forgotten texts to merge their timeless secrets with the best science of today.  His discoveries are now shared in 34 languages through such paradigm-inspiring books as: The God Code, Deep Truth, and his newest, The Turning Point: Creating Resilience in a Time of Extremes."

Braden believes the world is at a turning point with human beings facing extremes of climate change, economic change, and health change that no human beings have ever dealt with before.  He defines "community" as "our answer to our time of extremes," and he defines "resilience" as "our personal ability to thrive in our time of extremes." (This sounds eerily like the apostle Paul's koinonia and hagiasmos: fellowship and holiness.)

He has this to say about the merging of science, ancient wisdom and the real world:

"The wisdom comes from 5,000 years of the spiritual traditions where we apply what we know about the world and about our lives.  It's about making life work for us.  As a scientist, I was trained and taught that I must follow either one path or the other -- the path of science or the path of spirituality.

In this generation, we have an opportunity, rather than to choose between science and spirituality, to marry the best science of the 21st century with 5,000 years of spiritual wisdom and weave them into a way of knowing that is greater than the science can be all by itself.  It's greater than spiritual can be all by itself.  And when we do that, we give ourselves the evolutionary edge that our ancestors did not have [emphasis added].  I believe that with this edge we can not only survive but that we will thrive in the new normal that is emerging based upon the extremes that we see in the world right now.  The extremes are with us.  For our lifetime, probably for our children's lifetime.  We have to be honest with ourselves about that."

He goes on to talk about his so-called "new discoveries": "cooperation, mutual aid and connectivity." (Really? These are new?  Has he read the Bible lately?)  And he tries to weave everything together by talking about magnetic fields, saying "science is showing us that the magnetic fields, regulated through the human heart, connect all of us":

"Strong magnetic fields are conducive to cooperation and the strongest magnetic field of the human body is the field created by the human heart.  The heart based emotions of cooperation, of compassion, appreciation, care, gratitude, are scientifically proven to strengthen the magnetic field of the human heart.  These fields embrace a group and even our planet [emphasis added].  This has also been shown through research through Princeton University and The Institute of HeartMath and so it brings us full circle back to our most ancient and cherished traditions when we find a way to communicate through our hearts."

At the conclusion of the article, Braden pays lip service to Love by defining Love as an energy that permeates the entire universe.

Not once, however, does he mention God or the soul.

He talks about 5,000 years of ancient wisdom (without ever describing how damaging some of it can be to the health of the human brain and body).  He talks about "the turning point" (which is qualitatively no different than "the End Times" preached by apocalyptic prophets such as the apostle Paul).  He talks about the unique and pivotal role of human beings in holding the planet together during a unique and pivotal time.  He talks about the monistic Oneness ("connectivity") of all human beings.  He talks about how clever we are.  He uses Materialist cause & effect science to support his spiritual claims.

But he never talks about God.

5,000 years of ancient wisdom, huh? Well, hmm, I'm kind of wondering why we have to restrict ourselves to a mere 5,000 years of human wisdom when our planet is brimming with the history, stories, science, creativity, exploration, and wisdom of God's wondrous and infinitely present love. This fossil of an ancient turtle is on display at the Royal Tyrrell Museum in Drumheller, Alberta. Reflecting on the incredible history of our planet is a good way to keep ourselves humble and not give our mind-based religious texts more credit than they deserve. Photo credit JAT 2015.

Gregg Braden doesn't need to talk about God because Braden is a dyed-in-the-wool apophatic prophet.*  Apophatics find the idea of a personal, theistic God highly inconvenient.  For apophatics, field theory -- especially the Grand Unified Theory -- is all that's needed to explain who we are and why we're here.  If Love can be presented as a field that unites us -- or, even better, as a single cosmic field from which all of us originate -- then so much the better.  That way no one has to deal with the messy implications of a Divine Love that's based on choice, free will, courage, trust, gratitude, devotion, forgiveness, and NOT Oneness.

My mystical radar always go off when I read that a spiritual teacher has spent 28 years exploring high mountain villages, remote monasteries, and forgotten texts.  I always want to know what such a teacher thinks he'll find in an ancient monastery that he can't find by paying full attention to God's messages in his daily life in and around his home.

So let me reiterate: God's presence can be felt anywhere you go in Creation.  Anywhere at all.  While God's presence has no doubt been felt by a few people who've abandoned their lives for the sake of high mountain villages, remote monasteries, and forgotten texts, none of this ancient wisdom is necessary.  God wouldn't do this to you.  God wouldn't takes all the clues about how to feel God's presence and then hide them from you in a bunch of ancient texts known only to a few people on the planet.  Real life isn't like an Indiana Jones movie.  God puts everything out on the table for everybody to see.  God hides nothing.

In order to feel God's presence, you don't need to pursue hidden codes or lost languages or ancient magical prayers or occult naming powers.  You don't need any of that.  You have everything you need right where you are -- in your own heart, mind, body, soul, and strength (the combination of these is what Jesus called "the Kingdom").

Maybe you don't want to hear this, but it's the only reality that's truly consistent with the idea of a loving and forgiving God.

It's great fun to put hidden codes and lost languages in adventure films and books.  I myself love that kind of adventure story.  But don't make the mistake of thinking God is hiding reality from you by tucking it inside dried-out reams of ancient papyrus or parchment. 

God reads today's newspaper every morning, just like you.


* Please see the post of November 11, 2014 called "The Burden of Perfection"


For Further Reflection:

If you're sitting really close to your screen, you may want to step back a bit (metaphorically speaking), because I'm about to vent. Loudly.

What is the one thing a narcissist fears?

This isn't a tangential comment. It's central to all the big questions we have as human beings about God and Creation and the soul. It's also central to all the big answers we've been given over the centuries by our religious leaders and spiritual gurus.

A narcissist is someone who cannot control his or her inner impulse to seize the high ground in the battle for "the Right to be Right."

Most people these days are aware that narcissism is a behaviour involving the need to be "special." Very briefly, this specialness manifests in constant attempts to prove that one is better than other people, more deserving of attention and rewards than other people, more worthy of worship than other people. They believe there's one set of rules for themselves and a different set of rules for regular people. They have particular difficulty understanding a morality of boundaries. This is because, from their viewpoint, any kind of interpersonal boundary is an obstacle to the ultimate goal of establishing their own personal purity, piety, and perfection.

While it's become popular to say that behind every narcissist is a person who lacks self-esteem - and who therefore needs our unconditional love - this is simply not true. A narcissist is someone who has stopped seeing Creation as a tapestry filled with nuanced colours, and has instead chosen to see Creation as a black-and-white tug of war between Chaos and Order - not necessarily Evil versus Good (though it usually plays out this way in the end) but equality-of-relationships ("Chaos") versus equality of outcomes ("Order").

The narcissist then uses this dualistic thesis as an excuse to see him/herself as a righteous warrior on the side of Order. No method, no tool, no short-term form of violence is too unethical or unjust to be used for the greater good of restoring Order to society and hence to all Creation. A quick review of dystopian science fiction novels and films (e.g. "The Giver," "Blade Runner 2049") reveals that many careful thinkers have observed this ancient Chaos-versus-Order pattern: in their stories, the bad guys are never the ones who want to preserve or revive humanity's unpredictable, passionate, creative nature; the bad guys are always the ones who are trying to impose a crushing, soul-destroying perfection on everyone else.

For a narcissist, there's no more worthy goal than forcing the world around you to be a perfect mirror-image of your own purity, piety, and perfection. But to pull this one off - to convince yourself and others that you yourself are the ideal model of humanity to which all others should aspire - you need one hell of an algorithm to convince your biological brain to ignore all its System 1 input and focus solely on its System 2 input.

This algorithm is a line of reasoning I call "the Right to be Right."

To break this down a bit, "the Right to be Right" is a sequence of either-or statements (as all algorithms are) that are designed to get you to a specific endpoint or goal (in this case, the goal of proving your true worthiness to be admired and worshiped). You start with the intended goal, then you use logic to work out all the different pathways that could lead you to your goal, and, in addition, all the pathways that could block you from reaching your goal. You break down all these pathways into the smallest segments you can (this becomes your strings of either-or statements). Then you do everything in your power to optimize the pathway that gets you to your goal. You look for efficiencies. You root out redundancies. You banish ambiguities. You do it consciously and with a great sense of purpose, and, what's more, you regularly congratulate yourself on your ingenuity and persistence, which only serve to prove your point. Getting to your goal is no accident.

Here's how the script for "the Right to be Right" looks when drafted by the brain's System 2 networks: "I believe that I am a very special person who has been chosen by God* to save the world. I have very special gifts and a very special intelligence that will enable me to do what no one else before me has ever done. I am certain that I am right. Moreover, natural law dictates that I have the right to claim my superiority over others. Natural law wouldn't have made me so special unless I were, indeed, as special as I know myself to be, so natural law gives me the justification and authority I need to proclaim that I am right and must not be questioned by those of inferior ability. (I wouldn't be respecting the preeminence of natural law if I did anything less.) But I suspect some people may not believe I'm right, so I must do everything in my power to prove I'm right. Those of lesser ability will thank me for taking the steps I need to take in order to restore Order to our family/community/nation. God will thank me. I will be remembered in the annals of history as a great peacemaker. In the meantime, though, I must use every method at my disposal to prove to people that I am right. I am authorized (by natural law and by God) to hide, discard, or dispose of any facts or books or other sources of information that might create confusion about who is right and who is wrong. I am not obligated to consider any facts or books or other sources of information that might conflict with or undermine my "Right to be Right" (because, logically speaking, I do not and cannot make mistakes). If opposition to my goal of perfect Order becomes too vocal, too physical, or too heart-based, I have the authority to suppress dissent in order to preserve the pathways to ultimate perfection. Traits such as love, forgiveness, compromise, egalitarianism, and self-honesty must be considered enemies of Order, and must therefore be constantly opposed through just wars. I am confident that events will demonstrate conclusively that God has been on my side throughout the long and difficult path to salvation. (*Note: wherever you see the word "God" underlined, you can substitute the word "science" and get the same result.)

There are no limits to what a narcissist will do to ensure that his or her "Right to be Right" is protected. No cost is too great from the narcissist's perspective, even when the cost is everybody else's potential to have a loving relationship with God.

Keep this in mind as you read what religious and spiritual leaders, both past and present, have said about the presence of God.

Are they really trying to help you? Or are they hoarding the authority for themselves as all narcissists do?

God doesn't hoard love, and neither should God's human teachers and healers. So keep an eye out for the footprints of "the Right to be Right" in the books and lectures and workshops you choose. And watch for it in your own life choices, too. Most people these days are struggling with "the Right to be Right," so you have lots of company to help you work it out.

Meanwhile, in answer to the question above . . . what a narcissist fears most is that you'll see through the "Right to be Right" algorithm and realize the whole thing is a fraud from start to finish.

We all have days when we're right and we all have days when we're wrong. But no one except for God the Mother and God the Father have the right to be right.

The rest of us are just doing the best we can.

LSP28: The Burden of Perfection

Ever notice that any good idea, when taken to extremes, can become a bad idea?

From my perspective, the biggest problem with all theories grown from apophatic roots is the burden placed on people to be perfect.

Nobody is perfect, and nobody should be expected by their spiritual leaders to take on the level of personal responsibility required in an apophatic belief system.

Apophatic belief systems are found in every culture and in every major world religion.  Strict monastic lifestyles, as cultivated within Theravada Buddhism and Roman Catholicism, are two examples of this way of life.  But they're not the only examples.  In fact, atheism brings to bear on its adherents the same extreme burden of perfection found within certain religious sects.  This is because all apophatic belief systems (whether theistic, non-theistic, or atheistic) share one major thing in common: an absolute hatred of the humbleness/courage/forgiveness paradigm preached by spiritual teachers such as the Hebrew philosopher Job (author of the Bible's Book of Job) and the Jewish philosopher Jesus (author of the Bible's Kingdom paradigm).

I don't use the word "hatred" lightly.  Apophatic assumptions about consciousness, life, evolution, learning, and relationships are completely different from the assumptions made by cataphatic thinkers.  Apophatics consider Kingdom teachings an affront to their intellectual authority and prowess.

Apophatic beliefs are based on the preeminence of the human mind - on a belief in the ability of the human mind to dramatically alter the universe.  Apophatic teachings, drawing on the natural authority they see in the Materialist laws of cause and effect, are highly anthropocentric.  They see human beings as a group "set apart" by their special mental powers to play a supremely important role in Creation (or on plain ol' Planet Earth, if you're an atheist).  It follows from this (say the apophatics) that human beings have a huge responsibility to themselves and to the planet to scrupulously follow every law they can think of.  Anything short of perfection is considered a failure.  It's therefore not only acceptable but completely necessary to find the flaws in everything you see around you so you can "fix" them.  Inevitably, this leads to the idea that if you always exert the right effort at the right time in the right way (etc., etc.) you - personally - can change the whole world.

Not the world inside you, or the part of the world you're connected to, or the people you know, or the garden you're digging, or the school you're building  . . . but the whoooooole wooooooorld.  And if you fall short of the ultimate goal of achieving full liberation from the cycle of rebirth dictated by the laws of Karma (with the side benefit of using your newfound universal freedom/godhead to help others on Planet Earth escape their suffering), well, then, you're just an awful, unworthy failure, aren't you?  You shoulda tried harder!

So apophatic thinkers are always trying harder, always striving for perfection, always obsessively worshiping.  Or working.  Or counting.  Always rating themselves in comparison to other people.  Always judging others "who aren't trying hard enough."  Always holding grudges, holding onto anger, holding onto denial.  Always refusing to love.  Always refusing to accept.

Meanwhile, cataphatic teachings (as represented by the Kingdom teachings of Jesus) maintain that our universe is guided by both Materialist and non-Materialist laws of science (not just Materialist laws) so it's pretty hard for the limited human mind to figure everything out by itself.  We're responsible for the personal choices we make.  Our inner self - the part each of us is responsible for - is the Kingdom Jesus refers to.  But we're not responsible for the whole universe and everything in it.  It's okay for us to have limits and it's okay for us to lean on others and on God.  It's okay for us to trust God.

It would be easy to say the apophatic thinker sees the glass as half empty and the cataphatic thinker sees it as half full.  But it's much more than that.  It's more along the lines of this: the apophatic thinker sees himself as a very big glass in a very small pond, whereas the cataphatic thinker sees himself as a very small glass in a very big pond.

The apophatic thinker sees himself as a very big glass in a very small pond - but he also thinks he's not yet a big enough glass.  He wants to be so big and so important in the world pond that his glass will be completely full - so full it will allow him to become "one substance" with the Oneness he calls Source (or Money or Success).  He thinks he's so clever and so important in the grand scheme of things that the pond will somehow dry up if he doesn't jump right in there to save it (and everybody in it) by using his "one substance."  He has a Saviour complex.

Perfect Imperfection (c) JAT 2014

Meanwhile, the cataphatic thinker, who sees himself as a very small glass in a very big pond, looks around the pool filled with all manner of life and says, "Hey, this is a beautiful place.  I see a muddy patch over there where I can hang out with my buddies and have some fun.  No one will mind.  It's a big pond, and there's room for everybody.  I'll learn what I can from everyone else.  I'll build something, create something, and share something. Then I'll pick up my garbage, go home, and be grateful for the good (but imperfect) day I've had.  Cool!"

Apophatics don't do cool.

Addendum January 5, 2018:  Interesting research has just been published about the rise of three types of perfectionism among millennials: "Students are feeling more pressure than ever to be perfectionists" by reporter Vanessa Hrvati. According to the article, Dr. Thomas Curran, one of the authors of the scientific study, "described the need to be perfect as a 'hidden epidemic' that could potentially underpin many of the mental health issues students face, ranging from anxiety to depression."


For Further Reflection:

Would it help you to know that, from God's point of view, there's no such thing as a perfect human being?

When God it's okay for you to be born as a human being on Planet Earth, it's not because God has plans for you to become more "perfect." It's because God has plans for you to know yourself better, to know your fellow angels better, and to know Mother Father God better. But "knowing" yourself is a lot different than matching yourself to a "template of perfection" for an ideal human being. In fact, knowing more about yourself is the very opposite of trying to become an ideal human being. Knowing yourself is essential to the Humbleness paradigm of boundaries and relationships; forcing yourself to be squeezed into the teeny-tiny box of perfectionism means you're not allowed to be who you really are.

Part of the problem is that although we're very different from each other as persons-of-soul (that is, as children of God), God has given all of us very similar biological bodies as human beings. So it's hard for us to accept that it's okay for us to be similar on the outside but radically different from each other on the inside - different in terms of our temperaments, interests, abilities, learning styles, relationship styles, and so on.

If we were to wander around one of the multitudinous ecosystems of Planet Earth, we would see at a glance an abundance of species all around us. We'd notice that no two species are exactly alike. We wouldn't question the reality that each species has unique talents and attributes, talents we cherish and are continually amazed by. (How many people have looked at a hawk and not envied its ability to ride the unseen thermals of the sky?) Further, we'd quickly observe that within each species there are many individual variations of colouring, temperament, adaptability, leadership ability, and longevity. Abundance of talent is what we expect when we look at God's creatures here on Earth. It's supposed to be that way. And we have no trouble accepting that a hawk can't be a hare. Or vice versa.

Except when we look at ourselves. Many of us just can't seem to get past the idea that our outsides are 90% of our story. We reason that if 90% of a hawk's story is in its body, and if 90% of a hare's story is in its body, then 90% of a human's story must also be in its body. This, after all, is the inevitable conclusion that derives from atheistic theories such as natural selection and non-theistic evolution.

Fundamental to atheistic cosmogonies about life on Planet Earth is the belief - nay, the certainty - that there is no soul, so obviously there can be no soul to shape the inner landscape of each unique human being. From this assumption flows the implicit logic that human beings are really just a bunch of interchangeable building blocks. And from this comes the inescapable "fact" that these building blocks must be perfectible if only we can acquire the right knowledge.

Eat this food. Take this pill. Do this exercise. Obey this commandment. Be a prisoner of the DNA you were born with. Don't you dare have the temerity to believe your inner self is a whole lot bigger than your DNA says you are. Lower the bar for yourself. Lower the bar for your children and your neighbours. Be the least you can be. But throw yourself on the mercy of the wise leaders who can tell you how to perfect yourself, and maybe - just maybe - you'll be lucky enough to have a few fleeting moments of Happiness.

When Michelangelo was lying on the scaffolding of the Sistine Chapel so he could paint its famous ceiling, I doubt very much he was thinking about his perfect pasta intake or how many steps he'd walked that day.

And I doubt very much that any other human being could have told the story Michelangelo told in the precise and lasting way he told it.

He was one of a kind, a child of God with a unique inner story and a unique way of sharing it.

As all of us are when we allow ourselves to be who we really are.

LSP27: Seeds of the Divine: Approaches to Mysticism in Christianity and Buddhism

This post is an excerpt from a reflection paper I wrote for a 2014 inter-religious dialogue course offered through a Roman Catholic seminary (though I myself am not Roman Catholic).  I decided to include this excerpt because it explains in a more formal way some of the points I've been trying to raise about the roots of our world religions.  I welcome comments on these reflections.  Thanks for reading!

Jen
____________________________________________________

The Christian world view, with its focus on mystery and love, redemption and forgiveness, is so open to everything in Creation that there is room within it for all God’s children, regardless of when or where they have lived.This photo of spring crocuses, taken in the morning light of the spring equinox, speaks to the joyful images of life, beauty, and creation that were central to Jesus' cataphatic mystical teachings. Photo credit JAT 2016.

It is in response to Sottocornola and De Giorgio’s closing remarks about apophasis and kenosis that I would like to offer some in-depth observations, especially as these relate to Brassard’s opening thesis about the three basic soteriological questions.   First, I should acknowledge that some of my interpretations spring from my daily personal experiences as a Christian mystic.  To refine this statement, I turn to Bernard McGinn’s three-fold definition of mysticism as “a part or element of religion; . . . as a process or way of life; and . . . as an attempt to express a direct consciousness of the presence of God” (McGinn xiii–xvi).  McGinn’s research has revealed there are different mysticisms, just as there are different Christianities and different Buddhisms.  Apophatic, anagogic, and cataphatic mysticisms do not share the same goals, experiences, or practices.  They also do not share the same answers to the three basic questions about “the human problem” or human psychology.  I myself am a cataphatic mystic in thought, word, action, faith, and experience of the Divine.

Apophatic mysticism, which in its very essence is an experience of losing one’s personal identity within a transcendent cloud of oneness and unknowing, is a phenomenon which crosses all boundaries of race, religion, and creed.  Within Christianity, the tradition of apophatic mysticism can be traced from Plato through many centuries of later Christian figures up to and including Thomas Merton.  In the words of Merton’s biographer Lawrence Cunningham, it is “an imageless mysticism” with an emphasis on “silence, lack of image, presence, and so on [that] is characteristic of the dark mysticism that goes back to Saint Gregory of Nyssa, mediated through the writings of the Pseudo Dionysius and down to John of the Cross, and mediated again through the monastic and scholastic doctors of the Middle Ages” (Cunningham 97).  There’s no doubt that apophatic mysticism is part of Christianity’s tradition, just as apophatic mysticism is the starting point for the Buddha’s own suppositions about “the human problem.”  The point I wish to make is that apophatic experiences necessarily lead to a particular way of understanding Creation that is in direct conflict with the cataphatic and life-affirming teachings of Jesus.

It is a curious thing that a transient experience of transcendent oneness in a person’s life should lead him or her further and further away from an understanding of love (specifically agape) and closer and closer to pure logic and reason as the only adequate tools for understanding the universe.  Yet this is indeed what seems to happen.  Plato, as mediated first through Paul’s own writings on sin, law, and death, has had an enormous influence on Christian thought with the “imageless mysticism” he highlights in Phaedrus.  In Plato’s well-known tale of the Charioteer, which probably dates from Plato’s middle period, he presents a “myth” about the nature of the immortal soul (Phaedrus 245c-250c).  In this myth, the soul is compared to a winged team of horses and their charioteer.  Souls compete to try to ascend to the region above the heavens, the region that is “occupied by being which really is, which is without colour or shape, intangible, observable by the steersman of the soul alone, by intellect, and to which the class of true knowledge relates.” If a soul succeeds in its required task of gazing upon “what is true,” it will be happy and will return to its home in the heavens; but if a soul fails, it will be filled with the weight of forgetfulness and incompetence, and it will fall to earth, where it must incarnate according to specific dictates of divine law.
 
I see strong parallels between the intangible cloud above the heavens accessible only to Plato’s intellect and the cloud of codependent origination accessible only to the Buddha’s intellect. Is it possible that both Plato and the Buddha had personal, apophatic mystical experiences that led them to theorize about the underlying structure of the universe – and therefore the nature of the beings who live within it – and conclude Creation is a “closed system” of oneness governed by immutable law?  It is interesting that both men, writing from an apophatic perspective about the cloud of oneness known only to the intellect and will, both claim that incarnation is governed by rigid laws that can be understood by select human beings and escaped from through rigorous discipline and mental focus.  It is noteworthy, of course, that neither apophatic teacher speaks of the preeminence of love and forgiveness for anyone, least of all God.  Unlike Jesus, they refuse to speak of heart and mind and strength and soul in the same breath (Mark 12:28–34), but instead focus entirely on the mind’s efforts to transcend such lowly human “needs” as love and forgiveness by subjugating and even denying them through ascetical practices.  I have begun to wonder if Plato and the Buddha both make claims for a “closed system” because there is no other way to justify an impermanent apophatic experience of oneness with all that is.
 
As I – and all mystics throughout history – can attest, a mystical experience is so intense that it changes the way the mystic looks at everything.  One cannot help but seek a framework in which to understand the experience.  An apophatic mystic seeks a philosophical framework that starts with a transpersonal, impermanent oneness and works backward.  A cataphatic mystic seeks a philosophical framework that starts with a highly personal, “image-filled,” permanent Divine Love and works backward.  An anagogic mystic uses elements of both paths and tries with all his or her might to unify them (as the majority of Christian mystics seem to have done, perhaps following Paul’s lead in 2 Corinthians 12:1–9 and 1 Corinthians 15:50–57).

As a practising cataphatic mystic, who has daily experiences of the presence of God, I can attest to the feeling of “being filled up with love” that comes from being in humble relationship with God.  I would not describe it as a feeling of kenosis or self-emptying.  In fact, it feels exactly the way Jesus described it: using the fullness of one’s heart, soul, mind, and strength to sustain a relationship of love and healing with a God who is an infinitely loving and healing God.  It takes every ounce of courage plus all the gifts given to us by God to participate in this kind of relationship with God.  The corollary is that when we speak of shedding aspects of ourselves in order to be freed from suffering or sin, instead of using the alternative presented to us by Jesus – forgiveness! – we slowly but steadily chip away at the gifts God has given us so we can know what Divine Love and forgiveness really mean.  Of course, apophatic mysticism is not interested in the question of a personal Divine Love, because such a love is a question for the heart, not the mind.

I therefore argue against the use of a doctrine of kenosis in inter-religious debate.  There have been efforts to describe kenosis as self-giving (in contrast to the original meaning of the word, which is self-emptying) but if it is self-giving Christians wish to speak of, then I would suggest we speak of it as Jesus himself spoke of it.  The Gospels tell us clearly that Jesus does not endorse a withdrawal into a cloistered or consecrated ascetic community but instead insists we be full participants in community life and healing, even when others shun us for our unflinching commitment to wisdom, compassion, dialogue, healing, and service.
 
The remarks I’ve made here apply equally to any closed apophatic system, including Christianity’s own dark mysticism, and is not an indictment of the Buddhist quest for wisdom and compassion, which is filled with true sincerity, dedication, and long experience; instead, my remarks are a realistic assessment of the ways in which an apophatic world view may block and actually interfere with our quest for wisdom and compassion because of a starting assumption that denies the Divine Heart.  By contrast, the cataphatic world view is a universal theory but not a closed system.  In fact, the Christian world view, with its focus on mystery and love, redemption and forgiveness, is so open to everything in Creation that there is room within it for all God’s children, regardless of when or where they have lived.

Despite my dissatisfaction with apophatic teachings, wherever they originate, I see many positive “seeds of the Divine” in Buddhism.  Two “seeds” that seem to have sprouted more systematically in Buddhism than in Christian orthodoxy are “the deep knowledge of human psychology shared by Buddhists” (Brassard 439) and the intense focus on praxis, as expressed through the moral teachings of the Eightfold Path.  These two seeds were also primary concerns for Jesus, as shown throughout the Gospels.  It is interesting to ponder how Christianity might better fulfill its stated goal of helping people heal their relationship with God if the Church were to combine Jesus’ cataphatic teachings with a stronger focus on both praxis and human psychology.  I argue this would in no way diminish the sense of mystery and awe that are so important in the Christian relationship with our loving God.  In fact, when Jesus presented his own thesis (the Kingdom paradigm) on the three basic questions about the human problem, he may already have understood that the mysteries of Divine Love, healing, forgiveness, faith, and redemption are intertwined in our physical reality in positive ways that somehow transcend the cause and effect laws formalized within apophatic teachings.
   
As Jesus taught us, and as Nostra Aetate affirmed, great things can be accomplished in this world when we open both our minds and our hearts to each other and to the mysteries of Divine Love.  There is no need to choose between the mind and the heart.  Both are reflections of God’s own image and God’s good Creation:  “The wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without a trace of partiality or hypocrisy.  And a harvest of righteousness is sown in peace for those who make peace (James 3:17–18).”

Thanks be to God.

Works Cited:
   
Brassard, Francis, Maria A. De Giorgi, and Franco Sottocornola.  “Buddhism and Christianity.”  Catholic Engagement with World Religions: A Comprehensive Study. Ed. Karl J. Becker and Ilaria Morali.  Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2010.  438–458.  Print.

Cunningham, Lawrence S.  Thomas Merton and the Monastic Vision.  Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999.  Print.

McGinn, Bernard.  The Foundations of Mysticism.  Vol. 1 of The Presence of God: A History of Western Christian Mysticism.  New York: Crossroad, 1991.  Print.

Odin, Steve.  “Kenosis as Foundation for Buddhist-Christian Dialogue.”  Eastern Buddhist 20.1 (1987): 34-61.  ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials.  Web.  23 Mar. 2014.

Plato.  Phaedrus.  Trans. Christopher Rowe.  London: Penguin–Penguin Classics, 2005.  Print.


For Further Reflection:

As you proceed along your own Spiral Path of wonder, science, and faith, it's important that you always keep your eyes and ears open to the promises being made to you by various religious leaders and gurus. Are the promises you're hearing based on equality of outcomes? Or are the promises based on equality of relationships? Although these two religious "highways" may not sound different from each other at first, they lead your brain's biology in different directions, so the physical wiring of your brain will depend on which of these two "highways" you give priority to.

The former highway (equality of outcomes) leads to moral codes based on laws, uniformity of belief, denial of historical and scientific fact, eradication of uniqueness, and the pure logic of salvation. All major world religions include some doctrines that promise equality of outcomes (i.e. if you correctly obey Laws A,B, and C, you'll get guaranteed results of X,Y, and Z), but some religions have more such doctrines than others. Platonism, Buddhism, Philosophical Taoism, and Ancient Near East Wisdom rely almost exclusively on equality-of-outcome doctrines. So do New Age and New Thought teachings derived from these earlier sources.

The latter highway (equality of relationships) leads to moral codes based on respect for interpersonal boundaries, openness to experience and change, conscientiousness, remorse, and the quixotic logic of healing. The Abrahamic religions, as well as Sikhism, Baha'i, and a number of aboriginal traditions, contain strong equality-of-relationship doctrines (though this isn't a comprehensive list of religions that incorporate equality of relationship). Wherever such doctrines exist, you'll see religious customs that are more expansive, inclusive, and emotionally uplifting.

Your guardian angels (the ones who are trying to help you heal your relationship with God during your human lifetime) are very keen on spiritual and religious theories that lead to equality of relationships. This means your angels are especially enthusiastic about praxis (i.e. spiritual practice) that promotes strong, healthy, respectful interpersonal boundaries between you and others, as well as between you and God.

Sometimes this means learning to say no -- learning to say no to those who are trying to take advantage of you by blurring the healthy boundaries that should exist between you.

From my own perspective, this has been one of the hardest things to learn and remember and implement in my daily life. I often struggle to say no, but I've learned it's a necessary part of knowing God and knowing myself.

Opening up your heart to others means you instinctively feel their pain. (This is what empathy is, after all.) But it doesn't always mean you should take on other people's pain or fix everything for them. You have to trust that your brothers and sisters are fully capable of learning how to heal their own pain without abusing and manipulating others.

Yes, it's not always easy to step back and let someone take charge of their own choices. And yes, people need many kinds of assistance and support as they learn how to cope in mature, effective, loving ways with their own pain. But if you really want to know what Divine Love feels like, you have to accept that individuals have the power within themselves -- within their own souls -- to become stronger, wiser, and more courageous as they wrestle with the fear that comes with pain.

Sometimes you have to step back so the sunlight of God's love can work its magic on the seeds of redemption that lie within everyone you know and love.

This is the one of the most overlooked aspects of Jesus' teachings -- trusting that God wants us to say no to religious beliefs that damage healthy boundaries and respectful relationships.

Religion and faith aren't the problem in our world. Doctrines that dictate equality of outcomes are the problem, both within and without religion. So try to recognize and push back against such salvific doctrines wherever you can.

It's one of the fastest ways I know of to build your relationship with God.

LSP26: Materialism, Buddhism, and Karma

Sometime in the 6th century BCE, in a region now known as Nepal, a man was born who is credited as being the Awakened One.  Siddhartha Gautama -- known to us as the Buddha -- crafted an entirely new philosophical system in response to the problems he saw in Hinduism (as it existed then).  His teachings are currently of great interest to spiritual seekers in the West who are tired of the turmoil created by our cultural norms.

From the earliest years of the movement, the Buddha's core teachings looked very different on the surface compared to Hinduism's ritual-bound, authoritarian teachings. Therein lay Buddhism's appeal. Unlike the highly supernatural Hindu teachings, the earliest Buddhist teachings were empirical, scientific, pragmatic, therapeutic, psychological, egalitarian, and directed to individuals.*  The Buddha's original religion (or way of life) was therefore long on intense self-effort, short on metaphysical speculation, devoid of authority, devoid of ritual, devoid of tradition, and devoid of the supernatural.**

Unfortunately, because the Buddha continued to uphold the laws of Karma -- not only using Karma as the main root system for his philosophy but pushing the logical implications of Karma to its ultimate purified form -- the religion he founded is also devoid of relationship with God.

Technically, Buddhism is referred to as a non-theistic religion or philosophy because there's no room in it for a personal God.  This isn't to say that God doesn't exist -- just that a personal God isn't needed. Or wanted.

This is a strong statement, so before I say anything else, I want to emphasize that my comments in this post refer only of those narcissistic individuals (some of whom I've had extremely unpleasant dealings with) who use the core teachings of Buddhism for their own selfish purposes and gain.  Most Buddhists, I'm sure, try not to misuse the teachings -- just as most Pauline Christians try to rise above the low bar set by the Church for their personal conduct.

In the Buddha's earliest teachings, which are intensely transpersonal in the way that all apophatic teachings claim to transcend the self, a personal God is discarded and replaced with the numinous cloud of Knowing/Unknowing that many people now call Source or Godhead.  It's this unknowable cloud of universal law that lies behind the theories of Karma in the East and Wisdom in the West.

As with all major world religions, Buddhism isn't a single religious entity, but is instead an umbrella term for various schools and branches that have diverged from the earliest teachings. A common belief in the doctrine of Karma is one of the uniting threads among diverse forms of Buddhism. This statue fragment of the Buddha is from the Gandharan art collection of the Royal Ontario Museum. Photo credit JAT 2017.

According to Karma's teachers, the cloud's Materialist laws of cause and effect (i.e. Karma) are THE laws you must obey -- no two ways around it.  Although it's a bummer to be stuck with these laws, the good news is this: he who can read the cosmic laws encoded in the cloud gains great power -- infinite power, actually.  He who can read the cosmic laws and control them no longer needs a relationship with God because he has, in a sense, become God.

In other words, once you have law, who needs love?

Bear in mind an important point here, a point which is often overlooked: it's the people who claim to have achieved nirvana who get to tell the rest of us what the laws are.  It's the normal, regular, everyday people -- not the universe or the planet or the laws of non-Materialist science -- that are dictating these Karmic laws to others from the inner reaches of their own human minds (minds which are, after all, still human, though you wouldn't know it to listen to them).  And guess what?  They don't have to explain themselves, because explaining and engaging in direct debate is for ignorant minds.  We're simply expected to trust that anicca (impermanence), dukkha (suffering), and anatta (absence of a permanent personality or soul) tell us everything we need to know about life on Planet Earth -- because the Buddhist philosophers have told us so.  (When they see this pattern of top-down authority in Christianity, we call it revelation.)

In its purest, earliest form, the teachings of Buddhism are no different than the teachings of other apophatic mystical traditions that seek to depose God as a person (actually, two people) and elevate the human mind to a position of authority it doesn't deserve.  It's the ultimate form of narcissism.

Ironic, yes?


* Huston Smith, The World's Religions (New York: HarperCollins, 1958 and 1991), page 98.
** Huston Smith, The World's Religions, pages 94-97.


For Further Reflection:

Sometimes, when we've been born and raised with certain beliefs about how the Universe works, we can discover it's no easy thing to set aside those beliefs even when we're sure they're wrong.

A few researchers in recent years have been looking for evidence in the human brain for "the God Spot" or "the God Code" to explain why most people seem to want and need religion in their lives. Some researchers have noticed there's a sort of "God-shaped conceptual space" in the brain that tends to fill up with non-Materialist beliefs. But it's really more complicated than this. From the moment of birth, the biological brain starts looking for evidence for two things: (1) how the 3D Universe works and (2) how the self fits into this strange new 3D Universe.

Bear in mind that, for the soul, the 3D Universe of baryonic matter (i.e. atoms and molecules that respond to the laws of classical physics) are not the norm. Souls (angelic consciousness) are born into the non-baryonic quantum world that governs 95% of all energy in Creation, a world where Divine Love and Divine Forgiveness and non-locality and quantum weirdness are normal parts of everyday life. Souls are used to weirdness. So when we choose to incarnate, we hit the ground running (so to speak) as we try to take in all the sights and sounds and gravitational laws that apply to 3D life on Planet Earth.

In our early years, we rely heavily on our own built-in observational skills as little scientists-in-human-form. We're constantly exploring the laws of classical physics, testing and retesting (yes, the peas still fall when I threw them!), and filling up our brains with all sorts of important data sets. Soon we start to ask more advanced questions about the laws of classical physics, and at this point we turn to wisdom of the adults around us. We absorb what they tell us directly about how the Universe works. We also absorb what they tell us indirectly through their own choices and their own responses to the world around them. We use the wisdom of adults as a sort of macro to filter and sort our understanding about the laws of the Universe. And this is a sensible thing for us to do because there's so much to learn and process.

When the adults around us live and breathe a highly specific cosmogony -- for example, Young Earth Creationism in Christianity, or Karma in Buddhism -- our growing brains start to accept this cosmogony not as a working theory but as an actual scientific truth. Based on our acceptance of cosmogony as truth, we then build an internal moral code that's consistent with our cosmogony. We do this because we want our inner selves -- our inner laws and choices -- to be in harmony with the laws that govern all Creation. This is the only approach to life that makes sense, because even when we're very young, we sense that we're not alone in Creation, that our lives are fully interdependent with the forces that govern all Creation. So we want to flow with the forces as we understand them, not against them.

You can imagine, therefore, how the biological brain will shape itself in childhood and early adulthood if the laws of Karma are upheld as scientific truth (even though the laws of Karma are pure conjecture). Planet Earth will, of necessity, look like a very grim place to you, and your lot in life will seem like a scientific reality that you must deserve and can't do anything about unless you commit to the path of letting go of the one thing that's truly yours: yourself.

The System 2 networks of the brain, scarily enough, see the logic in this path. But the System 1 networks, which hold within them the seeds for the path of love and forgiveness and meaning and empathy and relationship with God, will fight and fight against this ghastly "truth" until their biological networks are finally broken apart through constant suppression and denial.

Eventually, the brain's networks, so overgrown with the tenacious kudzu-like roots of Karma, can only see the world as proof of the theory itself. It's a vicious cycle, one that reinforces the theory of cyclical time and further damages the brain's ability to objectively assess religious doctrines.

One final note: You might think that a theory that's been around for a long time is surely correct simply because of its longevity. But many spiritual and religious theories have existed for centuries, even millennia, before being discarded. So longevity is in itself no proof of anything. In the past few centuries, Christianity has been undergoing a process of sorting and winnowing, and now many Christians are proud to say they don't accept ancient doctrines such as patriarchy and infallibility. We're constantly being called upon as children of God to be honest with ourselves about doctrines that create and sustain harm.

I personally believe that no religion anywhere on Planet Earth is -- or should be -- exempt from this constant process of reexamination, healing, and redemption. This is how we make the world a better place, one choice at a time. But we can't do it without Humbleness.

LSP25: What About Karma? Does It Fit With Divine Love?

Is it okay for a person on the Spiral Path to believe in Karma?  Is it okay for a person who believes in Divine Love to believe in Karma?

No, it's not okay.  It's not okay because Divine Love and Karma are mutually exclusive theories about Creation.  If you believe in Divine Love, there's no room for Karma.  Meanwhile, if you believe in Karma, there's no room for Divine Love.

October Maples (c) JAT 2014

Simply put, you have to choose.  You have to choose what kind of spiritual tree you want to grow in your garden of life.*  You can start with roots founded in Divine Love, or you can start with roots founded in Karma.  The choice is up to you, because you have free will.  But you need to know that the tree you grow from Divine Love will look very different in 20 years compared to the tree grown from Karma.  Both start from small, vulnerable seeds, which don't look much different from each other in the beginning (as both uphold the importance of moral precepts).  But tend them and feed them year after year and you'll eventually see the differences. 

Where will you see the differences?  You'll see them in the thoughts, feelings, actions, and health issues of your very own brain.  This is because the biological brain is designed to alter its wiring based on the major decisions you make.  If you make a decision to grow the Karma tree in your life, your brain will gradually rewire itself to reflect this decision.  In other words, the spiritual decisions you make will have a huge impact on how your brain works.

There are several factors that make the Karma tree seem very appealing, especially in the early stages of a spiritual journey:

1.  The Karma tree is based on the theory that the entire universe is moral, and that moral choices can't be separated from other kinds of choices.

2.  The moral laws of Karma are absolute.   Absolute rights and absolute wrongs exist, both of which have logical, predictable consequences for each soul.  Therefore, although human beings always have free will, there's really no chance or accident in the world because universal laws of cause & effect will eventually catch up with you (if not now, then in your next life).

3.  Karma is a highly logical, law-based philosophical system that makes perfect sense to logical, law-based human minds.  It demands that each person be 100% responsible for all his or her choices. 

4.  Karma teaches that Justice is absolute, totally fair, and inevitable.

5.  Karma places great power in the hands of human beings.  It's the power to fully comprehend cosmic laws and use those laws to create one's own future.  The universe must bend to human will once we humans grasp its laws.

6.  Karma teaches that the world we live in here (i.e. 3D Planet Earth) can't ever be perfected because its mix of good and evil is an intentional "training ground" for souls. This can never change because the planet's purpose is to be a "middle world" between the heavens above and the hells below.  Social progress is therefore a delusion.

7.  Karma starts with a cyclical understanding of Time.

These seven factors are the key philosophical roots that together create the theory of Karma.  Although these roots sound very logical and fair to most human minds, the big problem is this: these factors, when blended together, create the perfect excuse to avoid the hard work of opening your heart to Divine Love.

Opening your heart to Divine Love takes courage, humbleness, and forgiveness.  This is what Jesus' Kingdom teachings were all about -- opening your heart to Divine Love by finding and using your own courage, humbleness, and ability to forgive.  Courage, humbleness, and forgiveness aren't based in the logical, 3D mind; they're based in the emotional centres of the brain and soul -- the inner place we call the Heart.

The Heart has its own set of rules, but it's not the same set of rules the Mind uses (nor even, for that matter, the same set of rules the body uses).  The Heart sees many colours, tints, and tones where the Mind sees only black and white.

There's nothing in Jesus' understanding of God, Divine Love, or the soul that resembles the roots of the Karma tree.  Jesus was trying to show people how to grow something very different from the Karma tree, something that's built on the needs of the heart AND the mind AND the body AND the soul -- not just the needs of the mind. (Not that you'd know it after 2,000 years of Church teachings based on Paul's thorny, ugly, spiky version of the spiritual tree . . .)

Divine Love isn't a set of transpersonal laws based on pure Mind.  Divine Love is an emotional choice.  It's a choice made by God the Mother and God the Father together.  Because it's a choice -- because it's their choice -- you have absolutely no control over it.  You can't force God to mete out justice the way you see fit.  You can't force God to agree that your neighbour got what he deserved.  You can't force God to say it's okay for you to stop working toward social progress.  You can't force God to agree with the religious choices you make in your life.  You can't force God to agree with your personal assessment of your own cleverness.

You're not nearly as smart as the theory of Karma tells you.  And God isn't nearly as stupid.


* Please see "It's the Roots, Not the Fruits, That Matter" from January 29, 2014.


For Further Reflection:

It should be obvious that if you want to build a relationship with God, you need to sift and sort through the doctrines you hold, then set aside the beliefs that are blocking your relationship skills. There's no point planting seeds for the Tree of Life if you're going to salt the ground around it with toxic beliefs that constantly kill off the tender shoots of new relationship. A small number of religious and philosophical doctrines are so poisonous to your relationship with God that if you insist on hanging onto them, you'll find yourself struck, frustrated, never making progress. One of the most pernicious of these anti-relationship doctrines is the theory of Karma.

Since the late 1800's, Christianity has gradually been exposed to, and influenced by, various Eastern teachings that view Karma as the quintessential philosophical underpinning for morality, justice, personal enlightenment, and piety. Many Christians have been understandably eager to explore the goals and practices of these Eastern traditions in the hope of enriching their own experience of God's presence. It's somewhat difficult, however, to achieve this enrichment if you naively embrace the Materialist cause-and-effect laws of Karma. Karma is, after all, a set of doctrines which, at its very core, shows nothing but contempt for God.

It's no accident that Buddhism is technically a non-theistic religion. The whole point of the Buddha's original teachings was to demonstrate that an efficient system of algorithms could take human beings steadily closer to the Laws of Creation without any need whatsoever for a personal God. It's a brilliant system of logic, to be sure. But, as with any system that relies completely on algorithms, there's no room for the mystery of the Tree of Life. This may explain why many forms of Buddhism have evolved over the centuries to reintroduce the creativity, stories, family traditions, and art that were of necessity snuffed out by the Four Noble Truths.

In the core teachings of Buddhism, algorithms rule. In the teachings of Jesus, differential calculus is the key.

Algorithms have an unfortunate tendency to spawn cultural norms that are rigid, hierarchical, patriarchal, and dependent on Materialist cause-and-effect to explain why some people should be considered superior to others. Christianity, while demonstrating these same harsh aspects many times during its history (not to its credit), has repeatedly been subject to countervailing "eruptions" of horizontal inclusiveness and respect for women and children. These periodic "eruptions" of Divine Love have been made possible because Christianity has built-in doctrines that deal with flow rates; that is, doctrines that encourage change and learning and healing and experiences of redemption over time -- time that's understood as linear, not cyclical (which makes a huge difference as far as the biological brain is concerned).

Not every Christian has accepted that humbleness is a necessary aspect of relationship with God, but some have. Many Jews have seen the calculus of faith, as well. It's the willingness to be flexible in all our relationships (including our relationship with God) that lets us bend and grow with the wonders of the Tree of Life.

As I said above, if you're sure the Tree of Karma is right for you, than by all means stick with it. But don't expect it to bear the same fruit as the Tree of Life. And don't pretend the Tree of Karma is a viable path to feeling God's presence in your life when Karma's very purpose is to justify your personal quest to become a self-contained god yourself.

You can either have a path that leads you to Mother Father God or a path that leads you to self-sanctification/self-divination. But you can't have both.

Full disclosure: you have the right to choose whatever you like; but your angels have the right to have an opinion on your choices. So if you keep insisting you're a long lost spark of the Divine who's desperately trying to reclaim your rightful godhood (Gnosticism), or keep proclaiming you're trying to escape from suffering through self-transcendence/no-self (Buddhism), you can expect to get some feedback from your guardian angels about your arrogance and narcissism and lack of respect for God's wisdom.

They'll still love you and forgive you, though.