LSP33: Dual Process Thinking and the Soul

The new year started out for me with laughter, excitement, and awe when I stumbled on a BBC Future article about religion and the human brain that confirms much of what I've been writing about for years.

The article, by Rachel Nuwer, is called "Will religion ever disappear?"  I recall noticing the title when the article first appeared on December 19, 2014, but I was too busy to stop and take a look.  On January 2, though, I somehow ended up there -- almost 10 years to the day since the Christ Zone model of consciousness was first laid out for me in the course of my daily mystical conversations with the soul who once lived as Jesus.

In her article, Nuwer asks whether the rise of atheism around the world will inevitably lead to the death of religion and spirituality.  Her conclusion, based on research from experts in psychology, neurology, history, anthropology, and logistics, is that "religion will probably never go away."  The reason?  The reason boils down to "a god-shaped hole [that] seems to exist in our species' neuropsychology, thanks to a quirk of our evolution."

This "god-shaped hole," which we're always trying to fill with meaning and purpose, springs from the scientific reality that human brains seem to use not one but two basic and distinctive forms of thought.  Researchers from social, personality, cognitive, and clinical psychology refer to this in broad terms as "dual process theory."  Recent fMRI studies show that specific brain areas are used to process information from the first system and different brain areas are used to process information from the second.  Sometimes these two systems are in competition with each other.

The two basic forms of thought are creatively referred to by researchers as "System 1" and "System 2."  Me, I call these two processing systems the Soul Circuitry and the Darwinian Circuitry.

Researchers agree that System 1, which seems to be much older in evolutionary terms, is oriented towards intuition, morality, recognizing patterns in the world around us, and seeking meaning and relationships.  System 2, which is actually much newer, involves conscious reasoning and careful application of logic. 

I learned this week that dual process theory has been around for a long time among modern psychologists.  But somehow I missed it.  I`ve known for several years about some early theological references to the "two-part brain" -- for instance, soon after Jesus explained the Christ Zone model to me, I saw the significance of his use of the rare term "dipsychos" (double-minded) in James 1:8, and later I noted Augustine of Hippo's description of himself as a man torn by the conflicting impulses of two different minds -- but I had no idea that my painstaking efforts in the past 10 years to understand the brain-soul nexus were being paralleled in psychology research labs around the world (albeit while skirting any reference to "soul").

That's why I started to laugh.  When you`re dealing with angels on an everyday basis, timing is everything.

Successful religious architecture appeals to both System 1 and System 2 in the brain.  St. Pancras, in Widecombe-in-the-Moor, England, echoes the emotional tones and colours of the haunting hills of Dartmoor.

Even if you're an atheist, and you don't agree with me that System 1 is a 3D analogue for the unique emotional and creative needs of the soul, you still can't avoid the scientific reality that your brain is wired to WANT morality and values.  System 1 exists whether you like it or not, and it's part of a healthy brain.

It`s a scientific fact that if you don't give System 1 something useful to do, it'll give you feedback whether you like it or not.  As Nuwer says, "Similarly, many around the world who explicitly say they don`t believe in a god still harbour superstitious tendencies, like belief in ghosts, astrology, karma, telepathy or reincarnation.  'In Scandanavia, most people say they don`t believe in God, but paranormal and superstitious beliefs tend to be higher than you`d think,' [Ara Norenzayan of the University of British Columbia] says.  Additionally, non-believers often lean on what could be interpreted as religious proxies -- sports teams, yoga, professional institutions, Mother Nature and more -- to guide their values in life . . . 'People seem to have this conceptual space for religious thought, which -- if it`s not filled by religion -- bubbles up in surprising ways,' [says Justin Barrett of Fuller Theological Seminary]."

The scientific reality of System 1 is something that has to be factored into any decision you make about your personal spiritual practices.  You might like to believe you can rise above all that System 1 nonsense of intuition, morality, recognizing patterns, and seeking meaning and relationships.  You might like to believe you can replace emotion and intuition with pure reason and logic at no cost.  The cost, however, will be very high: you'll be forcing your brain to ignore the decision-making wisdom of huge hunks of your brain.

I find it easier, more logical, and a lot more fun to live my life by using my whole brain and allowing myself to trust the scientific concepts explained to me by my angels instead of relying on superstition, sports scores, entertainment news, and paranormal "reality shows" for my sense of wholeness and meaning.

God bless my angels for insisting I read the news from reputable, reliable new sources.

I wouldn`t have it any other way.

LSP32: Trip the Light

Here's my idea of what it means to live from the heart and soul:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/Pwe-pA6TaZk?rel=0

In under 5 minutes, this video, created by Matt Harding and Melissa Nixon, captures the joy of being a child of God and the joy of being part of a huge family where everybody's different yet everybody's united by laughter, love, and the simple pleasures that come from the heart.  (I love the part where Matt dances with the seal.)

The video is called "Where the Hell is Matt 2012" and the wonderfully uplifting song is called "Trip the Light."

If you want to know more about who God is and what it feels like to walk the Spiral Path of wonder, science, and faith, you gotta see this.

It's the best video parable I've seen.

And I know parables.

God bless.

God's family is a like a wondrous garden where all of us are different but all of us are equally loved by God for our unique beauty and our unique dance. Photo credit JAT 2015

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.

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 

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

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

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

________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hope this helps.

Blessings,
Jen

LSP29: The Presence of God

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But he never talks about God.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


For Further Reflection:

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

What is the one thing a narcissist fears?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LSP28: The Burden of Perfection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perfect Imperfection (c) JAT 2014

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

Apophatics don't do cool.

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


For Further Reflection:

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

When God 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.