Tuesday, June 27, 2006

The Mystic's Obligation to Love

I know that we have been over this ground before, about dreaming, the nature of Mind, reality, and all that. I do not want to replay or rerun articles already written, but there are just a few words that I feel motivated to share:

God is Love, as well as cosmic Mind. Because of this, God is defined as the sum total of thoughtfeelings that lead to, or support, liberation, joy (bliss), peace (tranquility), etc. Since evil has no absolute reality, God is not its source. It can, in fact, have only one source, and that is illusion, as a part of the dreamworld.

But the mystic's commitment to Love does not permit her simply to shrug off evil, or suffering, as delusion. Real people experience real suffering even in unreal dreams. So, the mystic is obligated by her implicit vow to obey Love always to alleviate suffering whenever and wherever she finds it. Mystics live in a "personal" reality, just like everyone else. So, their assignment is not to alleviate all the suffering in the universe, or world. That is simply too huge. So, whatever is in front of you is your "assignment."

My cosmic "assignment," or task, right now is this article,,for example. Five minutes, or five hours, from now, it will be something different.

Suffering is real, because it exists in Mind, which is the definition of being real. So, the call of the mystic is to allow God (Love) to act through her to aid any sufferinng creature, to the best of her ability, even with her limitations.

She will do her best to explain the Way to an inquiring professor, and she will also feed a hungry dog at her door; both are acts of compassion, in the practical world.

This world did not start out as the "prison" that it now might seem to be. Way back, when "individual souls" were first "emanated" by God, to create plurality, worlds such as earth were virtual reality "amusement parks," in which minds could pretend to be animals, with all the sensory richness implied, and then, return to the pure worlds of Mind when they were finished "playing." So, for many eons, nonphysical beings (minds; souls) played every game, as virtual animals, that can be imagined-- and some that cannot!

But one day, a being had the bright idea that the most exciting of all games would be to will, or hypnotize, yourself to forget that you were Mind only, a nonphysical being, and to plunge into the dream with vigor and gusto, convinced that you actually were the animals that you were playing or dreaming! This seemed very exciting to several Minds (Souls), and they came to earth as their playground.

But the unexpected happened: Once they arrived, the game began to change. They, many of them, fell victim to the illusion that they were indeed animals, not souls, physical, not spiritual. The game had worked too well: They actually forgot that they were dreaming, at all. This is, imho, illustrated by the story of Cain having killed his brother Abel. This was the grinding sound of the start of the great machine, the
great wheels, of karma.

During the next few millennia, during "human history," these beautiful souls fell further and further into illusion-- killing and being killed, abusing, falling into violence and greed. All the fun, all the awareness, was draned from the game. No one even wanted to play any more. But, caught by karma, they had to return to the earth playground, now a virtual prison.

This is how polybiographic mystics explain the existence of so much "evil" in our world. But if we can remember our original connection with Love, and that we are actually incarnations of Lovemind, then the promise of Krishna is fulfilled, in the Celestial Song: We are released from the burden of karma, and find bliss as our natural state. This is moksha, or liberation, because a mind in bliss is slave to nothing.

This mysticism is a longterm path, requiring many lives to perfect. But good news! Some of us have been on this path already for many lives, so the situation is by no means hopeless. We can be filled with rich hope for the future, which will last forever.


Both day-dreams and night-dreams are not directly comparable to speech, which is produced consciously and deliberately. Dreams are autonomous of our conscious will. They arise from some level of the Unconscious, either the 1) personal unconscious, 2) the Soulmind, or 3) the Coremind, Lovemind, or Spirit. The conscious mind experiences them like a tv show; but it does not create their content.

This "mind of its own" implies its autonomy, its freedom from conscious manipulation and control. It is very understandable that the ancients would see dreams as "separate entities," for they lived in an animistic environment in which the whole world was filled with "spirits" (devas), gods, etc. As per Thales, the world is full of "gods."

The ancients were onto something. For both modern psychologists and many varieties of mystics also believe that dreams are instructional and educational. In traditional and mystical (spiritual) psychology, dreams are thought to contain messages from-- usually about-- the Unconscious. So, they can be very valuable tools for intellectual, emotional, spiritual, and other forms of growth and development.

In parallel, dreams are considered spiritual, but not necessarily religious, experiences in spiritual psychology.

A dream is subjectively experienced as coming from inside the person's mind. Unlike the case with the analogous tv, we do not have to create an electronic mechanism, or turn a switch, to watch dreams. It is a part of that notorious "common sense" that dreams are "within." This is, by nature, how everyone experiences a dream.

The ancient Greeks saw dreams as having come from outside.

We can sense, with our sensory apparatus, the image of a dream forming within our minds. In fact, in some cases, we can even watch it form, moving from vague and nebulous image into clarified dream. Actually, in spiritual psychology, the tv-analogy represents only another part of your day-dream. When watching tv, you are dreaming up the images on that screen. So, it is an "artificial" reality within a larger artificial reality. But I suggest that dreams are qualitatively different from tv shows, which are clearly projected into the "outer" world.

You might not feel as if you are "losing" anything when awakened from a dream. But others might respond differently. Many times, I have felt as if I had truly "lost" something when I have awakened from a dream. In the course of my spiritual development, I have had to move from active dreaming into the state of "dreamless sleep," recognized by the Upanishads as a profound unconscious state of "Union with Brahman." did I feel that I had lost something? You bet I did, and only later did I come to understand this dream-loss as an aspect of mind-evolution.

Dreams are undeniably "modes" of Mind, for Mind must change Its configuration (structure) to accommodate their existence. And dreams, imho, are also "modes" of real Mindexpression. A thing can be both a part of you, and belong to you. This is, I believe, the case with dreams, with this difference: A dream is not necessarily the sole creation of any particular human dreamer. A dream about your home, office, or events/relationships of your life do aproach the definition of a "personal possession." So, some dreams are probably ninety-plus percent "personal possessions," and maybe others, one hundred percent. But those that float up from the deeper collective might be only from zero to twenty percent personal; they do not "belong" to "your self" at all.

In your pre-egoic self, in the womb, before you even had a sense of self, you arguably did not, could not, "own" anything. Your body was a "gift" of the cosmos; but even this implies a giver and a receiver. So, the physical body is a "personal" possession, with all its parts. It is also a part of mind. there is a famous saying in metaphysics, "The mind does not exist in the body, but the body in the mind."

It is not certain that extremely fine shades of meaning-- such as the difference between "yellow" and "yellow with a tint of orange"-- are relevant to the construction of mental and consensual reality. If you both were looking at a yellow truck, for example, and one of you saw it as a tree, that would indicate a much more powerful influence from the personal unconscious. As noted, the world is so filled with crosscommunications that no one lives in her personal reality. That is, in fact, what the entire idea of "collectivity" in psychological perception/sensation/interpretation is all about. We create consensus about the world. This is conscious, and occurs through word-structures and education. But, in time, it "sinks down" into the Unconscious until it reaches the collective level. This is the eros, interatomic force, or whatever you want to call it, that holds the cosmos together within an inviolable matrix of predictable laws.

A cabinet, created within consensual reality, is not precisely analogous to a dream. Besides, at a deeper level, cabinet and cabinet-maker are one and the same "thing": Both are the products of the One, the Mind. In the sense of the day-dream, the cabinet is indeed a "part" of the cabinet-maker.

Ultimately, everything in our everyday, ordinary world is dreamed into being by the higher Mind (soul) or the highest Mind (Spirit). But when either of these Mindlevels acts through a human being or other creature, it is permissable-- indeed, advisable-- to use the lower-case "m." The upper-case "M" is reserved for either the Soulmind or the Spiritmind.

Everything in your personally projected (created) reality is an aspect and part of your mind, and of Mind Itself. For reality is a vast concept; for convenience, we divide it into two parts: Experiential reality and theoretical reality. With a few exceptions, the six thousand million people on our planet are parts of "theoretical reality" for all, all of the time. For "experiential reality" is that which you can
prove, through sensory experience, to exist. Your "personal cosmos" contains everything that you see,hear, smell, taste, feel, and sense.

Monday, June 26, 2006

Symbolic Renunciation for the Poor

I have given this article much careful thought. I feel that I should just be honest with you, instead of making up stories or excuses.

I just only learned that a thousand million people on our poor little planet live on one dollar a day. And two thousand million-- one out of three-- live on two dollars a day.

I am wrestling with these facts.

The pain is made more acute by the fact that, in this country, everyone lives in unrestrained luxury, completely without any global consciousness, without concern or compassion for others, completely without any regard for our poor sisters and brothers. Indeed, the average American rarely if ever allows them on the personal inner "screen" of the mind.

As a symbolic act of solidarity with my poor sisters and brothers, I have decided to take a tempporary moratorium against restaurant-eating. It is one of the most expensive and extravagant of American habits.

Food is one of those resources that come from a commonly-shared "pool" of resources. That is, if you take from that pool, no one else will ever be able to have what you have taken. It is, in many ways, the same reason that I am a vegetarian. This vow is not necessarily everlasting, but it is the course to take at this present moment.:)

Faith, Healing, and Backsliding

"Faith" is living in awareness that God, the deepest, most beautiful, perfect, Love-filled Mind, is in charge of your life.

The person who has faith can live a very "flowing," easy, effortless life. She does not feel that she must control everything and everyone. Like the very old song says, she can just "let it be." She trusts the interior Power of God to take care of her, and of the whole cosmos. She does not force, push, pull, interfere, manipulate, or worry. So, because she takes a "live and let live" atitude towards other adults, her life is filled with profound tranquillity

"Healing" can occur on many levels, at various stages or phases. Not all healing is physical. We can also heal mentally, emotionally, spiritually, and in learning to change, and relax, the mind. Every act of Love is an act of healing. But healing occurs in degrees. every day, every living creature is healed; at its base, the simple and ubiquitous reproduction of cells is "healing." You are healing right now. Many cases of healing are not even registered by the conscious mind, for they are too subtle. (The replacement of dead cells is this kind of healing.) Also, a condition can be healed 4%, 30%, 39%, or 79%. Not every healing is a one hundred percent phenomenon. Most conditions take much time to heal, although spontaneous healing is also a well-documented fact. To love your body is always healing, even if you cannot detect the healing Power of this Love. In selflove, we always want to support the healing Power, and this we do by making sure that we give our bodies enough rest, exercise, good nutrition, etc. Out of selflove, we also avoid toxins that hurt or poison the body. A vegetarian diet is a superb way of supporting the natural healing processes of the body.

In another kind of healing, mental, emotional, and spiritual, the very best therapy is "agapotherapy," the regular, consistent practice of Love, for both the self and others. "Acognitive" therapy, pervasive meditation, can also be healing, as it opens the doors of the heartmind to the passage of Mind, unclouded by thoughts.

"Backsliding" is a common human occurrence. It is having seen the Light that Love is our answer to all of our problems. Then, having seen this clearly, we go back to old habits. People often backslide nutritionally, eating what they know to be bad for their health. People often backslide sexually, becoming engaged in behavior, or even relationships, that have sex, not Love, as the primary goal or center. These do not usually support Love, and allow the senses to become the invalid "master" of life.

"Backsliding" is doing what you know is not right, or good for you, or from Love, due to a plethora of human weaknesses. Is this "evil"? No, it is more likely weakness, so we must forgive ourselves. but is it karmically dangerous? Yes, it can be, for often, we do not fully forgive ourselves, and so, create painful karma for our future.

Some Spiritual Thoughts

Teflonmind was a technique that allowed the pure survival of a number of traumatic events in this life. It was discovered because it made survival possible in times of great duress. "Necessity is the mother of invention.":) As contrasted with "structured" meditation, the state that leads to "Teflonmind" is a form of "pervasive" meditation.:)

To heal the rift between science and faith is our most fervent hope. We have just completed a book called Hope for our Poor Little Planet: and it is subtitled The Love-tradition in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It shows from history that we do already have the foundation-matrix for peace among the three monotheisms, if only we have the good sense to apply it. It is not as if we have to create yet another "new religion" from scratch-- a terrible idea! (For too much religion is already the major problem.)

If the "scientific evidence" were convincing, a person should be ready and willing to alter her perspective, even if it is a "spiritual" one. After all, agreeing that spirituality is a kind of "science," it is all about Reality, as is science. The two should synergize, as the two wings of the same bird, to carry us aloft into higher vistas and adventures of discovery.

The absence of such open-ended research is a major complaint against those who rely too much on books. They do not believe that they have to "explore" anything, because all the "answers" are in their (often huge) book! This kills the spirit of adventure in spirituality.

In the final, technical analysis, every thought is "divinely inspired." But I hardly think that the phrase would mean anything if we took the thoughts of a four-year-old about yesterday's kindergarten class, or the class-free thoughts of some grunt poring over pornography, to be "divinely inspired.":)

All experience is educational, and so, "fated" to occur. Life has virtually forced me to discover this. I spent the first, nearly, twenty years of this life "committed" (as far as could be determined) to an extremist rightwing collection of logical fallacies, in a very mind-numbing and mind-damaging cult. I know that my soul had planned for this, as a part of my education. Now, as a result, I am so anti-cult that there is no possibility that a cult can develop from my teachings or discoveries.

That was not all, or at all, wasted time. Nor had I done the "wrong" thing, even though, objectively, it was only a "negative" education: It taught what not to do! But I am now convinced, after having reviewed the record, many times, and in great depth, that being in the wrong place was the right thing for me, at the time.

We mystics sometimes favor the Taoist writings over most Jewish and Christian spiritual documents. They are refreshingly simple and clear. Their absence of a complex theology or history is especially fresh, like cold water on a hot day. (The ttc has only 81 very short chapters.)

And that Chuang Tzu! I have heard him described as the "philosopher of the absurd"! His "ideal" was to be as practically "useless" as possible, so that you would not get "used up" by the plans of others!:) I just love his "Inner Chapters." He is definitely one of the all-time favorites here. Many of the Zen masters (Zen=Taoism+ Buddhism) are exactly like him. The Zen master who wanted to die in a headstand comes to mind!:) The ideal for Chuang Tzu is the gnarled old tree that lived to such a ripe old age because it was "useless" to the woodcutters.

We could all use a large serving of Zen in our everyday lives. We could all stand a little less seriousness, and a touch of zaniness, in our lives. But, like the answer to a good koan, it must be spontaneous. For if it is contrived, it is artificial.

On the old sitcom "Seinfeld," the character george believes that he has suffered a heart-attack, and vows to change his life. He's "going to do a whole Zen-thing-- take up yoga," etc. Right after he speaks of abandoning anger, he shouts angrily, "Is anybody listening?" and is immediately, once again, in the grip of inertia, back to his old self.

I have been a committed "interior Taoist" for many years. I grew up in what I now clearly recognize as a nightmarish Jehovic tradition, and it is a goal to move as far away from that nest of hornets as possible. Happily, good spirituality (and it comes in many grades) does lead away from Jehovism.

And Jehovah is, of course, nothing like the nonpersonal great Mind of the mystical tradition, pervaded by pure Love, and consisting of Love plus nothing. I have done a rendition of the ttc, and in it, I translate the nonpersonal concept of Tao as "great Mind," for It, too, is not personal in a way that a god usually is. That is one reason why It is perfect in justice or balance. Unlike the terribly selfconscious Jehovah, it has no ego to defend. "It is like water that settles into the places despised
by men." How sweet and humble is this primal Power. (I translate Tao Te Ching, for example, the "Book of the Great Mind and Its Expression.")

One of the difficult challenges of a faith such as Christianity is that almost no one, in the formal tradition, is ever taught spiritual independence. A good and true spiritual teacher should always teach that your heartmind is the final arbiter of truth for you and your life. No one should ever try to control another adult in these spiritual matters. Psychology well and truly teaches that it is unhealthy to live out of the "inner parent," as unhealthy as the "inner child."

In spirituality, we do not have a trimorphic pattern of the mind, as in transactional analysis. Instead, we have a "pentamorphic" structure to the Mind. That is, you can choose to live and react out of one of five interior modes: You have, of course, the inner child, parent, and adult; but added to these three are the options of responding from soul, and Spirit. Any pure response of unsullied Love arises from the Spirit. A response that contains a bias from a past life, for example, could be a

There is a good reason for the presentation of the Lord Krishna as perfect. Krishna is Mind completed. Mystics teach two apparently fundamental polarities: That Mind is perfect, to Which nothing can ever be added; and that Mind is creating continuous experience; and, as various souls, it is in continuous evolution, "learning and growing" Its Way back into Itself. Is there a contradiction here? I do not believe so.

It is like that old hack about , "God can do anything. So, can He create a stone too large for Him to move?" This is very analogous to, "Can God, being and knowing everything, create a condition in which He needs to grow and learn?" (Excuse, please, the masculine pronoun. It is for convenience.)

It all depends on the mode, expression, or manifestation of Mind. In some modes, such as the human, It still needs to grow and learn. In others, such as the Christ, the Buddha, or Krishna, growth is no longer necessary. For that which is full-grown, no growth is necessary, and to that which is not only infinite, but Infinity, you cannot add anything.

These are the apparent "two lives" or "two worlds"of the nondualistic (monistic) mystic. At Core, no growth or learning is necessary. But the entire point of her life is the growth of Mind at the soul-level.

Exactly like the Christ, the Buddha has two sides to his nature: the human and the spiritual. Ultimately the human is definitely the epiphenomenon of the larger and more real Spirit. As the Buddha himself said, the purpose of this life is to work our way back to awareness of the higher, then, the highest, Self (Atman is Brahman, in Hindu mysticism.)

The fallible source of religion in the cognitive mind is a problem with religion. It does not occur with true spirituality, for spirituality is open to any interpretation of the world that can be understood or interpreted as Love-based. Even if we take the always-divisive religious approach, and ask for a detailed definition of "Love," or "Love-based," spirituality allows you a wide latitude of definitions.

Spirituality is simply not concerned with doctrine or dogma. It has such wide and wise perimeters that it allows each human being to choose her own path. Of course, although spirituality rejects no honest attempt to understand meaning, there are a number of faiths, denominations, or cults that reject spirituality. And they are well within their spiritual rights to do even this. In fact, people are free to be, to remain, as ignorant and even antispiritual as they want or choose. For, wherever you end up, there are you supposed to be. The karma of a person can take her into some very strange environments indeed, as mine took me into the cult at age four. But, in the overview, it was precisely where I was supposed to be!:)

It is fairly easy to proclaim any idea, even that of universal or cosmic Love; but it is in the living that the practical reality of an idea is put to the test. This is why spirituality, unlike much in religion, is
the way that you live, not simply the way that you believe. As Christ said, "A tree is known by its fruits."

It is both our tragedy and ecstasy that we are capable of so many varieties of error. We do use a lot of time learning, often by doing the wrong things. In mystical psychology, we defuse guilt by proclaiming that mistakes are good; errors are beneficial. For they are the only methods that we have for learning our lessons; they are the very essence of good, effective, unforgettable education. That is why forgiveness was so natural and easy for someone like Jesus. He knew not only that errors were inevitable; he also knew that, to the deep Lovemind, they did not matter. they did not "matter," that is, in the sense that they usually are so important in religion.

Love was so great that all human error was like a thimble-full of matter in the vastness of space, like an ant in a tsunami, like a single hair on the back of a planet-sized elephant. It was not only negligibly insignificant; in the end, it served the "will of God"; that is, it educated us.

According to some theories, we do spend lives as "angels," or higher forms of life; we are they, and they are we. So, reincarnation goes back and forth. If we must be continually learning through various lives, why would not the same be true for higher, or "angelic" forms as well? Many reincarnationists, at any rate, believe that this must be true. It is not a dogma, but it makes perfect sense to me.:)

The Fountain of Love

The Fountain of the Infinite
Sends a billion billion sparks
Into the nightsky.
It is the galaxies,
Swirling mightily
In silent splendor,
Taking a billion years.
It is the newborn alpaca,
And the old man walking off to die,
Preparing to fly
Into the Milky Way.
It has waters flowing and flowering
In all directions, to infinity.
It is the Himalayas,
It is the ocean,
It is horses, camels, and elephants,
It is the Lord of Love,
It is the season of flowers.

Cosmic History in a Nutshell

Yahweh was not the God of the cosmos. That was Elohim, the "gods" of earlier and earliest Genesis. Yahweh was, according to the gnostics and Gnostics, a lesser being, a nonphysical being who was himself caught up in ignorance and illusion. He became the agent for waking dreaming, and for supporting the worldream as "reality." He was the god of illusion.

After many years of research, study, and meditation, I have come to the "fantastic" (nontraditional) conclusion (always tentative) that Yahweh was likely one of the Elohim, a group of superadvanced nonphysical extraterrestrials. They traveled through the galaxy, seeding appropriate planetary systems with the "molecular seeds" (macromolecules, biomolecules) of life.

Their longterm goal was to create sentient (selfaware) life that had the potential to become spiritual. But they were still limited in their biotech, so they worked with the biopotenntials that they found on a
planet. I also think it possible that they returned periodically to alter the dna code of living organisms, which is why we share about 98% of our dna with chimps.

The Elohim wanted people to grow, and to wake up, and someday, even to join the galactic community. But Yahweh mutinied because he found a very primitive people who agreed to worship only him. He was on a massive egotrip, and this was very superimportant to him, as he often makes known in the earliest Hebrew writings.

Ever since then, people have been actively misled by the Yahweh-myth, which, like so many, was originally founded in fact. While the Elohim were Love, and their only faith was Love, Yahweh broke away and started an egocult. Yahweh misled, in the beginning, Jews and Christians. For all that I know, a similar being might have been Allah.

The word "mystic" often brings to mind some kind of fool or dreamer. Mystics are thought to be psychics,magicians, or just plain "weird," in several ways.

While people are too quick to bicker and to disagree, we human beings do not like much to say positive things about each other, and that is an utter shame.

We [mystics] believe in the existence of evil. It is everywhere evident. But we deny it absolute existence or reality. Evil is part of the "dreamworld," the world of spacetime-- in other words, everyday, ordinary reality. So, we must deal with evil, as well as its twin children, ignorance and stupidity.

This is, I believe, where Yahweh enters the picture. It is not certain that "he," or "it," is still even alive. But regardless, that myth has altered Western civilization-- very much for the worse. For Yahweh suffered from some rather severe mental illnesses, which even his colleagues among the Elohim could not cure, for some reason. (This was an energic imbalance, since none of the Elohim had physical bodies.) After that, the various cultures of the Middle East turned the other Elohim into all the pantheon of gods and goddesses.

Creatures, who start out in the perfect "image of God," fall "asleep" spiritually, into illusion. In the Genesis account, Yahweh (source of illusion) put 'Adam' (humanmind) to sleep; but He never woke him up. So, it could be argued that all of human history, in the allegory of Genesis, took place within the sleeping mind. In that same myth, people were ejected from paradise (perfect oneness with Mind) or 'pleasure' (Eden) when they "ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."

"Knowledge" was not the problem. But it was that kind of 'knowledge' that got the human nature or mind ("Adam and Eve") into trouble. For this represents the human assumption that evil is as 'real' and as powerful as good.

In the first chapters of Genesis, God-- Elohim, not Yahweh-- declares the entire world, several times, to be "very good." Human nature lives in a perfect, peaceful "garden" until it disagrees with this declaration of God, or "the gods." The human mind says, in effect, "Yes, God was right: The world is mostly good; but in declaring it all to be good, he made a mistake. For parts of the cosmos are evil. And that evil is as real as the good."

After this "fall from grace," humanity became entrapped in the illusion of the dreamworld. Believing the illusion, they fell so far that they regarded themselves as animals; in actuality, they were magnificent Beings of great Mind. They had enormous mental capacities.

But caught in the illusion that the Indian classics call maya, the earth, begun as a kind of paradise "amusement park," became a prison. This started the horrific and nightmarish wheel of karma (symbolized by Cain's killing of Abel). Many souls degenerated, making mistakes, and repeating them, life after life, falling more deeply into delusion and illusion. Some have been doing this for centuries, millennia, or even eons. Thus, george bush and cronies!

These souls have not a clue regarding the truth. As the Celestial Song says, they are completely deluded by the 'material' world, and this classic calls them "demonic," so deep is their ignorance.

Evil is everywhere in the dreamworld precisely because we are engendered by the Mind as totally free beings. For 'partial freedom' is not freedom at all. [It is an oxymoron.] A creature is either free or not free; there are no graduations of relative freedom, in cosmic terms. And because we are totally free, with no restrictions re our choices at all, we can be as evil, stupid, or ignorant as we choose to be. It is much easier to be ignorant, and human nature is quite lazy.

Wrong decisions, among humans, are notoriously common. Many serve violence, materialism, fear, or greed. All forms of evil can be traced to the root of fear, which is Love's conceptual (but not actual) opposite. Those who, out of ignorance, choose to serve fear guarantee a life of stupidity and spiritual darkness. They have not a clue about Reality (Mind).

That "sin" from "Eden" (pleasure) was dualism, the illusion that anything or anyone existed, could exist, apart, separate from, the One, the one Mind. This illusion creates the demon "fear," and dualism is the illusion to which all other illusions are traced. Only Love can liberate us from this karma, the ignorance and wrong decisions of millennia. This is why Love was featured in Hinduism, in which Krishna says, "I am the Lord of Love." This is also the Buddhist maitri and karuna, the Greek agape. Mystics are not perfect people, and do not claim to be. They are learning and growing just like everybody else. But they do have special insight about the 'game,' and how to 'play' it with the final goal of liberation from the whole game.

Nightmare of War

Everyone dies.
No big surprise.
You and I
Will also die,
Will be drawn into the great angelic sight,
Rush down the tunnel ten times the
Speed of light!
We will encounter
The primal and sweet Being of Light--
God, Lord of Love, Brahman, Christ, Buddha.
But may our lives and deaths
Have meaning,
Supporting Love.
The radical shame
Of this greed-based,
Shameless war
Is that it is
Quite empty of meaning.
When a girl or boy,
Still in the prime of life,
With an entire life ahead,
Is cut down dead,
After only a few moments
On earth, just starting,
Great is the shame of their parting,
And terrible the loss.
Never again
Will they cuddle with lovers,
Play with children,
Laugh joyfully,
Share tears.
They have been cut off
From life, by sheer greed.
Terrible also is the karma,
The just rewards,
Of those who sent them to death,
From comfortable and safe offices,
Sending our best girls and boys
To sweat and bleed to death
In an unknown and distant desert.

THE FUNERAL, by Steven McDaniel

The man in tears
stands over the flag-draped coffin
of his son who died in a war
that could have been avoided.

Friends and relatives
move behind him like ghosts.
He hears and sees nothing
but the eternal silence
of his sons pale lips.

The mother is stoic,
stern-faced, sitting
in the front row of the metal chairs,
roses rest in her lap, her hands
clench the thorns to blood
like red, angry tears.

Her eyes are dry and bitter
with grief, knowing how
she must carry this load
the rest of her life.

Today, she will begin
to die to love
to bear the awful pain.

She feels so much.
She feels nothing.

She cannot look up at her husband.

It is the first day of their divorce.

White clouds in a blue sky
move overhead
like they have for eons,
as if nothing has changed.

A bird whistles, then a volley
of gunfire shocks the silence
in a military salute.

How fitting, the mother thinks.
Guns that killed my son
are shooting at him in the sky.

Some Spiritual Meanderings Into Infinity


The view that, in polytheism, one god can correct another, although somewhat selfevident, never occurred to me, as a heavily programmed monotheist.:) Yahweh certainly needs to be "brought down a peg or two.":) Perhaps there is no more representative, or tragic, example of this miserable "godbased" egotism than the pompous and disastrous wargod Yahweh.

Although the cult responsible for most of my early programming was ostensibly "Christian," it was repeatedly made crystalclear that the cult worshipped the ancient wargod. It was one of the most stunning, astonishing, and awakening experiences of this or any life to realize that Yahweh was only a parochial and local god, not by any means the God of the entire cosmos. That certainly flipped everything topsy-turvy almost overnight, and this redefinition occurred on the tail-end of a mystical experience.

That Yahweh considered himself to be alone supreme explains the indefensible "bullying" behavior of Yahweh in his most ancient forms. I often call these godimages the "protojehovic" portrayals of the god. If he does not like anyone, or if a small tribal nation does not fall at his feet, he just obliterated them. This is quite the opposite of the behavior of the Lord of Love.

People, fundies, often say, "How can you dare to judge God?" That does make me sound like a pretty stupid idiot!:) Except their argument that "God is quite beyond human understanding" must mean that God is incomprehensibly better than, and superior to, us human viruses. It cannot possibly mean that God is incomprehensible in unfairness, cruelty, or immorality. I agree with fundies that God is beyond understanding. But he is never below what we justly demand from each other in terms of acceptable and good behaviors. He can never be incomprehensibly evil or stupid.

Yahweh is identified as the "god of illusion."

Most traditionalists and fundies are so closed to new ideas that they would simply label the concept of their god as an e.t. "lunatic," and immediately trash it. Iron walls against communication, and against even learning and growing, are constructed by such closedmindedness. But it surely helps when you "know everything," as many fundies are convinced that they do. And sometimes, they are so very lunatic as actually to ake this claim! This is a clear case of "gnosophobia" (fear of knowing). Deep down, they know that they are the pitiable viruses of the galaxy, and so, their approach is childish: Pretend to know everything, slam shut your mind, and do not let anyone even challenge your premise. But can they possibly believe that anyone believes this bizarre fantasy.

I think that, as long as you are grounded with some certainty in your premises, you need fear neither agreement nor disagreement. But if you are so grounded, you are also protected from even a subconscious search for universal agreement. it is a similar basic "fear of certainty" that infects so many with a disagreeable disposition. But people can certainly disagree without being isagreeable. And life is fun when convincing, or even disputing, in a friendly way with, others.

But it is fun in a different way when you can discover or create points of agreement. My philosophy tends to be strengthened and solidified by both agreement and disagreement. As you know, I honestly do want, and try, to avoid dogmatic inflexibility. By my nature, libra, I do not like argument, dispute, messiness, bad feelings, or any attitude that leans, however subtly, towards animosity or hatred.

A concept made of stone is usually thoughtless, and often, unkind in expression. I believe that truly intellectual people can disagree soundly without crudity or rudeness. And harmony is also fun, and

If you choose your friends with care, I do not think that the frantic search for approval is inevitable. For flattery is, at its foundation, dishonesty with an ulterior motive or hidden agenda. Again, the principle of moderation kicks in: Avoid yes-people, but also, avoid those who will fill your life with, in Empedoclean terms, all strife and no Love. After all, people need a balance of both. A life surrounded by disagreeable grumps would drain much of the fun from life. On the other hand, being surrounded by yes-people would never challenge you, and you would likely be severely retarded in interior growth, or would cease to grow altogether. So, give me the Middle Path of the Buddha any day.

There were 365 gods worshipped by the cluster of tribes to which Mohammed's tribe belonged, but that one called "allah" was the god of his particular tribe. It is fascinating to note that, if this is historical fact, Mohammed very likely took his local, tribal god and arbitrarily declared him to be the god of the whole cosmos. If he can imaginatively be traced to the e.t.'s who originally settled earth and founded culture, then Allah is a mirror of Yahweh. For both underwent the same mutations, and both were mistakenly regarded as the One, as God.

I might be an actual "pollyannist" if I said that fools do not exist --even in a wide variety-- in our society and on our planet. I think that, as a term of berating, you could certainly do a lot worse-- using much stronger and graphic put-downs that would make your hair stand on end! You have probably heard the words to which I refer. Off the top of the head, it could be said that there are about twenty words that are more powerful, and much more emotionally charged, than the mild "fool." Since these are usually not used at all in formal or even polite writing, I will spare you a list of them. But I trust that you are street-wise enough to be familiar with at least some of these obscenities. I do not know whether you, as I, have suffered from being labelled with this word, "fool."

And, to be fair, there is a Jesus-statement that, at least in one translation, says that to call a person a "despicable fool" will land a person in the "fires" of karmic hell.:) It is due to this warning that I have never called anyone, not with a fully serious intent, a fool. But I cannot completely collapse to the status of "yes-man" here.:):)

There is, at any rate, no reason in the cosmos that I would want to defend this word anyway.

That, btw, is an awful and particularly destructive form of abuse that I try to avoid-- gossip. Having been its victim, I do have a sensitivity to it. At times, it is a real challenge to be truly objective and positive about all people all the time. That is getting into the area of being "pollyannish" again.

In Matthew 23, I notice that, when he did not like a behavior,and especially when it blatantly hurt the innocent, Jesus did not hesitate to blast the "hypocrites" of his day, despite the fact that he was a man of true peace and non-judgment.

After years of thought and research, I've found that "judgment" and "discernment/discrimination" have very different meanings. The two represent very distinct processes. To avoid "judgment" need not make you a gray, neutral person who never has any passion about any human behavior. For "judgment," as a "technical"term in spirituality, means evaluating the total worth of any being as irredeemable, insalvageable, and that the person has no good inside. This can accurately be said of no one. Even george b, under many layers of "demons" such as insatiable greed, does have a dim core of Light somewhere, way down deep!:)

But to say that the activities of the neonazis are hurtful, and that their pseudogenetics is foolish-- this, for example, constitutes only observation and opinion. It is not judgment, which would claim that
there is no good at all in any neonazi anywhere. To send a person to "hell forever" is judgment. To decide to reject ideas, concepts, teachings, and/or behaviors, is well within the perimeters of valid human freedom.

As I understand the cosmos, it is all energy. Energy is not "physical" in the way that we usually use that term. It is, by definition, not "material." And the fact that matter is all energy is not necessarily a
reciprocative fact: It does not imply that "energy" is "physical." In the end, nothing, in fact, is "physical" in the sense that we commonly use that term. Even a table of beautiful marble is, in the final analysis, tiny sparks of energy or force dancing around each other (atoms) at incredible speeds. there is nothing ultimately "physical," "material," or solid in the universe, in the most scientific analysis of its constituent matter.

In the relative world, I believe in the relative duality of matter and energy. Despite, as Heraclitus might interpret things, the fact that a marble table is fire, you cannot use it to warm your hand, and you could not play poker on a table made of fire, or while the table was burning!

It is, in fact, another line of evidence that the mystical view of the world holds truth that the atom was not the atomoi of Democritus. This word, as I'm certain that you know, means "indivisible." And the atom is anything but!

So, like most physicists of the modern world, mystics also use the relative dichotomy of "physical" matter and "non-material" energy. I believe that the Elohim were beings (consciousness) somehow interlaced within a "body" of something like fire-- pure energy, without matter. Here, science in its pure form runs a bit dry, and we are into speculative "science-fiction.":) Whatever the case, movies and books such as the Star Trek series have accommodated our minds to be able to embrace intelligent and conscious life apart from physical (material) bodies. These are similar to the bodies of the Elohim, which were able to travel through all the dangers of intergalactic space without being
harmed, and at incredible speeds.

Despite Yahweh's renegade attitudes, and his anti-humanitarianism (absorbed only in his own ego), it seems that the creation of the dreamworld was also the will of the One. She simply used Yahweh to do Her own will.

The "devil" (fear) is a "secret agent" for God (Love). In Revelation, he appears as a "seven-headed dragon." Since "seven"is the archetype of deep spirituality, I believe that Revelation's most secret and hidden message is that the "dragon" acts to awaken and even enlighten people. For often, people must be scared into enlightenment; and what could do this better than fear itself? So, "he" secretly works for God! Indeed, it is pointed out that, if there is only one Mind in all of creation, the
"satan" (originally a common noun) must be a "role" or "mask" of the One.

Inspiration and Infallibility

Gandhi is one of our role-models. His use of Ramanama [repetition of a divine name] is the same as "pervasive meditation," and so, is identical with "acognitive therapy," as described in Teflonmind.

We mystics often love the Buddhist texts most,, of all faiths. Life is a great experiment. And, if you want to know how the experiment turns out,there is only one way: Do the experiment!

We do believe in "divine inspiration." It occurs whenever a person acts, speaks, or creates from a motive of pure Love-- expecting no personal rewards.

But we do not believe, even under the influence of Love-inspiration, that a person is error-free or infallible.

When a person acts in Love, it makes her creative, and even "noble," in a way, but it does not make her incapable of error.

Some of the ancient Christian writings do not seem very "honest" when it comes to the admission of human fallibility (inevitable in any context). But that seems to have been their style of writing. Other ancient works, from other traditions, do not go out of their way to point out that they are human works, and not infallible. The classic Bhagavad-Gita springs to mind, as does the Tao Te Ching. In almost all cases, everyone agrees that a book was produced by human beings; and it follows logically that no book is infallible. But fundies, and some earlier Christians, started out with a different supposition-- one that was distorted by their bias that certain books were actually "written by God," whatever that is supposed to mean. For all of the books of the Bible, like every other book ever written, were written by human beings. So, this idea is an absurdity in view of the historical facts. Maybe they think, as they seem to, that these works were "channeled."

Gnostics and gnostics

I have read an amusing anecdote that Plato said that, if a person were deliberately "evil," he would come back in his next life as a woman!:)

Orphism is naturally appealing to mystics. It seems to have some genuine pre-gnostic elements within it. Re early Christianity, the mystics always side with the gnostics over the orthodox. While they can be "Christian," they are never only Christians. They are never "orthodox" Christians, although they do agree with some of their teachings. They are what Elaine Pagels calls "gnostic Christians."

Btw, re early (first century) gnosticism: We must be very careful always to distinguish between generic "gnostics," spelled with a lower-case "g," (synonymous with "mystic," "kabbbalist," and "sufi") and the cultlike and sometimes weird Gnostics, spelled with a cap G. The latter had some very odd and even antimystical doctrines as, for example, among the Carpocratians. (Not always a pretty sight!)

Saturday, June 24, 2006

Nudity, Art, and Pornography

When I mentioned "pornography," you seemed to equate it with a devaluation of the female form. Not at all! I am in fullest agreement with the ancient Greek sculptors, who saw that form as the most perfect in all of nature-- that is, when it is cared for. I mentioned earlier my artistic passion for the sculptures of the Greeks, and this was precisely what I had in mind -- mostly the nude, or seminude, goddesses. I think that the nude female form is not only the most beautiful, and exciting, in all of nature, but it is better than any form that I could imagine!

It is awesome and breath-taking! As noted earlier, I would love to have at least one of those classic statues, life-sized. But they cost a fortune!

Pornography is totally different. It portrays woman as mere object, like a footstool. She exists only for the convenience, often the sick abuse, of men. In pornography, which distinguishes it from art, she is abused, or hurt, or portrayed as abused. Pornography is not mere nudity; some of the older issues of Playboy portrayed nudes quite artistically and beautifully. Nor is it pornography because it is arousing. I think, instead, that the definition of pornography is based on the view of women that is the motive behind the photos or portrayals. If she is viewed as a simple object, stripped of personality, beauty, tenderness, and other very highly spiritual components, the presentation of a woman so stripped of everything noble, is likely to be pornographic. Or, if she is presented as disembodied body-parts, the same principle applies. The deepest obscenity is the presentation of a deeply potentially spiritual reality as if it were no more than an "animal." In sum, pornography is just tasteless, or of terribly bad taste.

The nude human body is not "ugly," or unclean in any way. We all must carry them around with us, wherever we go, during a human incarnation. If you cannot love the body, your selflove can never be really complete. So, let us use the "all-embracing Mind" of enlightenment to celebrate the human body as a beautiful and artistic creation of God. This loving it also means that we must respect it very deeply. Abuse is out of the question, even in private fantasy, for a pure and clean mind.

So, comparing artistic appreciation with rejection of pornography is indeed comparing apples with oranges. Both are spherical, true: But we have to exercise caution not to get our balls mixed up!:)

Outgrowing the God of Hate

It sounds as if you were brought up, as a child, with the tragic, very sad, and hideous image of "God" as a soldier-- a rather merciless and monstrous godimage inherited from, and developed and created by, the ancient Hebrews. This nightmarish image of God is still taught in the Hebrew Scriptures (the proper name for what is usually called the "Old Testament.")

What can you do to come into the belief, which itself is healthy and healing, that "God is Love"?

First, change the input. When reading spiritually, do not allow yourself to be exposed to this negative, discouraging, and dreary god-image of the ancient wargod. Read the words of Jesus. In Matthew chapter 5, for example, he rejected much of this "OT" heritage in favor of the Way of Love. You might even want to get a concordance to the Scriptures, and read, over and over, every verse in the Christian Scriptures that speaks about Love. Do yourself a great favor, and avoid reading in the Hebrew part of the Bible, at least, while recovering.

After carefully deleting all negative references, consistently, make it an important part of your lifedesign to include only and exclusively positive spiritual material. "Accept no substitutes. Accept only positive spiritual material. If you can, open your mind to other sources of input, such as reading in Taoism, Buddhism, and Hinduism. (They are traditions not contaminated or corrupted with this destructive god-image.) We at Love Ministries distribute sixteen books. You are welcome to any that you want, free. Just drop us a snailmail line at:

Love Ministries, Inc.
5100 Liberty-Fairfield Rd.
Liberty Township, OH 45011

Also, if you live nearby, you can attend, every two weeks, our Pneumarium gatherings. They are free, and are gatherings of mystics and mystical students. In these, we discuss Love and the God of Love exclusively. We are having a gathering this Sunday, June 25. For more info, please call 737-LOVE. Or, please find a positive and progressive church, such as a Science of Mind or Unitarian church. If you are attending a fundamentalist church, you must change this fact, or you cannot, and will not, be able to recover. Your spiritual health is at stake, and so, you want to commit as much timenergy as possible to getting well.

Avoid people of ignorance and darkness. This means any church, or "friends," who are of a fundamentalist bent or orientation. Accept, as regular friends, only those who are truly interested in cultivating a higher spiritual life, and who have at least begun to see the Light.

I am so sorry, my friend, to hear the sad news that you have been reared in this dark tradition. But the good news is very bright indeed: The good news is that, with time, full recovery is possible. It took years for this negative programming to take root and grow. Love is like a flower, and it, too, takes years to grow. So, be very patient with yourself. By God's grace, relax into the knowing that, in time, Love too will grow. It is stronger than any program of illusion and, in time, will replace all the delusions of fundamentalism, no matter how strong they seem to be.

Saturday, June 17, 2006

Hell and the bush

Hell and the bush

Thanks for the article from Hell, Michigan, regarding the 060606 celebration!.:) Damn' interesting. Fyi, the name "hell" is not found in the Bible. In the older Hebrew texts, the name of the dreary and dusty afterlife condition, bored "with the forefathers," was sheol. And the Christians borrowed their name for the afterlife, in the Christian Scriptures, from the preChristian traditions of the Greeks, and referred to "Hades" and even to "Tartarus." The word "Hell" came from a Norse goddess of the underworld named "Helle.":)

Thanks to the bush, our country is rapidly heading there, anyway. He and his gang of immoral cronies will, soon enough, open their eyes to discover themselves in some type of heavy hellkarma! So, pray for him, and for the gay whales everywhere!:)
Party in Hell planned for 6-6-06
Saturday, June 3, 2006; Posted: 8:40 p.m. EDT (00:40 GMT)

HELL, Michigan (AP) -- They're planning a hot time in Hell on Tuesday. The day bears the date of 6-6-06, or abbreviated as 666 -- a number that carries hellish significance.

And there's not a snowball's chance in Hell that the day will go unnoticed in the unincorporated hamlet 60 miles west of Detroit. Nobody is more fired up than John Colone, the town's self-styled mayor and owner of a souvenir shop.

"I've got `666' T-shirts and mugs. I'm only ordering 666 (of the items) so once they're gone, that's it," said Colone, also known as Odum Plenty. "Everyone who comes will get a letter of authenticity saying you've celebrated June 6, 2006, in Hell."

Most of Colone's wares will sell for $6.66, including deeds to one square inch of Hell. Live entertainment and a costume contest are planned. The Gates of Hell should be installed at a children's play area in time for the festivities.


Dear Steven,

We synergized in heartmind with the falling sky together. Sweet liquid silver joined us with the shining sky. Into silence we dipped, washed clean and baptized by the cosmos. Tears and fears ran in slow rivulets down our faces, arms, and legs, and we disappeared, for nanoseconds, into Her.

Aphrodite shone in our hearts as in the muted lightning, flashing across the sky and mind. The cool air washed and cleansed us from within, and we were new.

Re death and Dylan:

Death is a threat
Mumbled by a bacterium who cannot speak.
It is the mist disappearing in shafts of golden sunlight.
It is a whisper of yesterday's storm.
Its fierce and ferocious floodtides have all gone down the drain.
It is stunning anticlimax,
Shocking invisibility,
A dragon of smoke,
Reflection only of phototiger.
Its terrifying teeth and claws
Have faded, vanishing, into pure light.

Steven M > writes:

Thanks for yesterday. It was beautiful. And joyful. Being in the rain with you I will never forget. Love's crazy joy! There were many times throughout the day that waves of bliss flowed through as God said 'Yes!'

You asked me what Thomas meant by the line in Death Has No Dominion that goes: "when their bones are picked clean and their clean bones gone, they shall have stars at elbow and foot". The power of this line (and the poem) that propelled me into mystical realms is the understanding of
annihilation that Thomas had like no other poet of his age. He is saying here, in metaphor as body, that as we approach the absolute state of nothingness to world, we become the fountain of the very stars of creation, or body of God. It is an incredible use of paradox and contradiction. And Truth.

Anyway, I will send you soon the piece on poetry I promised as I have so much to do today right now. I just wanted to let you know I am so thankful to God that you came into my life. We have some wonderful times ahead together. I love you so much. But as Kabir says "Who is it (really) we spend our entire life loving?"

Enclosed is the entire poem from Thomas for your review. Enjoy! And hold on to yer britches. And note the famous line of his in the poem: "though lovers be lost, love shall not." Just reading the poem now I feel waves of bliss as Truth never stops for time!

I will be in touch.

Love unending,


by Dylan Thomas

And death shall have no dominion.
Dead men naked they shall be one
With the man in the wind and the west moon;
When their bones are picked clean and the clean bones gone,
They shall have stars at elbow and foot;
Though they go mad they shall be sane,
Though they sink through the sea they shall rise again;
Though lovers be lost love shall not;
And death shall have no dominion.

And death shall have no dominion.
Under the windings of the sea
They lying long shall not die windily;
Twisting on racks when sinews give way,
Strapped to a wheel, yet they shall not break;
Faith in their hands shall snap in two,
And the unicorn evils run them through;
Split all ends up they shan't crack;
And death shall have no dominion.

And death shall have no dominion.
No more may gulls cry at their ears
Or waves break loud on the seashores;
Where blew a flower may a flower no more
Lift its head to the blows of the rain;
Though they be mad and dead as nails,
Heads of the characters hammer through daisies;
Break in the sun till the sun breaks down,
And death shall have no dominion.

Society and Spirituality

Uncloaked greed has been the consuming and destructive motive for this corrupt administration from the beginning. Both chaney and bush seem unconcerned with even the revelations of their greed in public. It is as if they take a "big deal" attitude. S.o.p., no problem. "Suck it up" seems to be their message to the public, and there is no sense of responsibility. This is probably rooted in bush's being "spoiled" from childhood, getting everything and anything that he ever wanted, without effort.

It is difficult and rather unpleasant to see the lowest nature of humanity expressed at such power-levels. But unless bush gets some control over his greed, based on fear and insecurity, he will remain the weakest kind of human being. All his "power"is artificial, and he has no real, interior power. He is a pathetic weakling trying like mad to hide his impotence beneath a cloak of greed and war. This is not only the most immoral president in history, but the most immoral imaginable.

A logical quantification of compassion, where the fine quality is measured by objective standards, had never occurred to me. For example, feeding the starving vis a vis greedy capitalism: How much good must a society do to cancel or neutralize the evil implicit and inherent in that greed? I can see where it could have some value, in simple evaluation of trends or megatrends, in society as a whole.

Can we say whether the compassion in forgiving an adultery is greater than or equal to the compassion in giving food to the starving? How many starving people fed equals one adultery forgiveness? If a society abolishes slavery but embraces competitive capitalism, has the total amount of compassion increased or decreased? By what percentage?

Bush represents a devolution, morally and ethically, from a higher state. His boasting and bragging "Christianity" is a tissue of mere lies and illusions, proved by the irrefutable fact that he has been responsible for over a hundred thousand Iraqi murders, and that of over two thousand American girls and boys.

One factor that has always troubled sensitive people about greed—about riches themselves -- is the degree to which wealth creates a counterbalancing poverty. As I see it, the wealthy are drawing from a single pool of non-renewable resources. What one person takes from this great pool can never be taken by another. If this is true, greed is the basis for a very real kind of "theft." Too much personal "success" leads to not only the increase in the lethal disease of greed, but to the impoverishment of others.


I have noticed that the wealthy are very sensitive about this subject-- full of excuses, justifications,and rationalizations. All of this is evidence of their guilt, although it is very often subconscious.

And how delightful and desirable it is for people to continue productive exchanges in communication (the same root as "communion"). If we are ever to know a successful unified planet, people will have to grow to the point where they renounce personal greed, and then, take yet another step towards open and open-minded communication. For being a psychological "hermit" can be more destructive than being a physical hermit. We must stop living in the caves of social and religious isolationism, and open our minds to other perspectives. At its zenith, this openness implies universalism-- giving everyone the opportunity to know reality ("truth") equivalent to our own understanding.

We must not mistake mere complexity for progress. The utter simplicity expressed by some of the presocratic thinkers could be an example to our philosophers, despite the philosophic and scientific limitations of those venerable ancients. When you think of it, it was more difficult to come up with the original idea of the atom, as Leucippus and Democritus did, than later simply to expand on that brilliant concept. In fact, the brilliance of the originality of the presocratics is nothing less than astonishing!

The presbycons are usually a combination of selfish arrogant wealth and extreme fundy Christianity-- the very worst of both worlds.:)

The administration has quite renounced the idea, much less the implementation, of compassion. that is, for them, just a minor annoyance-- no doubt, a "bleeding heart" concept of crazy "liberals." Just label and trash an idea that you cannot, or choose not to,
understand. How convenient. But, tragically, it tends to lead to "garbage-mind"-- a mind full of social and emotional trash-- ideas that hurt people and help no one but the rich.

The serious, deadly infection of greed is most prevalent, and notorious, among the rich. Paradoxically, it is a mental disease which they have labelled as virtue. They see greed as a positive, since they are out of touch with their interior gyroscope, the spiritually trained conscience. This leaves them to live like chimps in Armani suits.

The insidious infection of greed has made these politicians and business-people so very sick. Many wealthy people, out of self-consciousness and deep guilt, argue that we should "return" to the laws of the "jungle," the "survival of the fittest." As above, they see themselves as but monkeys with carkeys.

Understanding strips away, effectively, all the smokescreen arguments by which the rich and greedy justify their destructive behaviors with religion and lies. It is refreshing, like cool water on a hot day, to see this issue considered with clarity.

Re the possible bush complicity in the tragic disaster of 9-11: There is a long tradition of US governments manipulating the people into war through manufactured incidents like the Gulf of Tonkin incident, and"'Remember the Maine." In a recently leaked Downing Street memo, it is recorded that bush proposed, prior to the invasion of Iraq, three ways to create a bogus incident to justify the invasion; so they are certainly not above the use of fraud in such matters. Despite my anti-conspiracy orientation and propensity, I can actually "see" this as a real possibility. A government that abandons compassion and morality will do absolutely anything to further its power. Certainly, it is not far beyond the obscenities that have already been revealed about the bush regime that it could reach so far down into the hell of human evil.

The Bush regime ignored the warnings about al-Qaeda terrorists in the US. Perhaps it was hoping for an incident. It might not have known what exactly was being planned, and it might not have expected anything of the magnitude of 9/11. But even if it had known the enormity (horror) of 9-11, would that have done anything to have stopped the mad politicians in their rush to power?

Of course, they were surely aware that the worse the incident, the more capital they could work out of it.

Another fact to intrigue conspiracy theorists: remember how, right after 9/11, some people were sent anthrax, including two congresspeople? It turned out that the anthrax came from a US government lab, although they never nailed anyone as the supplier. The congressmen threatened were two important Democrats, the two people in the best position to have stalled the Patriot Act. Why would an al-Qaeda terrorist send anthrax to Democrats? And how would they have gotten it out of a high-security lab?

The very greedy sell all morality and ethics for shorterm gain. And this sloppy, dangerous act requires astonishingly few bucks! In order for a person to be restrained at all by morality, she must at least have a shred of interior guidance and a touch of interior morality. Bush et al seem completely vacant in the moral, as in the intellectual, department. but what can you expect with Alfred E. Newman at the helm?:)

I practice "acognitive therapy" every spare minute of every day. (This is the therapeutic application of "pervasive meditation," described in my book Teflonmind.)

One must work for mental education, to change the very underlying assumptions of society. In other words, we must change the very ways in which we habitually, often mindlessly, "think." That is why many good people have devoted their lives to nonreligious spiritual education. For there is no more foundational core-change needed in planetary society than that from greed to compassion.

Some have lived lives of counter-greed. With his continual practice of Ramanama, the form of meditation that consists in the simple repetition of a divine name, Gandhi is a fine example of how a mystic, fully engaged in mystical practice, can be a golden example of practical compassion. He himself claimed to have derived all his strength and wisdom, which were considerable, from the ancient Hindu practices of mysticism.

Part of the needed spiritual education is writing. Writing for a general audience contains the added responsibility of trying not to be too detailed, scholarly, academic, or, worst of all, boring. Without compromise of a message's integrity, most ideas can be conveyed in words that are at least mildly interesting, or borderline understandable. The key is to express without pretension and with clarity. We must always keep in mind two items about the public: An attentionspan of about five seconds combined with the understanding-level of a twelve-year-old. At least, this is what professional writers have cautioned.

The average reader has a certain responsibility not to jump to careless or impetuous conclusions. But a clear communication of an idea is still up to its author. Some philosophers, for example, have been misunderstood, not only because of lack of textual evidence, but because some words are ambiguous, and definitions vary.

No matter how we sincerely, honestly struggle for clairity and precision, it is inevitable that, with enough expression, we are bound to be misunderstood someday by someone somewhere. An ancient Jewish proverb ascribed to the mystic Solomon says, "In an abundance of words, there never fails to appear transgression." The problem is amplified if people actually want to misinterpret you, if they go into your communications with a desire to make you out to be the villain, or to prove you wrong. Then, it is very easy to accuse you of absurdities. A philosopher, in particular, must be taken as a whole, not in part or particle (judged by particulars, such as isolated quotations). For example, a teacher of unconditional Love would hardly teach anti-Semitism, even though an isolated sentence or statement might leave this impression upon the incautious reader.

People sometimes try to put you into a convenient pigeon-hole, or easy category, instead of trying sincerely to understand you. A weakness of classification or categorization is that "Christian," "Jew," or "Muslim" is only a tiny part of the totality of a person. This is especially so if we define the faiths in terms of beliefs instead of behaviors. This is the common practice in any undeveloped view of religion. Believing certain items intellectually-- not transformation of activities through spiritual renewal-- defines the various categories. Society, culture, and leaders need to move away from these naive and reductionistic definitions.

You will find very little consonance between human ideals and human behavior in any religious tradition. Sometimes, in fact, this seems to be a major difference between "spiritual" and "religious" people. For the spiritual are idealists who believe that it is actually possible to live by higher, even transcendental, principles. The religious only mouth them, in mindless imitation of the great spiritual masters, teachers, and sages.

The "God of War and Ignorance"

Ludicrous and absurd parodies of "Christianity" from history (forcing people by the sword into a river, and then, "baptizing" them) tell much of what is wrong with the whole "Christian" worldview today. Perhaps Jesus' fine emphasis on the Love and forgiveness of the One has been the insubstantial and invalid basis for the "Christian" rationalization and justification of moral and ethical horrors. How can people possibly be so blind as to say that george bush is a "Christian," after he has slaughtered his masses of enemies? (Is this yet again a confusion of God with the Yahweh-myth of the Hebrew Scriptures? I do not wish to sound like a scratched musicdisc, but it seems that this factor is again contributory to this,as to so many other atrocities and barbarities.)

Violence was a major part of the Great Corruption of Christianity that took place in the fourth century.

Little has changed, among the hyper-religious fanatics, since then. I cannot imagine any tale crazier (more psychotic) than the delusion that "God" is speaking to you, commanding you to kill your enemies. This perspective is not only nuts; it is quite inconceivable, quite impossible, within the context of the God of Jesus and the mystics. It must of necessity involve regression to the old god of early tribal history, the "god of war," in which all the ancients believed. It is startling and amazing that, in the twenty-first century, we must still insist on the non-existence of this fairy-tale illusion of a god. Yet that has been a core of much in nonreligious spiritual education.

That is one of the unique perspectives of Jesus. Unlike "Christians," he seemed actually eager to forgive people, and to "wipe clean" their slates. He was the embodiment of perfect "grace," in which God forgives and loves us because of Her/His goodness and Love, not because of anything that we do. what a lovely teaching is that "amazing grace."

I do not hold anything against the people of ancient times. It is the errors of the people that I stand against-- actions of brutality, injustice, and murder of the innocents.

The Jewish faith is a beautiful one, full of beauty and wisdom. I am open to its teachings as to every other faith. I have no objections to Judaism. It is only the ancient god-image to which I object as a spiritual person. For the "protojehovic" image of God was one of violence, immaturity, explosive temper, and a whole list of undesirable, even insane, qualities and behaviors. So, I am never anti-Semitic, but only anti-Yahwehist.

The Jewish faith is also organized that, like the Church, the Jewish faith expels "apostates"-- a Jewish and Muslim term for "heretics."

To indicate just how organized Judaism is, there are wide and massive collections of commentaries written by rabbis over the centuries that are regarded by some Jewish people as almost equal in authority with the Scriptures. In fact, there are two such collections, the Babylonian Talmud and the Palestinian Talmud. Besides these, there is another entire collection of texts called the Mishnah.

This is neither worse nor better than organized Christianity, but yes, point for point, organized Judaism is at least as "organized" as Catholicism.

But the Inquisition is a horror never replicated in the Jewish faith. Being organized, or even over-organized, does not in itself lead to horror. But when Love is "organized out" of the laws of God, the result is never very healthy. It leads away from personal peace, and can make an entire nation more warlike, often due to greed. A nation with Love as its core would, very possibly successfully, find viable alternatives to war. It would, in fact, go well out of its way to do so. And it would try dozens of times, with all its power, to avoid the massacre and slaughter of war. (Our nation, unhappily, is not this kind of nation.)

Jesus has not been accepted by our society. We have still the attitudes that some of his contemporaries had of him. It was Jesus himself who predicted that his disciples would be cast out of the synagogue (representing the traditional religion of the day), and that the traditionalist leaders would reject his followers. What few historical records we have imply that Christianity was, for a full century, regarded as a superstition by educated Jews.

To make matters worse, it centered upon a crucified thief and impostor. This man, regarded as foolish, not only claimed to be the "son of God," but actually said that he and God were one! (No one could ever validly make this claim about Yahweh.)

He said, “I and the father are one.”

Yahweh was always portrayed as so transcendental that he barely had anything at all to do with the average human being.

The correct response to Yahweh did not emphasize personal or intimate Love, but awe, respect, and the breath-taking grandeur of his magnificence. To claim, as a mystic would, to share a warm personal Love with the historical Yahweh would be out of the question, inconceivable-- and not even necessarily desirable.

The best evidence that Jesus upset the traditionalists is not only the Gospels, but the entire history of the Jewish-Christian relationship documented for the first century CE.

The evidence is strong that, for many centuries, expulsion has been practiced by organized Judaism. In very ancient times, one could be formally expelled from the "congregation of Israel" for even the most minor violations of the Law-- even technical violations of the Levitical law, such as mixing two kinds of cloth, eating non-kosher foods, or even forming close bonds of friendship with a non-Israeli. The criteria for formal expulsion have varied from time to time, but there is no doubt that this kind of expulsion from the synagogue is a very firm part of historical Jewish tradition. Marrying a non-Israeli, at one time, was a certain guarantee of formal exclusion. So was incest. "So were stealing, coveting, murder, and the other practices forbidden by the Ten Commandments.

What, after all, was the very worst "sin" that a devoted, loyal Israeli could possibly commit? It was to teach that Jehovah-Yahweh was not the totality of God, or even that this god was not the only and exclusively true god. Jesus did teach these things. So, it is only logical and reasonable that Jesus had been formally "cast out" of the formal congregation or community, as he predicted that his followers would also be.

The Scriptures said of his disciples, "The Jews had already agreed that, if anyone confessed him as Christ, they should get expelled from the synagogue." (Jn. 9:22) "They would not confess Him in order not to be expelled from the synagogue." (Jn. 12:42).

Although a wide variety of sins could lead to the alienating of any person from the formal community, among the very worst of all was "apostasy." This was the greatest of all sins, and it was very evident that Jesus had been "guilty" of this "sin." As an ancillary, and perhaps a necessary one, to religious purity and homogeneity, it was common for some Jewish leaders, usually ultraorthodox, to forbid the reading of spiritual works from other cultures and other times. this was, of course, based on fear and insecurity. Works of mysticism, including those of Hinduism and Buddhism, which questioned the transcendental Yahweh, were often prominent on informal lists of "forbidden" books.

This forbidden reading has at least as strong a foundation in Jewish history and practice (orthopraxy) as does the practice of formal expulsion. Only the leaders had the power formally to expel, so these expulsions were not matters of small splinter-groups or of only the Pharisees or the Sadducees.

The assimilationist Jews would probably not have been very upset at all by Jesus' unconventional teachings. Jesus' adversaries throughout the Christian Scriptures were the traditionalists, the "fundies" of Judaism, not the more cosmopolitan and relaxed Jews who leaned towards tolerance and elasticity of thought.

It was essentially Jesus' teaching of a mystical God in place of the transcendental Yahweh that upset the traditionalist fundies, who were very powerful in Jesus' day, and in that geographic region where Jesus taught.

The entire collection of texts-- the Torah (Penteteuch), the Talmuds, the other large collection of entire libraries of Jewish literature of the time, going back centuries, taught an anti-mystical perspective of Yahweh as transcendental. This was very basically antimystical. Mystical views were anti-Jewish in the orthodox sense. This is why the Kabbalists and other forms of mystical Judaism were never warmly embraced by orthodox Judaism.

Historically, those who found the Way were highlly suspect and regarded with suspicion and mistrust, by those who insisted on a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible.

In his own day, Philo (50 BCE-20 CE) had to find the courage to step outside of the orthodox traditions, especially in his "radical" explanation of the Hebrew Scriptures as allegory. At a time when the fundy dogma insisted that they were "divinely inspired" history, it was antitraditional to suggest otherwise. And Philo, like all thinkers, was not without his opponents of the standard orthodox variety.

Something important was obviously dissonant between Jesus and the fundamentalist authorities. The Gospels make it clear that he was fully attacked not only for lese majeste by the Romans, but also for his heterodoxy by the fundamentalist leaders. If a person were crucified, it was a sign of the seriousness of his error. Regular everyday crooks were small-time, small potatoes, and were not crucified.

It took an extraordinary crime, and it is fairly clear that the religious fundies saw this as making an "example" of Jesus, so that his followers would take warning-- and, they hoped, keep quiet about his message and miraculous mystical God.

I have no quarrel with the large numbers and varieties of mystics that appeared among the Jews. Some of the most beautiful writings in mystical literature emanated from the pens of Kabbalists and pre-Kabbalist mystics of the Jewish traditions. In many communities, at many times, they were actively persecuted by the orthodox, even as gnostics were by orthodox Christians. And even when not actually hunted down, and legally prosecuted, they were often rejected by entire communities.

Orthodox and fundamentalist leaders, of the Jewish, Christian, and Islamic traditions, became notorious for their hatred for all things mystical. In some communities, Jews, Christians, and Muslims were forbidden to welcome mystics into their homes, or to have dealings, or friendships, with mystics.

Formal excommunication, also called "shunning," was one of the most commonly used ways to get mystics to "repent of their nonsense," as one orthodox writer said. The famous mystic the Baal Shem Tov had many enemies among his native people, the Jewish community. So did his successor Dov Baer.

As in the Christian and Islamic tradition, in the Middle Ages, large piles of mystical books were burned at the urging of orthodox and fundamentalist Jewish leaders.
Jewish mystics were often forbidden even to enter a synagogue.

It is probable that some mystics were even killed, but usually, using disguised crimes of which the innocent were accused. In the Middle Ages, sophistication was lacking in every culture; and it was unsafe within any tradition-- Jewish, Christian, or Islamic-- to teach the heterodoxy of mysticism. Like the Catholic Church, the official and organized Jewish tradition said that you could approach Yahweh through only the graces of approved and formal leaders.

Organized Judaism made a mistake very similar to that made by the Catholic tradition.

I suspect that the word "ignored" [in the phrase, "Jesus ignored the sabbath"] might be in the eye of the beholder. But one of the major criticisms of Jesus was that he did ignore or neglect the Sabbath by not regarding it in its full nature. He even pointed out how, in history, people fed themselves when hungry on the Sabbath.

In not refraining from ordinary activity on the Sabbath, and then, in defending his non-observation, it can safely and accurately be said that he "ignored" it, for all practical purposes.

As a mystic, he regarded each and every day as "holy," and one of the lessons here was that a day was not made holy by the demands and commands of an arbitrary nature. This non-observance of the Sabbath was really disrespect for the fundamentalist and orthodox leaders. His attitude was very relaxed and laid back, and he did not try to force his disciples to regard the Sabbath as anything special. The fact that he succeeded is proved buy the historical fact that, later, Christian groups said that there was no need for any kind of Sabbath, and abandoned it altogether as a mere Jewish artifact.

Among first- and second-century Christian groups, who likely reflected the teachings of Jesus at least to some extent, the observation of the Sabbath was soon abandoned altogether. There was a fraction among some Christians who claimed that all Christians were bound by all the rules and laws of the Hebrew Scriptures. They were called "Judaizers," and saw, or tried to present, Christianity as a variant of Judaism. But Jesus had clearly come to start a new religion, and showed no interest in creating yet another form of neojudaic tradition.

So, in the early church, the Judaizers "lost the battle," and Christianity was recognized for what it was-- a new faith founded upon the claim to be children, not merely servants, of God. So, when the Christians threw out the festivals and observances of the traditional
Jewish calendar, the Sabbath exited from their own tradition.

That he had "fulfilled the Law" was one of Jesus' more radical and controversial claims. He had no interest in destroying laws that had actually helped people. But in his claim to "fulfill" the "law and the prophets," he implied, to his followers, and to some of his enemies, that the Law had served its purpose. So, as Christianity developed its boundaries and guiding principles, there were literally hundreds of laws, Levitical and otherwise, that were abandoned by the Christians.

These Christians felt that they were dropping these laws with the full blessing, and permission, of God the Father and the Christ. They saw them not as the immutable "laws of god," as the fundy and orthodox Jews were enforcing them, but as cultural and religious artifacts of a different faith.

In the Hebrew Scriptures, the penalty for breaking some of them was death. These laws were regarded as optional for Christians, but mandatory for the fundamentalist and orthodox Jews. Christians recognized that they were not the laws of God, but only those of Yahweh.

If all these calendar-observations had been a part of the Christian Way, they would still be in use today. The abandonment of all these laws by the Christians made them seem unusual. That was considered sacrilegious and blasphemous. If it was "sin" to question these laws-- and it was-- debating them with the leaders of orthodox and fundamentalist Judaism, as Jesus did, was simply out of the question for a loyal Jewish person. It was, in effect, questioning, even criticizing, the god of Judaism to regard his word as anything but inerrant truth.

Judaism is one of the richest of all intellectual sacred traditions. But its many commentaries were not presented in the nature of skepticism or open debate.

Among the thousands of commentaries produced by the tradition of loyal and "faithful" Jewish writers, no orthodox document was ever written to question the "laws of Yahweh." In fact, most were written to defend those laws, to explain why they were necessary, or to praise their wisdom. When a critic, such as Spinoza, did question the traditions, orthodox and fundamentalist Jewish leaders did everything possible to denounce and disprove his ideas.

Similar fundies and orthodox leaders responded in a simlar way to the teachings of Jesus, especially the mystical ones. It is easy to confuse commentary with debate, but they are not the same thing, and do not reflect the same attitude.

The commentaries were usually careful to observe traditional Jewish laws. And those were many. If you compiled the laws that guided orthodox or fundamentalist Jewish traditions down through the ages, you could easily arrive at the modest sum of ten thousand. We all know what happens when you combine legalism with faith: You arrive at a huge codex of laws designed to cover any and every contingency. This is what happened among both the orthodox and fundamentalist Jews during their long history. They started with the foundation of the hundreds of laws given in the Hebrew Scriptures, and built and ramified each one of these laws into hundreds of others. In matters of law, ten thousand rules or regulations is not at all regarded as a large sum.

Christians recognized, very early in their history, that they had a new and different faith. They did not want to found it on these ancient laws. There is convincing evidence that many, if not most, of the earliest Christians honestly and sincerely tried to found their faith on the words and actions of Jesus. These were generally good people trying to do the right thing. They believed that Jesus was the perfect Logos, the incarnation of the Love of God. So, they genuinely tried to pattern their lives, thoughts, and behaviors on what they either thought or knew that Jesus wanted for their lives. They turned away from all other sources of guidance. While imperfect, it is unlikely that they missed the manifested intent of Jesus regarding major matters of belief and behavior.

The principle that expanded the new faith so enormously was that "God is Love."

With his limited and conditional chesed [long-suffering], reserved, at any rate, for the "chosen people," Yahweh never even approached this amazing expansion of the importance and cruciality/centrality of Love.

Mysticism and Mindworld

The fact that not all mystics believe exactly the same microscopic details about this Love demonstrates only how free are mystics not to conform. Each mystic must explain the Way to herself in a way that makes sense to her. Each teaches it in a way that can make sense to her listeners. We mystics do not believe in conformity at all. If a mystic receives a "ppersonal revelation" that says that Mind is the One, that becomes her matrix for expansion, belief, and teaching. If she chooses instead to believe that Mind is the "first emanation," that is also quite fine. We believe in a great deal of latitude and elasticity of interpretation. But we all do agree that Mind is the vessel/vehicle for the expression of God. (We might even differ slightly regarding our point of emphasis in even God-definition. For example, my mystical brothers, the Mahayanists, are regarded as non-theistic. But I would not dream of trying to change them.:)

Just as some mystics emphasize the theistic and others the non-theistic, so some emphasize mental participation in the cosmos, and others have differing emphases. But simply because sunyata [the Buddhist Mind-potential] is not interpreted to be a mental epiphemenon does not imply that Mahayana [larger Buddhist school] traditions are non-mental. For Mind is a very important aspect of all mysticism.

Buddhism itself is largely a system of mystical psychology, and the Buddha spent much timenergy in discussing "Mind" and many details of mental processes. So, we must not generalize about a form of mysticism based upon only a single teaching.

Ultimately, in the final analysis, mysticism is about the entire cosmos. So, it is impossible literally to hold that anything is "left out" of any form of true mysticism. It is true that points of emphasis can vary widely. In describing galaxies, you can emphasize stars or nebulas, but these are not describing different things-- just different parts of a larger whole. But a truly mystical theory must include the cosmos, out of which you can leave nothing.

This "Mind," then, must have creative functions that directly relate It to the material world. It is both cosmogenic and cosmomorphic.

Yes, I have come to believe, after studying long, intently, and sincerely, that there is nothing in the entire cosmos that is, or can exist, "separate" from the one Mind. This is, in fact, how I define mystical monism.

The concept that anything can ever, or does, exist "outside" of that Mind is "dualism."

This is what was represented by the taking of the "tree of good and evil," in the Genesis-allegory. It was positing an "evil" that was just as real as the good that got the human mind ejected from the "paradise of Pleasure" in the heart. ("Eden" means "pleasure.") So, the only way "back to paradise" (bliss) is the undoing of that assumption. This means, at a cosmic level, learning to throw away the label-maker. It means, further, not only the rejection of all terms that imply absolute evil, but, on a positive note, it means to learn to define all things as absolutely good-- even those which, in the short term, are definitely evil.

Inanimate things also share this Origin in Godmind [Brahman]. They can thus perhaps be said to have a certain, but minimal, sacredness. But living things, containing the principle of life, are much, much more sacred. Even here, however, there are graduated levels of sacredness. For mosquitoes, bacteria, and even cancer-cells are also "alive."

The level of sacredness tends to parallel the evolutionary development (brain-progress) of a creature, for that is related to its/her possession of Mind. Thus, dogs and cats are more sacred than flies, but not as much as human beings. Bacteria are very low on the scale of nature, while very sentient beings (elephants, whales, dolphins, higher primates) are very high on that same scale. Arguably, with their higher brain-functions, these creatures should be given rights. (In Thailand, elephants already enjoy rights.)

More Reflections

More Reflections

Mind lives in and through all creatures-- and all plants. So, these living things, with all their beauty, need to be respected as parts of the sacred cosmos.

This cosmos could be described in as lively a metaphoric style as those that marked mythology. An allegorical tale describing the human mind and the great Mind through symbols is fascinating. The book of Revelation, the last in the Bible, is precisely just this kind of symbolic allegory.

I have written a book stating and embellishing this premise.

It is a verse-by-verse commentary on the Book of Revelation. It is called The Apocalypse of Love: Mystical Symblism in Revelation. If you would like a copy, please just say the word, and I will send you one. I think that you would find this slant, this demolition of literalism, quite fascinating.

You ask about the definition of "mind." It is so present in everything that it can be definitionally evasive, or can be even "invisible" to the intellect. After all, it is the source of all these considerations, and the source of selfawareness. But I would define "Mind" something like the following:

It is a force or energy that creates and maintains reason, stability, and structure in the material, emotional, and spiritual cosmos. It is consciousness, and possesses Selfconsciousness.

It has will (desire), purpose, and plan. It operates through tiny subunits, one of which is "your" mind, and one of which is "mine." But Mind Itself is transpersonal, not personal. It belongs to all, and none in particular. Its operative methodology includes, but is not limited to, reason and logic. It also has many parapsychological or "psychic" aspects, some of which are "supernatural," or not describable according to earthly nature. That is, it cannot be described fully by words, or contained within descriptions of nature.

Its very nucleus, and most important manifestation, is "Love." This is, like the Greek eros, the force that holds together the material cosmos, but it is, in a higher manifestation, also that process that creates harmony and resonance between higher life-forms. From It arise satisfaction in stability (joy) and solidarity in structure (tranquility).

Clearly, this is far from "scientific,"

But perhaps it is a workable definition of the Indefinable.

Peter: Jesus' humanity

The word "church" in the Christian Scriptures is the Greek word ekklesia, and refers not to a building or denomination, but to the entire body of Christian believers. The "church" was the people. So, Jesus, in Matthew 16:18, was discussinng the spiritual guidance that Peter would give to the church as, not a leader, but a supporter. The Spirit of Love would move him to aid his sisters and brothers in any way possible. This was not any kind of "official appointment," as people since have made it out to be. It was a simple assignment of Love that, by the way, used a pun.

For, in Greek, the name "Peter" is very similar to the word for "rock" (petros, as in "petroglyph"). Jesus was simply asking Peter to give aid and support to his followers because he knew that he didn't have much time left on earth.

Re Mark 15:34, there is no great mystery here. This is a record of the words of despair spoken by Jesus during the "dark night of the soul." For just a moment, his human (lower) nature kicked in, and he felt abandoned and afraid. Of course, his higher nature (spiritual) took over very soon. But, having been crucified, having lost all his followers (his entire human support-system), and being in physical agony just after having been tortured and crucified, even the Master yielded to the power of the lower nature. He thus proved beyond any shadow of any doubt that he was fully human. This occurred so that we, in our weakness, could relate with him, and he with us. It demonstrates that even the most spiritual person (being) still has a lower nature of weakness, and, in moments when his humanity is stronger than his divinity, he can slip and fall. He can give in to the forces of negativity and weakness. This is actually good news, for it shows that Jesus was not a supernatural angel without human problems and challenges. Like us, he came to earth to experience the full range and spectrum of human challenges. Clearly, they did not win out over him, but, for a moment, he "sank down" into the vulnerable human self or nature.

Friday, June 09, 2006

Important Question: The Destiny of "High Spirits"

Dearest Friends of the Heart,

We are, at Love Ministries, approaching an important nexus or crossroads. We are, of course, going to take fullest advantage of consultation with the deeper Unconscious (soul) and deepest Unconscious (Spirit) to find our answers.

But this crossroads is also about you. It is specifically about our path of service in relation to the people whom we love. So, we are actively seeking and requesting your feedback.

There are two very important paths in spirituality now opening up for the Ministries. Either path might change the Ministries, especially their direction, significantly, and perhaps, in the near and far futures.

We are, as all of you know, somewhat sadly limited in funds. We would rather that things remain this way than for us to become a "commercialized" enterprise, which we do not want, under any conditions.

Let us be completely honest and detailed here, for you cannot act without the relevant data. And it is this: To renew the contract for the radioprogram for another thirteen weeks would cost $2600 (two hundred dollars a week). This is a huge expense for Love Ministries.

The last time, we had a "drive" in which so many of you, our beautiful and very generous sisters and brothers participated with joy! You made the fulfillment of this dream possible! By your Love and support, it became a reality!:) (This became true even though some did not actually fulfill their pledges.) And, to be completely honest, as befits a revealing relationship between healthy friends, we are very deeply in "spiritual debt" (as if there were such a thing in Love) especially to our dearest sister Pat Fields, who, in humility, would never have this fact known; still, it is a fact. Thanks, Pat!

Many others participated in making donations of five dollars per week-- "bubblegum money" to many, but we know that, for our friends, it was a great contribution. For our friends are not wealthy people! Thanks, then, to all of you!

Here is the second potential plan: If we do not do the radioprogram, we will have sufficient funds to publish a book that we feel might contribute something to peace-- much needed on our poor little planet.

This book highlights the teachings of the Love-tradition in Christian, Jewish, and Islamic history. In other words, it examines in some detail the mystical traditions in the three great monotheisms-- gnosticism in Christianity, kabbalism in Judaism, and sufism in Islam. (The names of these traditions are initiated with small-case letters because they are generic equivalents to "mysticism.")

This book might be nearly a thousand pages long, and contain over 150 footnotes. It is no "lightweight.":) Reading it might give valuable knowledge and understanding to the confused people of our world. (The book is called Hope for Our Poor Little Planet: The Love-tradition in
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Perhaps it could be distributed to people in leadership-positions. We are still uncertain of its destiny.)

Now, here is the question that we have for you, my friends (as we deeply respect your ideas and opinions): Should we use our limited funds to publish the book, or should we use those funds to renew the contract for the radioprogram for another thirteen weeks? (The show, under the present contract, has only two more weeks left.)

Please consider this important, life-changing inquiry together with us, in meditation/prayer.


shi and the Love Education Team of Love Ministries