LSP55: You, Your Life, and Your Afterlife: Abundant Gifts and Blessings

It's often said the best things in life are free. Nowhere does this hold more true than in your relationship with God.

St. Lawrence was a 3rd century church deacon who was martyred in Rome in 258 CE. Tradition reports that when he was asked to turn over the wealth of the church to Roman authorities, he instead gave it to the poor and the marginalized, those who are the church's true treasures. This stained glass window was produced in 1889 by Charles Eamer Kempe, and is now on display at the Victoria & Albert Museum, London, England (gifted by Mr. Walter E. Tower). Photo credit JAT 2023.

The wonderful thing about having a relationship with God is that it's a gift -- a freely given gift between you and God -- that doesn't cost you any money and doesn't have to be carried out at a special time or a special place. It can happen anywhere. And it's an ongoing gift, not a one-time thing. Once you open your heart to a relationship with God, the blessings just keep coming.

Think of the things in your life that bring great joy. Start with your own conception. Maybe your parents had to spend some money to prepare a family home or to heal some medical issues that could complicate a pregnancy. But the moment of conception itself -- that was a gift from God, and it was free!

Think about your upbringing. Think about the experience of learning how to be a human being in a whole new world. When you picked up a something hard and heavy, like a rock, and you dropped it on your foot, you were learning about the laws of physics. And the courage to learn was free!

When you tasted what words meant, and you explored how the spices and flavours of words can shape your relationships, you were partaking of the mystery of language, a mystery that ties everything together in Creation. And it was free!

When you listened to songs and hymns and carols, and you sang them till your eyes brimmed with tears of devotion, that was free!

When you watched the buds on a plant unfurl in beauty, or paused at the majesty of a storm-filled sky, or smelled the gratitude of the soil after a long sought rain, you felt your humble connection to Creation, and the sacredness was free!

When your beloved one was close to death, and longed for release from pain and suffering, and you saw the time of passing was near, your grief couldn't take from you the trust that your loved one was close to God. As your heart broke, you felt the love -- the love which is free!

As you think about the most memorable, most transformative moments of your life (especially the feeling of God's presence, if you've had such an experience) you begin to realize that those feelings of connection, love, meaning -- they're all free. They all come from within your heart and soul. They're yours. You didn't "buy" them, because you didn't have to. You were born with them and you own them. Permanently. Nobody can take them from you unless you let them.

When you're going through a difficult time, it can help to think of your life as a one-of-a-kind story. The best stories are about rich characters, complex relationships, difficult decisions, and transformative change. Everything that's in your book belongs to you, and you'll take all of it home to Heaven when you die. There you'll have many opportunities to discuss with angelic friends and mentors what you learned during your life as a human being. You, in turn, will learn from the stories of your equally blessed friends. Every story adds to the tapestry of Divine Love. This early 14th century Book of Hours, once used for private devotions, is part of the Kenneth Thomson collection at the Art Gallery of Ontario. Photo credit JAT 2018.

This brings me to the question of religion. All major world religions do some good things (such as teaching people about human morality) and all major world religions do some bad things (such as teaching people they won't be saved and won't be allowed into Heaven unless they follow all the right doctrines, all the right practices, all the right Saviours).

Questions about the afterlife continue to haunt countless human beings in every generation. Many people turn to religious leaders to try to uncover what will happen to them when they die. Too often religious leaders use this deep seated human need as a way to acquire power for themselves, to manipulate their flocks, to demean and subjugate others with promises about future punishments from God or Source. But they say these frightening things about the End Times for themselves, not for you. They say they're worried about your soul, but what they really mean is they're worried about their own authority. They want you to be scared about what happens when you die because fearful people are much easier to control than courageous people.

These same religious leaders use the trump card of justice to explain why their doctrines of afterlife are not only true but necessary. They say that future punishment for earthly crimes is the only way to balance the universal scales of right and wrong and help good conquer evil. But they're assuming when they say it that God is too stupid and too weak to intervene in our daily lives in ways that Mother Father God -- not human leaders -- deem appropriate. It's the very idea that God constantly intervenes whether we like it or not that undermines everything religion has to say about Materialist laws of cause and effect. Just ask Dr. Eben Alexander. He didn't ask to be put in a coma and sent along on a soul journey to the very gates of Heaven. He didn't ask to become a human messenger about the inclusiveness and expansiveness of Divine Love. But it happened anyway.

Dr. Alexander's near-death experience was an unusual, but nonetheless valid, free gift from God to help him better understand the pathways open to him for building a relationship with God and Creation while he's still here on Planet Earth. Despite the struggles he went through after he awakened from his coma, I have no doubt he'd do it again in a heartbeat. He can now be of service in ways he never could have imagined before his awakening. Such service is in itself a profound gift.

As you reflect on the free gifts you've participated in during your own human life, let me ask you this: if God surrounds you with innumerable free gifts while you're here on Planet Earth, why would God suddenly take away all those free gifts just because you've transitioned to a non-Materialist state of being? Why would God suddenly punish you for mistakes you can no longer fix in the absence of a 3D biological body? Why would God give you love and forgiveness while you're a human being (as Jesus taught) but suddenly rescind these gifts and replace them with laws and contracts and covenants as soon as you die? Does this make any sense to you?

God the Mother and God the Father aren't fickle. And they don't play favourites. So whatever you've been told by religious or spiritual leaders about future punishment or karmic rebirth is a load of treacherous clickbait.

Heaven is the place where all of God's children are welcomed after our difficult lives on Planet Earth. No one is excluded. We were angels -- persons-of-soul -- before we were born here. When we die, we resume our lives as children of God, though we understand as never before how secure we are in the infinite wisdom of God's love.

We are, as Jesus once tried to tell us, forever blessed.

LSP34: Signs and Wonders and Mummified Monks

"Mummified monk in Mongolia 'not dead', say Buddhists."  This is the headline on a short article that appeared this week on the BBC news.  Other news sites carried similar stories.

To recap, a very well preserved mummified Buddhist monk was discovered in Mongolia last week.  The body is seated in the lotus position (a position that assists in entering an intentional meditative state) and the monk appears to have died while in this position.  The body (the exact age of which isn't certain) was recovered by police just before it was about to be sold on the black market.

What's extraordinary about this story is not that a mummified body was found in a cold, dry climate (which preserves body tissues quite well), but that an expert, Dr. Barry Kerzin (a Buddhist monk and physician to the Dalai Lama) has gone on record to say it's possible the monk may not be dead at all.  He may, according to Dr. Kerzin, be in a rare meditative state called "tukdam."

Dr. Kerzin apparently told the Siberian Times this:

'If the person is able to remain in this state for more than three weeks - which rarely happens - his body gradually shrinks, and in the end all that remains from the person is his hair, nails, and clothes. Usually in this case, people who live next to the monk see a rainbow that glows in the sky for several days. This means that he has found a 'rainbow body'. This is the highest state close to the state of Buddha'.

He added: 'If the meditator can continue to stay in this meditative state, he can become a Buddha. Reaching such a high spiritual level the meditator will also help others, and all the people around will feel a deep sense of joy'.

The Siberian Times article also reports that "over the last 50 years there are said to have been 40 such cases in India involving meditating Tibetan monks.

You can read about a recent example of this on the website of the Benchen Monastery Community.  There, they offer notice of the death of Kyabje Tenga Rinpoche, who "chose to end the state of Tukdam, which is the deep meditative composure that some realized masters enter into after the demise of their physical bodies, after three and half days."  The notice also describes the unusual weather conditions that took place on the day of Kyabje Tenga Rinpoche's 2012 death.  The unseasonal thunderstorms, followed by rainbows, were not thought to be coincidental or irrelevant, the notice strongly implies.

The point I want to make is this: Although you might like to believe that Buddhism isn't a religion, but is instead an atheistic, secular, humanist spiritual practice, it is not.

Buddhism is, and always has been, a religion.  This is especially obvious in Mahayana Buddhism and Vajrayana Buddhism (of which the Dalai Lama's school of Tibetan Buddhism is a part).

Buddha, Royal Ontario Museum. Photo credit JAT 2017.

ROM text accompanying the Buddha sculpture.

I have to smile at the similarity between the description of Kyabje Tenga Rinpoche's death and the description of Jesus' death (the whole 3-day-thing plus multiple signs and wonders).  But the similarities don't surprise me.  I've seen many signs and wonders, and I know they happen all the time.  They happen to all of us -- far more often than most people realize.

No one religious group has a right to claim a monopoly on signs and wonders -- neither Christianity nor Buddhism nor any other group.  Everyone who lives on Planet Earth is part of the same Creation.  There isn't one Creation for Christians and a different Creation for Buddhists.  We all come from the same place (God's Heart). We all live under the same roof here on Planet Earth.  We all live by the same "house rules" while we're here (which is why the need for morality is universal).  And we all return to the same place when we die (claims for apotheosis notwithstanding).

Do I think the mummified monk is still alive and in a deep state of tukdam?  No, I do not.  I think the poor man is dead.  I think he's been dead for a long, long time, and I think we should trust that and let him be instead of trying to force the mantle of Buddhahood onto his very shrivelled shoulders.  (Did you check out the photo on the BBC?)

Do I think it's possible his physical body -- what remained after his soul and his biology parted ways -- has been miraculously preserved?

I think it's theoretically possible.  I really do.  I've seen much stranger things than abnormally extended tissue preservation.  (And tissue preservation is, after all, simply a matter of knowing your chemistry, physics, and biology really, really well -- a particular talent of God.)

The real question is this: what does this news story tell you about you?  What does this story make you think about?  Do you want to laugh with contempt and call it all a hoax?  Or do you have a small itchy sense of curiosity in the very back of your head?

If you're just a little bit curious, it's a good sign.

P.S. Thank you to the persons-of-soul who made this discussion possible.  Without you, we couldn't do this!  Amen.

Postscript February 26, 2015:  Please see "Eerie remains of 1,000-year-old mummified monk inside Buddhist statue unveiled by CAT scan," which was posted this week on Canada's National Post news site.  Please see also another helpful story story posted this week by the BBC about the elaborate and beautiful Ajanta caves built for the Buddhist community of India’s Maharashtra state until the complex was abandoned in the early 6th century CE.  Again, my point is that Buddhism is a religion, not just a simple philosophy or way of life that anyone can -- and should -- incorporate into their spiritual journey.  It's up to you to decide whether the religious doctrines of Buddhism are right for you.  But please don't pretend there are no doctrines!

LSP31: Some Thoughts on Stealth Buddhism

In response to a recent Psychology Today blog by Religious Studies professor Candy Gunther Brown, a member of an online discussion group posed this question: "Is Secular Mindfulness Meditation Really Stealth Buddhism?"

There were only two posted comments when I checked into the discussion, and one of the two posted comments started out by saying this:

"Buddhism's most basic precepts do not constitute a 'religion' per se. The aim is to reduce suffering."

A lot of people seem to believe this.  I wrote this in reply:

_________________________________________

It's interesting that you say Buddhism's most basic precepts don't constitute a religion. I've seen this said many times of Buddhism (using as my definition of Buddhism the core teachings of the Four Noble Truths, Eightfold Path, cosmogony of co-dependent origination, and related teachings). I feel it's always important to look at the whole picture of Buddhism's philosophy and way of life when deciding how to incorporate its core teachings into our daily lives (if at all).

It's often said that the aim of Buddhism is to reduce suffering. While this is certainly true, Buddhism in the form taught by the Buddha (if it's even possible to accurately reconstruct his original teachings) is a self-contained cosmogonical and cosmological philosophy founded on apophatic mysticism with a salvific goal. Its focus on salvation (what Buddhists refer to as liberation) definitely pushes it in the direction of a religion. As well, the Buddha's refusal to answer the question of whether there actually is a God makes Buddhism a non-theistic philosophy. It isn't, strictly speaking, an atheistic way of life. There's no room within Buddhism for a personal God, but there's plenty of room in it for assorted supernatural beings and saints (especially within Mahayana Buddhism).

Apophatic mystics, regardless of their original religious training, see the universe in a particular way. This way is filled with negation, lack of imagery, eradication of personal boundaries, and the elevation of the human mind to a cosmic power that can merge with (or even transcend) Source.
 

Few people in the West take the time to understand that the Buddha's claim of awakening under the Bodhi tree is a classic example of an apophatic mystical experience. Those in the West who turn to Buddhism as a way to escape the "nonsense" of Christian mysticism and miracles should be more honest with themselves about the mystical roots of Buddhism. Photo credit JAT 2018.

The goal of all apophatic mystics -- whether Buddhist, Christian, or any other faith tradition -- is to permanently escape the problems and suffering of the imperfect world we live in through the path of the perfect mind. There's no need within any apophatic philosophy to promote the ideals of the human heart or the reduction of suffering through alternate means or practices (one example of an alternate practice being forgiveness).

Having said this, I think there's great value in the practice of mindfulness if mindfulness is defined as something more akin to healthy awareness of self (interoception); healthy maintenance of boundaries (parieto-temporal lobe enhancement); triggering of the "placebo effect" through self-kindness, gratitude, humbleness (lack of status addiction), forgiveness, empathy, music, and community fellowship; and full use of the CNS's capacity to begin to heal itself (and the whole body) if we use our free will in healthy ways.

I'm a practising mystic, but I follow the cataphatic path. I don't engage in meditation because the kind of meditation endorsed within strict Buddhist circles will trigger (with sustained practice) neuroplastic effects that I have no interest in. I have no interest in changing my brain structure to suit the ideals of an apophatic belief system. I'm content to see the world as a positive place. I'm not trying to escape this world. And I don't believe I'm clever enough to use the power of my human mind to understand the entire universe and everything in it.

Plato also endorsed a version of the cloud of Oneness (similar to Buddhism's co-dependent origination) but Plato was an apophatic mystic. I'm not keen on Plato's Philosopher-Kings, either.

Monism always leads in the end to Dualism. Dualism creates a hell of a lot of suffering in the world. Tackling dualistic belief systems is a great way to help people reduce their suffering.

Jen 

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 says 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 of wonder, science, and faith to believe in Karma? Is it okay for a person who believes in Divine Love to also believe in Karma?

Unfortunately, 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. This may sound a bit harsh -- maybe even a bit extreme -- but if you want to let go of the crippling fear that your soul is somehow defective or unworthy of hope and healing, then only one of these two theories has the power to free you from the fear.

October maples. Photo credit 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 yours, 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 from 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 filters you place on your decisions. If you make a decision to grow the Karma tree in your life, your brain will gradually rewire itself to reflect your belief that cause and effect are always predictable, that human rewards and punishments should always be immediate, obvious, and logical to the human mind. Such beliefs inevitably result in justifications for revenge; social hierarchies; resistance to healing and change; and rejection of the human need for forgiveness and redemption.

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 believed to be absolute. These laws state that 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 and 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 power 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: 

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. So if you want to build a strong, healthy, mature 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.  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 you 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. Sometimes this feedback feels a lot like Karma, but an angel is always looking for ways to help you expand your emotional choices, not shut them down based on human beliefs in the supremacy of purity, piety, and perfection.

Your angels will still love you and forgive you, though, as they help you let go of your fear and remember what your Heart and Soul feel like.

LSP20: A New Spin on the Old Seven Deadlies

We've all heard about the seven deadly sins. In the Christian tradition, pride, envy, anger, lust, greed, sloth, and gluttony are the usual contenders for the crown of worst human traits ever. Even if you don't agree with the Church's teachings on why we're sinful, it's pretty hard to argue with the fact that human beings do awful, awful things to themselves, each other, and the planet because of pride, anger, and the rest.

When people behave badly, they often look to religion to explain their behaviour and give them tools to change their behaviour in the future. Sometimes people want to change because they're afraid their souls will end up in hell. Other times people want to change because they're tired of not being able to like themselves or trust themselves. Either way, they're up against the dreaded topic of ethics and morality.

Can you actually be happy or feel your connection with God if you don't try your best to be ethical or moral?

A lot of people have simply given up on the idea of trying to be ethical and trying to live a moral life. They pretend on the surface to care about ethics, and they're quick to express their shock and outrage on Twitter, but when they're asked in their own lives to make moral choices, they don't have the tools to actually do it. What's worse, they don't know why they don't have the tools.

It's almost impossible to tackle a major psychological and spiritual issue if you don't understand at a logical, rational, scientific level why you're doing what you're doing. You need a solid explanation to stand on, so to speak, a solid explanation to help ground you and keep you sane as you struggle to change and make new choices.

As we know, the Church's explanation for why you're being proud, envious, angry, lustful, greedy, slothful, and gluttonous is Sin with a capital "S." Various Eastern and New Age teachings have trumped Christianity's Sin by claiming that all your unloving behaviour is an illusion anyway, an illusion you can escape through your own hard work and discipline.

I offer an entirely different explanation. I suggest (because it's what I've been taught through my mystical connection with God the Mother, God the Father, and other angels in the Core) that almost all human beings are wrestling with the challenges of status addiction. It's status addiction -- not Sin, not karma, and not evil forces -- that's wrecking your life.

Status addiction tricks your brain into thinking you look like this . . .

What is pride? Pride is what you "feel" when the addicted parts of your brain sense your hoard of status points is being threatened.

What is envy? Envy is what you "feel" when the addicted parts of your brain suspect your neighbour has acquired some status points you "rightfully" deserve.

. . . when really, from the point of view of God, your angels, and your own soul, your status-addicted brain looks more like this. Status addiction saps the creativity, intuition, and sense of meaning and purpose from your life. If you want to get closer to God, you need to be honest with yourself about what status addiction is doing to your brain.

What is anger? Anger is what you "feel" when the addicted parts of your brain suspect your neighbour has tried to steal status points from you.

What is lust? Lust is what you "feel" when the addicted parts of your brain justify your plan to invade somebody else's personal boundaries to steal some of their status points.

What is greed? Greed is the addictive high you feel at the very thought of acquiring some new status points.

What is sloth? Sloth is the state of denial about your addiction disorder.

What is gluttony? Gluttony is a secondary addiction disorder (a co-morbid disorder) that easily arises in the brain of a person who's already experiencing another addiction disorder (in this case, the addiction to status).

That's status addiction in a nutshell.

Now here's the big question.

How many people do you know who have managed all on their own, without any help from anyone else, to personally recognize, confront, cope with, and completely heal their own major addiction disorders (e.g. addiction to opioids, pornography, perfectionism)?

I'm guessing not many.

It takes a community to build a culture based on status addiction, and it's going to take a community to confront and heal the catastrophic problems caused by this addiction.

The first step in healing any addiction is self honesty. The second is recognizing a higher power that can give you strength.

God, please help us with this great task!

Amen.


For Further Reflection:

You may have noticed as you read this post that when the seven deadly sins are defined as "shades" or "colours" of status addiction, it's easier to see how these behaviours violate the morality of boundaries, the morality that guides all loving actions in God's universe.

Almost everyone has been in the position of feeling what it's like to have your personal boundaries invaded.

Invasion of personal space can take many forms, from the innocuous (a neighbour who stands an inch or two too close to you) to the violent (a trusted professional who sexually assaults your children). Occasionally, invasions of personal space involve tangible weapons (e.g. knives, guns, or fists) that leave marks on your physical body, marks that other people can see and sympathize with. More often than not, though, the chosen weapons are things that can't be seen with the human eye: cruel remarks that cut you down and make you feel bad about yourself; intentional manipulation that tricks you into lowering your defences so your reputation or money can be stolen from you; denial and deceit that steal your voice; physical intimidation that threatens to steal your livelihood if you refuse to submit to sexual advances; aggressive demands that you obey, even worship, your abusers lest you be ejected from your family or community and left to fend for yourself.

All invasions, however, share a common thread: a sense that someone has stolen a piece of your personal safety.

As with other forms of injury, small cuts and bruises to your sense of personal safety can, and should be, healed in short order. But major assaults, such as attempted murder, rape, or spiritual violations, leave large holes that take years to heal and always leave scars no matter how loving and forgiving you are. Coping with such major injuries can become a full-time job, making it difficult for you to apply your time, energy, and talents to anything but survival.

If it were true, as so many spiritual leaders are currently claiming, that the path to spiritual enlightenment is eradication of boundaries and transcendence of the self, then we would expect to see great benefits accrue to all cultures that oppose boundaries and endorse Oneness. We would expect to see less suffering, greater prosperity, more happiness, and more cultural creativity in dictator-driven Communist societies; totalitarian and fascist regimes; fundamentalist sects; and certain Buddhist and New Age communities -- places that have given us the chance to observe the long term effects of practising Oneness.

We do not, in fact, see such benefits. Instead, we see the opposite.

Cultures and religions that embrace a morality of personal boundaries have done a particularly good job of reducing suffering and maintaining happiness while at the same time offering opportunities for individuation, creative self expression, mutual self respect, and the quest for Meaning.

In order for you to build and maintain your relationship with Mother Father God, you need to begin to examine the ways in which status addiction is punching holes through your personal sense of safety. You're not just looking for situations where other people are trying to steal from you; you're looking for the ways in which your own habits, ideologies, and unchallenged beliefs are deceiving you into stealing from yourself.

This is what all forms of addiction boil down to: allowing some parts of your brain (especially your reward and pleasure pathways) to steal from other parts of your human self (such as your soul-related Meaning networks).

At the start of every spiritual journey, there's a person who doesn't know how to get rid of his or her multifaceted expressions of pride, envy, anger, lust, greed, sloth, and gluttony. But each step towards Humbleness, Divine Love, and Divine Forgiveness will help you gradually shed the burden of status addiction's smelly, toxic, thorn-covered leaves.

The leaves that grow in their place are Peace.

LSP15: Why I Don't Use Traditional Meditation Techniques

There's a reason why I don't meditate.

I don't meditate because traditional Buddhist meditation practices damage the health of the brain-soul nexus.* Since it's the brain-soul nexus that allows me to connect with God in the Core, I won't do anything to jeopardize the connection. This means (among other things) that I refuse to meditate.

I refuse to tell my brain to stop doing its job so I can have a rest from my own thoughts and emotions.  My brain comes pre-wired with a set of more effective tools I can use whenever I need a rest.

The most important of these tools is sleep. A solid 8 hours of uninterrupted sleep is one of the most powerful spiritual tools available to you. It's free. It's available to everyone (barring circumstances such as parenthood or illness). It's highly effective. And the healing mechanisms that kick in while you're asleep come pre-loaded in your DNA.

I know of people who get up early or stay up late so they'll have time to meditate or pray each day.  They cut short their sleep-time -- sleep-time that's required for optimal brain-soul health -- so they can voluntarily put their brains into "low-emotion mode." The brain's "low-emotion mode" is a lot like your computer's sleep mode: the power's on, but nobody's home. The power's on, but you're choosing not to use your full emotional computing capacity to be the best human being you can be. The power's on, but you're choosing to ignore what it means to love.

"Jesus said: 'The Pharisees and the scribes have taken the keys to knowledge and have hidden them. They did not go in, and they did not permit those desiring to go in to enter. You should be clever as snakes and innocent as doves'" (Gospel of Thomas 39a-b). Emerald Tree Boa at the Metro Toronto Zoo. Photo credit JAT 2017.

Let's face it -- while you spend an hour focusing only on your breathwork, you're not reflecting on your relationships or working to forgive a harmful choice or learning something new that you didn't know yesterday. You're not choosing to love somebody. You're not choosing to engage in active contemplation of humbleness and love. You're not choosing love.

What . . . you thought love was an instinctive process that didn't require any effort on your part?

It's fine to begin the process of active contemplation by sitting quietly, slowing your breathing, and relaxing your brain. Sometimes this starting point is called "centering." Centering is helpful. But choosing to meditate so you can escape from your own emotional self -- not so helpful.

I understand how wonderful it can seem at first to be able to sit down and not have to listen to all the annoying, confusing, stressful thoughts going round and round in your head. This is the great appeal of intensive meditation practice. But there's a huge cost to this kind of practice, and you need to know about it. You need to know that if you place your spiritual eggs in the meditation basket, the long term cost will be a greater sense of distance between you and God, not a smaller sense of distance.

I'm not being cruel or judgmental here. I'm being rigorously scientific. Traditional Buddhist meditation practices are specifically designed to create an internal experience that matches the outward belief in "dependent origination." In this context, meditation is a highly effective practice for those who wish to focus solely on human will without regard for the needs of relationship with a personal God (Buddhism being a non-theistic philosophy). Meditation does exactly what it claims to do: it does a very good job of helping people shut down the painful emotional centres related to love, grief, trust, forgiveness, and humbleness.

However, since you need all these emotional centres in order to feel your connection with God's love, the one thing pure meditative practice cannot do is help you get closer to God. Even though it can be painful to deal with love, grief, trust, forgiveness, and humbleness, these emotions are part of the soul, and you can't deny these feelings or ignore them if you want to get closer to God. Instead, you have to learn to work with them in positive and mature and transformative ways. (Jesus called this "entering the kingdom of the heavens.")

Major world religions share one universal characteristic: each religion has thousands and thousands of theories and doctrines and traditions about who God is, how Creation came into being, and how human beings should correctly understand their relationship with Creation. It's so complicated that no human brain can make sense of it all.

It's no wonder, then, that it never occurs to us that building a relationship with God might actually mean using the ordinary tools we already have inside our bodies and brains -- the tools we're born with because God put them there through the process of evolution.

In other words, God, the great scientist, expects you not to waste the healing gift of sleep.


* Because Pure Land Buddhism focuses on love and empathy, I partially exclude this tradition from my general remarks on meditation -- though only partially.


Addendum October 19, 2017: In a Scientific American post on October 11, 2017, writer Bret Stetka reviews some of the recent research into meditation and mindfulness-based interventions: "Where's the proof that mindfulness meditation works?" 

Addendum November 6, 2017: In a Scientific American post on October 31, 2017, psychology professor Cindi May writes about a large mindfulness study involving adolescents: "Mindfulness Training for Teens Fails Important Test"

Addendum December 1, 2019: It's generally supposed that meditation practitioners experience only positive effects from the practice. Here are two articles that remind us the reality is more nuanced. One is a 2019 essay called "The Problem of Mindfulness" by Sahanika Ratnayake. The other piece, "There's a dark side to meditation that nobody talks about" by Lila MacLellan from 2017, briefly reviews some of the challenging issues of meditation.

Addendum February 7, 2021: Here's another article that presents a balanced picture about the practice of mindfulness: "How too much mindfulness can spike anxiety" by David Robson, posted February 4, 2021 on the BBC.

Addendum November 29, 2021: A recent study suggests that independent-minded individuals can become less altruistic and more selfish when using certain mindfulness techniques. The study is reviewed in "How mindfulness could make you selfish" by David Robson, posted August 16, 2021 on BBC Worklife.

 

For Further Reflection:

Have you ever asked yourself why meditation places such an important role in the life of a devout Buddhist? Is it a simple tool, a spiritual practice to help you advance toward the goalless goal of happiness and compassion? Or is it something more, an internal path of immanence that may guide you eventually to the bliss of Oneness (i.e. dependent origination) if your faith is strong enough? Is meditation less a practice and more a sacrament? If so, can this sacrament be detached from its Buddhist roots and applied neutrally to other faith traditions without any consequences?

People who have grown up in the Christian tradition are familiar with the power of sacraments to change how we choose to relate to each other and to Creation. Sometimes, during great crises, it's only our connection to the power of sacraments that keeps us from falling apart.

In most mainline Protestant churches, there are only two sacraments: Baptism and the Eucharist. In the Roman Catholic church, seven sacraments are recognized: Baptism, Penance, Confirmation, Marriage, Eucharist, Holy Orders, and Anointing of the Sick. In the Eastern Orthodox tradition, the concept of sacraments is broader and more fluid. And in various aboriginal religions, the concept is broader still.

Regardless of religious tradition, however, human beings are drawn to the mystery of sacraments, to the places, symbols, and experiences that help us feel connected to God and all Creation. We crave such sacraments and we feel quite lost when they're stripped away from us. The history of iconoclasm shows us that whenever our leaders try to eradicate our heart-based connection to the sacred, we rebel. Even Buddhism has rebelled through its imagery, its architecture, its mandalas and prayer wheels, and its other sacred symbols of the teachings.

Because Christian sacraments typically involve external rituals and symbols, we tend to think of them as, well, external. It doesn't occur to us to think of Buddhist meditation -- an internal experience, if ever there was one -- as a sacrament. But it fulfills every need of a sacrament because it embodies in a biological way the cosmogonical doctrines of the religion. Every time you engage in meditation as a Buddhist, you're reminded of the cosmogonical doctrine of dependent origination, and you're striving to match every aspect of your life to that doctrine. This is no different than what Pauline Christians do when they take the Eucharist and remind themselves they must try harder to match their lives to the pattern of Jesus Christ, whom they believe was with God at the beginning of time.

Sacraments link theoretical doctrine to daily life, but sacraments differ from religion to religion because the theories of God differ from religion to religion. The sacraments are like the outer branches of the spiritual tree; they can only grow from the specific roots that nourish them.

There's no doubt from a scientific perspective that traditional Buddhist meditation techniques affect the wiring of the human brain in distinctive ways. All religious practices, regardless of origin, have some sort of effect on the brain if they're repeated often enough. So the question you need to ask yourself is this: do you want to enthusiastically embrace a practice -- a sacrament -- that's specifically designed to help you overcome the idea that you need a personal God in your life?

Or would it be more helpful for you to graciously accept the right of all people to choose their own path, and then humbly go your own way without fear that you're messing up your own quest?