Posts
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!)
*******
Monday, June 26, 2006
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!:)
*******
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.
*******
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!:)
*******
--------
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:
DEAR BROTHER
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,
Steven
AND DEATH SHALL HAVE NO DOMINION
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.
*******
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:
DEAR BROTHER
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,
Steven
AND DEATH SHALL HAVE NO DOMINION
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.
problem.
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.
*******
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.
problem.
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.
*******
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.)
*******
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.
*******
***
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.
*******
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.
Love,
shi and the Love Education Team of Love Ministries
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.
Love,
shi and the Love Education Team of Love Ministries
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)