LSP53: Why the Practice of "No Right and No Wrong" Hurts Your Brain and Damages Your Empathy

The dispute began with this small saying posted over a photo: "Forgive people in your life, even those who are not sorry for their actions. Holding on to anger only hurts you, not them."

The first person to reply didn't want to talk about forgiveness or holding onto anger. He wanted to dismiss both of these important emotional and spiritual issues by playing the trump card of "non-judgment." So he said, "I would suggest that learning and practising NON-judgement would eliminate any and all need for forgiveness and lead to a more loving and peaceful world."

His definition of "non-judgment," as revealed by a later comment, is this: "These days, I tend to ask myself just one question about any event that I see - 'Would I like to see that in my autobiography.' NO judgement of 'right' or 'wrong', 'good' or 'bad'. It just IS and it is up to me to decide how to respond - or not respond."

A forgiving brain reminds me of this modified photo of the Lady Chapel ceiling at Westminster Abbey, London, England. Forgiveness is strong and orderly, but also organic, layered, and subtly interconnected. Photo credit JAT 2023.

He was not all pleased with my first response to him, which went like this: "It's true that those who practise non-judgment see no need for forgiveness. It's also true that those who practise non-judgment believe firmly that this will lead to a more loving and peaceful world. However, there's no evidence that non-judgment actually creates what it claims to create. What it seems to create is rampant narcissism, self-entitlement, morality that's "convenient" and changeable depending on the circumstances, and a diminished sense of personal responsibility."

Among other things he said to me, he demanded backing for my comments. So although it's unlikely anything I offer in the way of research will interest him, I decided this would be a good time to talk about why the current practice of non-judgment (as defined above) is harmful to the brain and why it leads to widespread narcissism, self-entitlement, fluid morality, and a diminished sense of personal responsibility.

First, I'd like to make it super, ultra-clear that when I'm talking about the practice of non-judgment, I'm not in any rejecting the practice of trying to see your fellow human beings through the loving eyes and ears of kindness, compassion, inclusiveness, and equality before God. Obviously, it's a good thing to try to see the best in everyone. And, obviously, it's a good thing to help others on the difficult and confusing journey of trying to be the best self one can be as a human being.

The spiritual practice of non-judgment, wherein nothing is deemed to be either "right or wrong," "good or bad," is the specific practice I'm objecting to. According to this belief system, things just "are," and you're not supposed to have an opinion about them one way or the way. 

In other words, it's okay for you to reject conventional codes of morality, codes that boil down to the idea of consequences for your choices. In the non-judgment belief system, you may decide that a particular choice isn't a good one for you -- for example, you may decide not to copy the choices of Las Vegas shooter Stephen Paddock -- but you're really not supposed to have an opinion one way or the other on what Paddock did. As teachers such as Neale Donald Walsch and Eckhart Tolle would have it, Paddock was following a false mental construction or offering resistance to life. No one who has accepted the teachings of non-judgment would want to do such a violent, unloving thing, say these teachers. But now that he's done it, there's no need to forgive Paddock, because in order to forgive him, you'd first have to decide his actions were immoral. And that would be a judgment. A judgment with consequences.

So yes . . . it makes perfect sense within the non-judgment belief system to say that forgiveness isn't needed. But when you understand what forgiveness really is -- a free will choice to override conditioned responses such as revenge, anger, hatred, rumination, and ongoing emotional stress in the face of harm -- you realize that people who've learned how to forgive are the real agents of love and peace in the world. They're the ones who aren't afraid to turn the brain's many tit-for-tat lemons into healing lemonade.

Learning how to forgive isn't quick or easy, but, in the hope that a bit of background information about the brain may help some readers, I offer the following simple map of what's going on inside your head as you pursue your spiritual journey.

To start with, it's good to know that the human brain is a vast assortment of neurons and glial cells and networks of connectivity and neurotransmitters and so on, with current estimates of the total number of neurons now standing at 86 billion accompanied by about an equal number of glial cells.

For many decades in the twentieth century, the belief that the adult brain couldn't grow new neurons was scientific dogma -- and vigorously defended dogma, at that. Despite some early evidence to the contrary, it wasn't until the late 1990's that researcher Elizabeth Gould (who worked with marmosets) was able to convincingly overturn this longstanding tenet of neuroscience. Today, a mere 20 years later, no reputable researcher would deny the brain's remarkable ability to reshape itself by building new neurons, building new networks, and dismantling cells and connections that are no longer needed. The umbrella term for the process of growing new neurons is called neurogenesis; the malleability of brain connections is called neuroplasticity.

The important point here is that until doctors and other medical professionals began to understand the full potential of neuroplasticity, many of them based their practical care decisions on false beliefs about the brain. Patients who could have benefited from care regimens designed to encourage the brain to repair itself were instead being told nothing could be done. Patients in need of neurological help didn't receive the therapy they needed, not because of a lack of care and concern but because of a lack of proper understanding of how the biological brain actually works.

The same thing has been happening in spiritual and religious circles. Certain beliefs and spiritual practices are being recommended in the well-intentioned belief that such practices will help people create a more loving and peaceful world. But if these practices interfere at a biological level with the brain's ability to exhibit traits such as empathy, altruism, gratitude, forgiveness, trust, love, and sense of meaning, then we need to be honest about these practices and revisit their usefulness for those who seek healing relationships with themselves, each other, and God.

Fascinating new research supported by the use of brain scanning technologies has revealed that the brain contains multiple networks -- like highly specific paths or roadways -- that connect certain regions of the brain to produce specific human traits. New networks are being suggested and theorized about all the time, so it's not possible for me to include a comprehensive list, but we now have data to point to the default mode network; the interoception network; the salience network; and the theory of mind network, to name a few. Networks aren't separate from each other and they tend to overlap at certain key "hubs." But without these networks, we wouldn't be able to process, regulate, and put into action the complex thoughts, emotions, memories, skills, and perceptions that make us human in a broad sense and also in a unique individual sense.

The brain's networks are so complex that there's always a struggle to keep them in balance. Sometimes an area of the brain is overactive (which affects any networks the area is connected to) and sometimes an area is underactive (which also affects any relevant networks). In addition, entire networks can become dysfunctional, which can become quite serious from a medical point of view because of demonstrated links to specific neurological and psychiatric disorders. The dorsomedial default network, for example, which is supposed to help the brain regulate pain perception, self-knowledge, empathy, and person perception (among other traits) is implicated in a number of major disorders when the links in the network become damaged or are shown to be metabolically overactive or underactive.

In other words, when networks are working in balanced and healthy ways, we can expect to see outward signs of that inner healthy balance. When a person's dorsomedial default network isn't suffering from the insults of illness or injury or genetic factors, for instance, there's less chance that we'll see a person who lacks empathy for others, appropriate responses to pain, and significant social and communication abnormalities. But with damage to this network can come suffering. Depression, autism, schizophrenia, and obsessive compulsive disorder have all been linked in various ways and in varying degrees to dysfunctions in this network.

And then there's the brain network involved in making moral decisions. Yes, I'm afraid to say there really is such a thing. This network, which uses the temporal-parietal junction, the medial prefrontal cortex, and the middle temporal gyrus (as well as a few other regions), uses brain areas similar to those involved in both theory of mind and empathy. The health and the interconnectivity of these brain areas determines your ability to make moral decisions; your ability to empathize with others (an emotional trait); and your ability to process the more abstract and cognitive aspects of social skills (theory of mind) -- all three at one time. These three important aspects of humanity are interconnected and, despite what you've been told by certain spiritual teachers, can't be biologically disconnected from each other. Nor should you want them to be. These traits reinforce each other and lead to wise decisions that balance both your emotional reasoning skills and your cognitive reasoning skills. It's win-win when you balance your heart and your mind.

If, on the other hand, you train your brain through the practice of non-judgment to ignore your natural, built-in, hard-wired ability to make moral decisions, you'll be rewiring your brain. (It's the use-it-or-lose-it aspect of neuroplasticity, which allows you to change your brain architecture over time through the repeated application of certain free will thoughts and practices.) Unfortunately, this will also impair your brain's ability to feel empathy and your ability to process the healthy cognitive aspects of your relationships, since both of these traits rely on the brain networks that create moral reasoning -- the connections you just intentionally hacked to bits. Lack of moral reasoning and lack of empathy go hand in hand. And it should go without saying that a person who has lost the ability to feel emotional empathy for others (as opposed to cognitive empathy) behaves in narcissistic, self-entitled ways, and struggles to overcome his or her own emotional egocentrism.

And, for those who still don't believe forgiveness is necessary, the neuroscientific evidence gets worse. Several recent papers on the neuroscientific basis for forgiveness reveal that granting forgiveness activates the same brain areas as moral cognition, empathy, and theory of mind social reasoning. In addition, there's evidence that the practices of gratitude and altruism, with their links to moral choices and actions, also use some of the same brain areas.

Like the unfolding of individual blossoms on a single orchid stem, the brain's ability to manifest certain soul-based traits such as morality, empathy, and forgiveness depends on a small number brain regions that are linked to each other and produce these traits in sequence. Photo credit JAT 2022.

So there's no getting out of it. You're born with a brain that comes with its own internal software packages for morality, empathy, social cognition, forgiveness, gratitude, and altruism, all of which are biologically intertwined and all of which help you be the most loving person you can be as a human. The trick to not losing any of these desperately needed traits is to treat them as a "package deal." Each time you practice one of these spiritual skills -- which means you're activating and strengthening the links between specific brain areas -- you make it easier for your brain to navigate the other skills in the package.

It's the package as a whole that gives us the tools we need to bring love and peace into the world. So do your spiritual brain a favour. Strengthen the best attributes of your brain so you can go out there and make a difference in the world. Learn from the mistakes made by people such as Stephen Paddock, find the courage to forgive them, and then take the time to teach yourself and others how to be the person you really want to be.

You'll be surprised at what you can do when you learn to use your brain wisely.

LSP44: Forgiveness in the Parable of the Prodigal Son

The Parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15: 11-32) is one of a series of parables Jesus wrote to teach others about forgiveness.

The main divergence between Jesus' theology and the theology of other religious groups in first century Palestine was Jesus' understanding of the mystical power of forgiveness. Jesus' understanding of forgiveness is the key that unlocks the meaning of the Kingdom teachings, including the parables.

The Prodigal Son (or . . . Redemption Doesn't Happen Overnight). Photo credit JAT 2015.

Jesus' teachings on matters other than forgiveness don't sound a whole lot different from the teachings of other groups. Jesus, like the Pharisees -- and, indeed, like most religious groups of the time -- believed in the importance of ethics, moral choices, and obedience to a code of moral conduct. No society works well if there aren't shared assumptions about "the right way to create Peace." So Jesus certainly didn't invent the idea of moral codes. What he did do was turn the pathways to Peace upside down.

During Jesus' lifetime, and for centuries before, a body of writing called Wisdom literature was used to gather together important maxims about living a moral life. Wisdom literature taught that obedience to divinely revealed laws and cultural norms would guarantee "happiness" and eventual acceptance into the heavens. A major characteristic of most Wisdom literature is the insistence that Materialist laws of cause-and-effect govern all Creation (including God's own choices). If you apply reason, justice, and piety to these laws, you can create stability, order, safety, and happiness in your society. But those who wilfully disobeyed God's laws will surely be punished -- and rightly so. In the Jewish Scriptures, the books known as Proverbs and Ecclesiastes are considered examples of Jewish Wisdom texts.   

But another canonical Jewish book that's often labelled "Wisdom" takes a different tack. The Book of Job is so different from conventional Wisdom collections that biblical scholar Michael Coogan once described the Book of Job as "anti-Wisdom Wisdom." In Job, nothing goes right for the key character until he decides to listen not to wise religious scholars but to what God says about God. It turns out that what God tells Job is not what human leaders have been teaching their followers.

Jesus, like Job before him, is a teacher of anti-Wisdom Wisdom. His minority understanding of how to be in relationship with God is so radical that it's only recently we've begun to want this paradigm in our society.

Jesus and Job both present a pathway to Peace built on seven main spiritual attributes:

1. forgiveness -- NOT mercy, atonement, or contract law
2. agape/love -- NOT obedience, fear, or contract law 
3. a "thinking" faith -- NOT blind faith, prophecy, or revelation 
4. humbleness -- NOT religious humility, religious salvation, or status addiction
5. radical inclusiveness -- NOT clan chosenness, honour-shame cultural norms, or sectarian segregation
6. courage -- NOT fate, predestination, or abdication
7. trust in the One God Who Is Two -- a belief that God is not a lone male figure (YHWH) but two distinct and separate figures, one male and one female (YHWH and his Asherah?), who together are the One God and who make all decisions together based on mutual forgiveness, agape, thinking faith, humbleness, radical inclusiveness, and courage. As above, so below.

The Parable of the Prodigal Son reflects Jesus' theology, Jesus' understanding of how we can be in full relationship with God during our lives as human beings.

Then Jesus said, "There was a man who had two sons. The younger of them said to his father, 'Father, give me the share of the property that will belong to me.' So he divided his property between them. A few days later the younger son gathered all he had and travelled to a distant country, and there he squandered his property in dissolute living. When he had spent everything, a severe famine took place throughout that country, and he began to be in need. So he went and hired himself out to one of the citizens of that country, who sent him to his fields to feed the pigs. He would gladly have filled himself with the pods that the pigs were eating; and no one gave him anything. But when he came to himself he said, 'How many of my father's hired hands have bread enough and to spare, and here I am dying of hunger! I will get up and go to my father, and I will say to him, "Father I have sinned against heaven and before you; I am no longer worthy to be called your son; treat me like one of your hired hands." So he set off and went to his father. But while he was still far off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion; he ran and put his arms around him and kissed him. Then the son said to him, 'Father I have sinned against heaven and before you; I am no longer worthy to be called your son.' But the father said to his slaves, 'Quickly, bring out a robe -- the best one -- and put it on him; put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. And get the fatted calf and kill it, and let us eat and celebrate; for this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found!' And they began to celebrate.

"Now his elder son was in the field; and when he came and approached the house, he heard music and dancing. He called one of the slaves and asked what was going on. He replied, 'Your brother has come, and your father has killed the fatted calf, because he has got him back safe and sound.' Then he became angry and refused to go in. His father came out and began to plead with him. But he answered his father, 'Listen! For all these years I have been working like a slave for you, and I have never disobeyed your command; yet you have never given me even a young goat so that I might celebrate with my friends. But when this son of yours came back, who has devoured your property with prostitutes, you killed the fatted calf for him!' Then the father said to him, 'Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours. But we had to celebrate and rejoice, because this brother of yours was dead and has come to life; he was lost and has been found.'"

There's nothing in this Kingdom parable that resembles traditional Wisdom. Instead, what we see is forgiveness. Forgiveness defies accepted logic and contradicts the "eye for an eye" laws of justice that governed most first century societies. This, suggests Jesus, is what God is really saying to us about who God is -- a parent who allows human children to become "dead" to their own true selves and struggle to learn from their terrible mistakes before the lost ones can be reunited in love and courage with their divine family. It's the children who have lost themselves, yet find their way home through self-forgiveness and courage, who have entered Jesus' Kingdom of the Heavens.

Jesus' Kingdom parables are confusing, messy, non-linear, multi-layered, and filled with anti-Wisdom Wisdom because life is confusing, messy, non-linear, multi-layered, and filled with all sorts of irrational (but totally wonderful) emotions like love and gratitude and devotion and forgiveness and the courage to change.

The Apostle Paul didn't agree with any of this, but that's another story.

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!

____________________________________________________

The Yeshuan Christian world view, with its focus on mystery and love, redemption and forgiveness, is so open to everything in Creation that there's room within it for all God’s children, regardless of when or where they've 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 ascetic 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 [Yeshuan] 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 inside and outside religion. So try to recognize and push back against 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 their 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 heartbreaking 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.

The Buddha's earliest teachings are intensely transpersonal -- trancending the self -- in the way that all apophatic teachings strive for. 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 Gnosis 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, Toronto, Ontario. 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. There's no way around the absolutism of the consequences you bear for your choices. Although it's daunting to be stuck with these laws, the good news is this: whoever who can read the cosmic laws encoded in the cloud acquires great power -- infinite power, actually. Whoever who reads the cosmic laws and controls them no longer needs a relationship with God because he or she has, in a sense, become God.

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

And who needs forgiveness and humbleness? The laws of Karma, which purport to originate in a universe of pure morality, haven't the teeniest tiniest crack within them for the seeds of Divine Forgiveness. This point alone demonstrates the stark contrast between the Buddha's teachings and Jesus' teachings.

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 Karmic laws are. It's the normal, regular, everyday people -- not the universe or the planet or the laws of non-Materialist science or the laws of neuroscience -- who are dictating the meaning of universal justice. It's the ones who obey the traditions of their lineage who don't have to explain themselves. 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.

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 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 of 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 consciousnesses) 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 the wisdom of the adults around us. We absorb what they tell us about how the Universe works. We also absorb what they indirectly imply 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 we believe 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 in actuality 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.

LSP24: Fox & Sheldrake's "Angels in the New Millennium": A Response

At the end of Fox and Sheldrake's book about angels -- The Physics of Angels: Exploring the Realm Where Science and Spirit Meet -- the two authors provide a neat and tidy summary of "some of the lessons we have learned." These "lessons" are based on Fox and Sheldrake's modern reinterpretation of the mystical writings of Dionysius the Areopagite, Hildegard of Bingen, and St. Thomas Aquinas. (Please see my last LSP post: Look! Up in the Sky! It's a Bird, It's a Plane, It's . . . Pseudo-Dionysius!)

 

One true thing about angels is that human beings generally see them as beautiful beings with wings. This sculpture graces one of the side chapels in Westminster Abbey, London, UK. Photo credit JAT 2023.

Here is the summary list from pages 193-194 of their book. Fox and Sheldrake's theories about angels are shown in blue. My responses are shown in black. 

"Angels are very numerous; they exist in astronomical numbers. There are many other kinds of consciousness in the cosmos besides human consciousness." Well, yes, angels are very numerous, and angels do exist in all places in the universe, but the way Fox and Sheldrake discuss consciousness is a red herring. To be an independent being is to have consciousness. All beings in the universe have consciousness. All beings in the universe (except for God the Mother and God the Father themselves) are children of God the Mother and God the Father. All beings in the universe are souls. All beings in the universe are angels. In other words, "having consciousness" has the same meaning as "being a child of God" which has the same meaning as "being a soul" which has the same meaning as "being an angel." These four phrases are synonyms for the same thing. So there is only one "kind of consciousness" in the universe. Having said that, I'd like to emphasize the fact that although there's only one kind of consciousness, there are countless different ways of expressing that consciousness. Angels are all equally important to God, but angels are all quite different from each other in the way they express their unique consciousness.

"Angels have been present from the origin of the universe." No. Angels have not been present from the origin of the universe. This is a very old idea that stems from theological claims for the timelessness and immutability (i.e. permanent lack of change) of God. Certain human beings at certain times in history have claimed that God is immutable and unchangeable and outside time and space because this claim has suited certain human agendas and political motives (especially human agendas involving claims for the divine status and authority of assorted human political and religious leaders). The reality is that God the Mother and God the Father are changing all the time, as are we, their children. Part of this reality is the reality that new angels (or souls) are being born all the time. As we speak, new angels are being born somewhere within God the Mother and God the Father's immense heart. Some of these newborn angels may one day choose to incarnate on one of the planets in our universe where some angels (though not all angels) choose to incarnate for purposes of learning, growth, and change. All angels who are currently incarnated on Planet Earth as "animals" (defined here as multicellular, eukaryotic organisms of the kingdom Animalia (also called Metazoa)) are fairly young angels in the grand scheme of things. Being a young angel doesn't mean you're an inferior angel. It means you're an impatient angel who learns better by "doing" than by "hearing."

"They exist in a hierarchical order of nested levels within levels." No. Angels do not exist within hierarchies of spiritual ascent as described by Pseudo-Dionysius (or by Fox and Sheldrake), with some angels being closer to God than others because of their greater wisdom and purity. All such claims are damaging and hurtful. All angels in the universe -- every single one from youngest to oldest, smallest to biggest, intellectually brilliant to intellectually challenged -- are equally close to God and equally cherished by God the Mother and God the Father. GOD DON'T MAKE NO JUNK.

"They are the governing intelligences of nature." No. God the Mother and God the Father are the governing intelligences of nature, with all God's children being helpers and students in this great task. When you think you're hearing the voice of God in the wisdom of an ancient tree or an ancient rock, guess what . . . you're actually hearing the voice of God. (How cool is that?) Fox and Sheldrake, along with many others over the centuries, have tried to insert angels and nature spirits/devas into the reality of "God-as-Nature-and-God-as-Science" to separate you from God. While you may indeed have an experience of an angel while you're sitting quietly beside an ancient tree or ancient rock, the reason the angel is there is because angels -- like you -- want to hear the stories God the Mother and God the Father are telling us through the mediums of tree and water and wind and rock. Some angels, however, don't have to incarnate in order to hear these stories. They simply "visit" for short times. Sometimes humans and/or animals can see or hear or feel the presence of these "visiting angels." (Another important possibility is that you're sensing the presence of your own guardian angel while you're enjoying Nature, but I'll get to that in a minute.)

"They have a special relationship to light, fire, flames, and photons. There are astonishing parallels between Aquinas and Einstein with regard to the nature of angels and of photons: in their locomotion and mode of movement, their agelessness, and their being massless." Okay, this particular point just makes me want to throw up. First off, I want to remind everybody that Einstein was WRONG about non-locality, so to use Einstein (or the Aristotle-adoring-Aquinas) as a reliable authority to discuss the physics of angels is a stupid way to start. To follow up this form of stupidity with the idea that angels are massless -- when physicists have almost no understanding at all about the nature of dark matter, dark energy, gravitational fields, or magnetism, and physicists don't know why only about 5% of the known energy of the universe takes the form of baryonic matter (what we call 3D matter) -- is just . . . just arrogant and simplistic and scientifically implausible. Massless? You really think consciousness is massless? Consciousness is full of mass -- it's just not 3D mass, so physicists don't understand it and have no models at present to explain it. Also, it's wrong to state that angels have "a special relationship to light, fire, flames, and photons" because this denies the equality of angels who have a special relationship to water or to heliospheric energies or to gravitational fields or to the periodic table of elements or to any of the other countless and amazing and breathtaking forms of expression that angelic consciousness takes in God's great Creation. Get over the idea that light=God. Much of God's great Creation thrives within varied forms of "darkness." As far as God is concerned, if an angel is more comfortable in a quiet, private, dark environment (as on the ocean floor), that's a good thing. Divine Love is found in everything -- not just in light, fire, flames, and photons.

"They are musical in nature and work in harmonious relationship with one another." Finally, a point I can agree with! Yes, angels are musical in nature because music is one of God's important languages. But music isn't the only language angels use. Even more surprising, not all angels sing the same songs or even enjoy the same songs. Some angels love country, while others don't resonate with country at all. This is okay with God. Why should all angels like the same music? Why should they all sing the same songs? As long as you share the songs you love, and sing them joyfully from the heart, God is happy.

"The majority are friendly, but not all. Christ has power over the angels."  What the F@#&!  Please see point above: GOD DON'T MAKE NO JUNK. There are no "bad" or "evil" or "fallen" angels. There are no souls in creation who choose NOT to be part of God the Mother and God the Father's wondrous, loving, harmonious, kooky, surprising, courageous family. Fox and Sheldrake are repeating an ancient idea that's often been used to explain why certain people (people who think they deserve to be treated well by God) have ended up in tragic and difficult situations. This is part of the millennia-old tradition of Wisdom literature that says if you obey all of God's "divinely revealed laws," you'll be rewarded with many blessings (e.g. health, long life, wealth, many children, or whatever your particular culture believes is most desirable). Of course, God and your guardian angels don't necessarily agree with your belief in what's most desirable, and when they don't agree with you, you can be sure they'll express their opinion to you. Directly and often. You'll just have to learn to understand what they're saying to you and why.

"They have a special relationship to human consciousness. We human beings help link the earthly world with cosmic intelligences." This is another idea that's been kicking around for millennia in most major world religions. It's sometimes known by its Judaic name, Tikkun olam. (Tikkun olam   תקון עולם in Hebrew, is a phrase that means "repairing the world" or "healing the world," which suggests humanity's shared responsibility to heal, repair and transform the world). It's also an idea that shows up in some philosophical theories about humanity's relationship to the Dao. Basically, it's a highly anthropocentric idea that says human beings have a special role to play in the great cosmic plan to heal the universe. Of course, this assumes there is a great cosmic plan to heal the universe . . .  So is it at least true that angels have a "special relationship to human consciousness"? Well, yes. But this is only because each angel who incarnates on Planet Earth is sent along with a whole team of guardian angels to guide that one individual, and this team of angels always includes some of the angels who are closest to the incarnated angel when we're Home on the Other Side in non-3D form. So of course it feels as if we have a "special relationship" with our guardian angels! They're some of our closest friends in the universe!

"Angels may have played a special role in the birth of language." I don't even know what to say to this one. Language is intrinsic to consciousness. Language is, in fact, one of the defining characteristics of consciousness. There are many forms of language in God's Creation (as mentioned above). Human beings don't have a monopoly on language on Planet Earth. In fact, some biologists who study animal culture are finally going on record to describe what most of the rest of us have always known: animals have their own "languages" and forms of specific communication with each other -- and also with us! The most important factor in the development of advanced language skills is relationship. Those who aren't exposed to strong relationships of love and empathy and respect in their early years probably won't develop strong language skills during their lives on Earth. In so far as relationships of love and empathy and respect are central to the human ability to connect with God and God's angels, I guess one could say angels played -- and CONTINUE to play -- a role in the development of our language skills.

Okay, skipping ahead here on Fox and Sheldrake's list because even I'm starting to get exhausted . . .

"Their primary role is praise" AND "They are present at holy worship." Well, crap. These two short statements show such a profound lack of understanding about who God is and what Divine Love is that if you want to know my full response to these statements, you're going to have to read all 189 posts on my first four blogs. (Doesn't that sound like fun?)

My short answer to these two statements is this: an angel's job is NOT to offer praise and worship to God (although angels are always hugging Mother Father God and saying thank you to show our appreciation). While it's true that angels ARE present at human services of religious worship, it's only because guardian angels never abandon their charges and never leave their sides for a moment. This means that your guardian angel is with you 24/7 from the time you're conceived until the moment you die and are taken Home by God the Mother and God the Father. This has always been true for every incarnated being on Planet Earth, and this will always be true, because God the Mother and God the Father would never ever contemplate leaving you alone for a second. So Fox and Sheldrake's eschatological idea that "the good angels are coming, the good angels are coming" is hogwash. Our angels have never left us and never will.

Your guardian angels are always with you. This means your angels see every little choice you're making. They see you when you're not being loving; they see you when you're going to church or temple or synagogue and repeating awful things about God; they see you when you're buying into religious myths that insist God favours human beings over all over creatures; and they see you when you're choosing Platonic and Gnostic myths over God's loving and scientific realities.

That's the bad news.  The good news is  . . . your angels forgive you!


For Further Reflection:

It's all about the big picture.

The big picture is the only thing your angels are interested in. The big picture guides the decisions made by your guardian angels. The big picture shapes the events you don't want and didn't ask for. The big picture takes precedence over your human beliefs and prayers.

For angels, the big picture is all about relationships -- knowing God the Mother and God the Father in ways we didn't think possible, and knowing ourselves in ways we didn't think possible. And relationships are the messiest, least logical experiences of our human lives, right? Relationships involve struggle. And confusion. And miscommunication. And healing. And forgiveness. And love. And pain.

Yes, it's painful to be a human being with a Heart. It's painful to know grief. It's painful to wrestle with forgiveness. It's painful to let go of denial and embrace self honesty and personal change. And it's especially painful if you spend your whole life denigrating the Heart and exalting the Mind. Pursuing the Mind's goals (purity, piety, and perfection) at the expense of the Heart's goals  (humbleness, humour, and health) is the worst feeling of all for a human being. That's the whole point as far as your guardian angels are concerned. They want you to have the chance to wrestle with your own free will. They want you to see what it feels like to make really bad choices. It's only when you're faced with the stark reality of your terrible mistakes that you have the chance to dig deep into your own courage, your own love, and your own forgiveness. In doing so, you learn important truths about yourself as a child of God. You learn an eternal lesson about the infinite power of Divine Love to fix the Mind's screw-ups.

So yes, your guardian angels will sometimes let you fall flat on your face. And other times they'll step in to stop you from messing up your whole life. It depends on the situation, though. It depends on the big picture.

If you can manage to remember that you, as a human being, are being asked by your guardian angels to take responsibility for your free will -- to fully "own" your free will and use it wisely -- then some of the questions you have about your life will make more sense.

You don't have to be perfect to know God and be close to God. You just have to try each day to balance your Heart and your Mind to the best of your ability. The effort to do this is always going to be gnarly and unpredictable, so don't give yourself too hard a time.

This is where Divine Humour comes in!