Posts
*******
Men are from earth, and women are from earth! The symbolic statement that they (we) are from different "planets" is catchy, but it has done enormous damage! It has driven a wedge between the sexes, already involved in a troubling and difficult social situation.
The major problem is that people analyze each other far too much, and far too often. Careful analysis -- at least, some -- is necessary before moving in, and sharing your life, with another. But after a person has fallen in Love, he/she need not continually analyze the partner. As in all other phases of our lives, we need to embellish relationship with simplicity. There is a time when it is appropriate simply to enjoy a relationship, to play, to stop super-serious analysis, to just let it be.
No relationship can survive long that is being analyzed to death! We need more simplicity, and more relaxation, in our construction of simple relationships. Overcomplexification, like overanalysis, is deadly to any relationship. And no one can live under a microscope. In fact, no one should be asked to.
So, as we return to simplicity in life, let us return to simplicity in relationship. This means less talking (although there is an appropriate time for good communication), less analysis (although there is a time for that too), and less criticism. It means less "fixing" or "repairing" the other, and allowing her/him to be authentic, and authentically imperfect.
It means abandonment of obsessive discussion of the relationship. Overfeed a living thing, and you can kill it. A similar phenomenon occurs when a relationship is over-thought. We will never permit ourselves to be abused -- verbally, emotionally, or in any other way. But if a relationship is not abusive, or unacceptable in other ways, it can be nourished best by "letting it be." Silence itself can be very nourishing, both to the soul and to relationships. We do not have to be always fine-tuning, tinkering, altering, repairing. If it isn't broke, stop trying to fix it.
*******
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
Freedom
*******
The only real (eternal) growth is spiritual, but that has deep roots in the psychological. Never allow your freedom of emotional expression to depend on the "dumb crowd." You are created as a free being. You are free to express yourself, and your emotions, in any way that seems appropriate, and compassionate, to you.
Our friend is simply becoming, for the first time in many years, a free person. As is the case with you, this is also her destiny. She refuses now to be controlled by the shifting moods of others. She refuses to build her life around other people's changing moods or plans. She is becoming "as free as a bird," and she treasures the joys and riches of her new freedom. She wants to be free of all manipulation, and all control, from all people. For decades, her extremist fundamentalist husband controlled her every move, and was an iron vice-grip on her life. A taurus, he can be, and has been, extremely controlling. In fact, he secretly wants to control everyone in his life. He has no freedom, and doesn't want anyone else to enjoy it.
You are right: Your job is to create as much freedom in compassion as possible. If that means that God (Love) moves you out of one job, then She/He has another waiting for you. God/Goddess (nature) has given you the wonderful gift of an active brain; but how, or whether, you use it, is entirely up to you. That is yet another meaning of "freedom."
*******
The only real (eternal) growth is spiritual, but that has deep roots in the psychological. Never allow your freedom of emotional expression to depend on the "dumb crowd." You are created as a free being. You are free to express yourself, and your emotions, in any way that seems appropriate, and compassionate, to you.
Our friend is simply becoming, for the first time in many years, a free person. As is the case with you, this is also her destiny. She refuses now to be controlled by the shifting moods of others. She refuses to build her life around other people's changing moods or plans. She is becoming "as free as a bird," and she treasures the joys and riches of her new freedom. She wants to be free of all manipulation, and all control, from all people. For decades, her extremist fundamentalist husband controlled her every move, and was an iron vice-grip on her life. A taurus, he can be, and has been, extremely controlling. In fact, he secretly wants to control everyone in his life. He has no freedom, and doesn't want anyone else to enjoy it.
You are right: Your job is to create as much freedom in compassion as possible. If that means that God (Love) moves you out of one job, then She/He has another waiting for you. God/Goddess (nature) has given you the wonderful gift of an active brain; but how, or whether, you use it, is entirely up to you. That is yet another meaning of "freedom."
*******
Letter from a new friend
Letter from a new friend:
Most people have a real problem with discernment. I suppose most people who think of themselves as very advanced masters are not. But there are some who are. It's similar to people who claim they or someone else is an "advanced" or "old" soul. I believe for the most part, they are not.
On the other hand, lack of sound discernment tools happens in the opposite direction. In other words, people have an even harder time discerning a true master than they do discerning a wanna-be master.
True masters are like looking into a bright light - it makes your eyes burn. So they can live anonomously if they choose. That's because most people don't know how to see and most people don't want to see.
Design and "biomind"
*******
Some evolutionists embrace the philosophy of evolutionism as well as the science of evolution. They are often far too "black and white." As you might know, I embrace evolution as directed by an intelligence built into matter itself -- an organizing principle or tendency, if you are more comfortable with those phrases. I call my perspective the "evolution/design integrative theory," or "edit," for it accepts and
embraces the factual aspects of evolution, yet it is not reductionistic; it does not say, in other words, that life just "fell together" by a random collision of molecules.
I am not a "creationist." But there is clearly mathematical design in living systems. The cell, so small that hundreds could crowd together on the period at the end of this sentence, is as complex as the metroplex of New York City. It performs thousands of complex processes per second, at lightning-speed, and with ultrananoscopic precision. That is clearly "design." To argue its random evolution is analogous, to me, of arguing that a dictionary came from an explosion in a print-shop, or that if ten thousand monkeys typed long enough, they would, sooner or later, produce the full Encyclopedia Britannica. Random molecular evolutionists have
seriously argued this! I call it the "i.b.i." theory -- the impossible becomes the inevitable, with the passage of enough time!
"Design" does not imply some "big daddy in the sky." Instead, it can refer to a finer organizing principle within atoms or molecules themselves, and within cells. What force causes a thousand million atoms to rush around in the cell, each finding its very specific and necessary lace? The only answer possible is some kind of organizing principle -- an invisible matrix-forming force that has everything arranged in specific time-sequences. This implies design, and that, of the very highest mathematical order.
I call this order "God," but I do not define God as a distant invisible Extraterrestrial. I define God as Love, and perhaps atoms are attracted to each other by a variety of "Love," which we call "atomic" or "interatomic" force.
Something astonishing is occurring with life. When evolution first became popular in the 1850's, the cell was seriously thought to be a simple "bag of chemicals." We now know that it is an intricately, meticulously hyperorganized set of extremely complex and interdependent processes that require perfect timing -- to the nanosecond. Even the most cynical must admit that something complex is occurring, as if nature never heard of simplistic answers. If "God" is within, it stands to natural reason that She/He is also within the cell.
*******
Some evolutionists embrace the philosophy of evolutionism as well as the science of evolution. They are often far too "black and white." As you might know, I embrace evolution as directed by an intelligence built into matter itself -- an organizing principle or tendency, if you are more comfortable with those phrases. I call my perspective the "evolution/design integrative theory," or "edit," for it accepts and
embraces the factual aspects of evolution, yet it is not reductionistic; it does not say, in other words, that life just "fell together" by a random collision of molecules.
I am not a "creationist." But there is clearly mathematical design in living systems. The cell, so small that hundreds could crowd together on the period at the end of this sentence, is as complex as the metroplex of New York City. It performs thousands of complex processes per second, at lightning-speed, and with ultrananoscopic precision. That is clearly "design." To argue its random evolution is analogous, to me, of arguing that a dictionary came from an explosion in a print-shop, or that if ten thousand monkeys typed long enough, they would, sooner or later, produce the full Encyclopedia Britannica. Random molecular evolutionists have
seriously argued this! I call it the "i.b.i." theory -- the impossible becomes the inevitable, with the passage of enough time!
"Design" does not imply some "big daddy in the sky." Instead, it can refer to a finer organizing principle within atoms or molecules themselves, and within cells. What force causes a thousand million atoms to rush around in the cell, each finding its very specific and necessary lace? The only answer possible is some kind of organizing principle -- an invisible matrix-forming force that has everything arranged in specific time-sequences. This implies design, and that, of the very highest mathematical order.
I call this order "God," but I do not define God as a distant invisible Extraterrestrial. I define God as Love, and perhaps atoms are attracted to each other by a variety of "Love," which we call "atomic" or "interatomic" force.
Something astonishing is occurring with life. When evolution first became popular in the 1850's, the cell was seriously thought to be a simple "bag of chemicals." We now know that it is an intricately, meticulously hyperorganized set of extremely complex and interdependent processes that require perfect timing -- to the nanosecond. Even the most cynical must admit that something complex is occurring, as if nature never heard of simplistic answers. If "God" is within, it stands to natural reason that She/He is also within the cell.
*******
Monday, May 30, 2005
True "Masters" and False
Most people have a real problem with discernment. I suppose most people who think of themselves as very advanced masters are not. But there are some who are. It's similar to people who claim they or someone else is an "advanced" or "old" soul. I believe for the most part, they are not.
On the other hand, lack of sound discernment tools happens in the opposite direction. In other words, people have an even harder time discerning a true master than they do discerning a wanna-be master.
True masters are like looking into a bright light - it makes your eyes burn. So they can live anonomously if they choose. That's because most people don't know how to see and most people don't want to see.
http://gribridges.blogspot.com/
--
Posted by Mark Walter to Love Ministries
On the other hand, lack of sound discernment tools happens in the opposite direction. In other words, people have an even harder time discerning a true master than they do discerning a wanna-be master.
True masters are like looking into a bright light - it makes your eyes burn. So they can live anonomously if they choose. That's because most people don't know how to see and most people don't want to see.
http://gribridges.blogspot.com/
--
Posted by Mark Walter to Love Ministries
Sunday, May 29, 2005
Evolutionism, Creationism, and Ecology
*******
The belief in either philosophy -- creationism or evolutionism -- might not be the determining factor that forms a person's respect for the environment, or lack thereof. When we use such terms as "evolutionists" and "creationists," we have already muddied the water. For there are many different sub-types in both groups. Some evolutionists, like some creationists, have tremendous respect for the environment, and some do not.
It seems that the deciding factor is not the underlying biophilosophy at all. The determining factor is greed. The very greedy of both orientations are willing to say, with the current administration, "To hell with the environment and the future. All that counts is the immediate bucks!" They condemn our children, and their children, to a sickening and dangerous ecology for the sake of mere short-term profits.
Is this theoretical? Not at all; it has already happened. In siding with corporations, in "corporate welfare," the gov has acted against the people. As a health-pro, you no doubt have noticed a measurable increase in emphysema, bronchitis, and asthma among the very old and the very young. This is directly due, in part, to the gov's reversal of the laws against too much particulate matter in the air. Similar regressive policies have alarmed environmentalists when it comes to water, earth (soil), and the proliferation of chemical and radioactive toxins. Should only the rich be protected, by isolating themselves in hermetically-sealed buildings? The next time the gov supports panic, and gives out gas-masks, will it be because the air is poisonous?
The immoral greed-mongers and war-mongers are so ecologically illiterate, and myopic, that they are willing to destroy Mother Earth for only a few billion bucks. That sounds like a huge "profit," but when compared with the totality of the future of our, and our children's, planet, it is a microdrop.
We need not waste timenergy arguing over whether a "god" has anything to do with the formation of life. The practical question is, How are we going to be stewards of the biosphere? Are we really stupid enough to reverse decades of sound ecological pollicy for the sake of a few already filthy-rich corporations?
*******
The belief in either philosophy -- creationism or evolutionism -- might not be the determining factor that forms a person's respect for the environment, or lack thereof. When we use such terms as "evolutionists" and "creationists," we have already muddied the water. For there are many different sub-types in both groups. Some evolutionists, like some creationists, have tremendous respect for the environment, and some do not.
It seems that the deciding factor is not the underlying biophilosophy at all. The determining factor is greed. The very greedy of both orientations are willing to say, with the current administration, "To hell with the environment and the future. All that counts is the immediate bucks!" They condemn our children, and their children, to a sickening and dangerous ecology for the sake of mere short-term profits.
Is this theoretical? Not at all; it has already happened. In siding with corporations, in "corporate welfare," the gov has acted against the people. As a health-pro, you no doubt have noticed a measurable increase in emphysema, bronchitis, and asthma among the very old and the very young. This is directly due, in part, to the gov's reversal of the laws against too much particulate matter in the air. Similar regressive policies have alarmed environmentalists when it comes to water, earth (soil), and the proliferation of chemical and radioactive toxins. Should only the rich be protected, by isolating themselves in hermetically-sealed buildings? The next time the gov supports panic, and gives out gas-masks, will it be because the air is poisonous?
The immoral greed-mongers and war-mongers are so ecologically illiterate, and myopic, that they are willing to destroy Mother Earth for only a few billion bucks. That sounds like a huge "profit," but when compared with the totality of the future of our, and our children's, planet, it is a microdrop.
We need not waste timenergy arguing over whether a "god" has anything to do with the formation of life. The practical question is, How are we going to be stewards of the biosphere? Are we really stupid enough to reverse decades of sound ecological pollicy for the sake of a few already filthy-rich corporations?
*******
Thursday, May 26, 2005
This World and Karma
*******
This world is designed specifically for the purpose of learning through the eradication or neutralization of karma. But to suppose that the world should be "better" because "all (or most of) the karma" has been "burned off," or balanced, is simplistic and naive.
Why? Because souls are capable of creating new karma continuously. And reason two is that the Mind can continue to create new souls continuously. And reason three is that the earth-school has not been "in business" that long. We, as simple human egos, might think of the earth as a very ancient system. Yet in terms of infinity, the entire history of the earth is but an eye-blink.
The souls that tend to incarnate on this planet are "kindergarten" souls, which means that they have only just begun to seek -- and almost never to find -- enlightenment, liberation, and the end of karma. Like all toddlers, spiritual toddlers are apt to make many, many mistakes -- creating billions of more karmic events -- than are more advanced souls.
So, earth is not only the place where karma can be erased; it is also the place where new karma is made.
Earth will get better. But it will grow only as the souls using it develop. Look around, and you will see that the souls on this planet are anything but spiritually grown-up or sophisticated. Graduation from this "school" takes many lifetimes, and the world is still full of pre-school toddlers or kindergarteners, first-graders, and second-graders. And how do we identify such spiritual "children"? They are continuously multiplying, proliferating, and increasing their karma. And this will continue to be a "kindergarten" school for at least a couple of thousand more earth-years.
To assume that the earth should be better is to assume that more karma is being neutralized than is being created. But, at present, in ignorance and greed, people are very busy creating karma, night and day, twenty-four seven, and almost no one is spending a single minute in voluntarily, deliberately, consciously erasing karma. So, since we have been on earth as human beings for a while, we arguably have more karma than ever! On an arrested planet, the years increase karma; they do not decrease it. The exception occurs to certain people. This rare type is she who lives in such pure Love that her Love erases karma; and such people are, and have always been, a microminority on earth.
Let us not be agonized in selfcreated hells by the slowness of spiritual growth. Instead, let us take all our timenergy and invest it in loving, as purely and as often, as possible. Let us go forth today determined to erase as much of our personal karma, by the Power of Love, as possible. You can never, except by forgiveness that reaches the other, erase the karma of another. But you certainly can eradicate your own!
*******
This world is designed specifically for the purpose of learning through the eradication or neutralization of karma. But to suppose that the world should be "better" because "all (or most of) the karma" has been "burned off," or balanced, is simplistic and naive.
Why? Because souls are capable of creating new karma continuously. And reason two is that the Mind can continue to create new souls continuously. And reason three is that the earth-school has not been "in business" that long. We, as simple human egos, might think of the earth as a very ancient system. Yet in terms of infinity, the entire history of the earth is but an eye-blink.
The souls that tend to incarnate on this planet are "kindergarten" souls, which means that they have only just begun to seek -- and almost never to find -- enlightenment, liberation, and the end of karma. Like all toddlers, spiritual toddlers are apt to make many, many mistakes -- creating billions of more karmic events -- than are more advanced souls.
So, earth is not only the place where karma can be erased; it is also the place where new karma is made.
Earth will get better. But it will grow only as the souls using it develop. Look around, and you will see that the souls on this planet are anything but spiritually grown-up or sophisticated. Graduation from this "school" takes many lifetimes, and the world is still full of pre-school toddlers or kindergarteners, first-graders, and second-graders. And how do we identify such spiritual "children"? They are continuously multiplying, proliferating, and increasing their karma. And this will continue to be a "kindergarten" school for at least a couple of thousand more earth-years.
To assume that the earth should be better is to assume that more karma is being neutralized than is being created. But, at present, in ignorance and greed, people are very busy creating karma, night and day, twenty-four seven, and almost no one is spending a single minute in voluntarily, deliberately, consciously erasing karma. So, since we have been on earth as human beings for a while, we arguably have more karma than ever! On an arrested planet, the years increase karma; they do not decrease it. The exception occurs to certain people. This rare type is she who lives in such pure Love that her Love erases karma; and such people are, and have always been, a microminority on earth.
Let us not be agonized in selfcreated hells by the slowness of spiritual growth. Instead, let us take all our timenergy and invest it in loving, as purely and as often, as possible. Let us go forth today determined to erase as much of our personal karma, by the Power of Love, as possible. You can never, except by forgiveness that reaches the other, erase the karma of another. But you certainly can eradicate your own!
*******
The Imperfect House-church
*******
We must all be careful of "all or nothing," "black and white" thinking. (This is an i.d. mark of the sign scorpio, but, of course, can occur with anyone.)
So, when it comes to the early house-churches in Christian history, the implication should never be that they were flawless or perfect. And it was not our intent to support that inaccurate inference. Are house-churches good, constructive, and valuable? Yes, there can be no doubt of it.
Are they preferable to the gigantic impersonal corporations, churches as formal institutions? For me and many others, they are. Do they create warmth, intimacy, deep spirituality, and mutual support? Yes, they do.
But here's the question: Are they perfect? As you might suspect, with human beings working and playing together, they are not. No human enterprise, my friend, has ever been perfect. Even under the perfect guidance of the perfect Spirit of Love, imperfect human beings create imperfect systems. So, of course, the house-church is an imperfect system of imperfect people. But it does lack the hideous, widespread
politics of the formal Church. Absent is the budget of billions of dollars, which attracts corruption and dishonesty. Absent also is the implied and inevitable social stratification between formal "clergy" and "laity," more closely approximating the system of Jesus, in which all were equal sons and daughters of God.
Absent also is the list of dogmas set in concrete, to which everyone must subscribe. This insistence on mental sameness creates a Church of conformity, not of Love. It also destroys spiritual creativity, inventiveness, and originality. In time, the most microscopic variations of belief are damned as "heresy" or, in Islam, "apostasy."
In summary, the house-church has several advantages, many of them Love-advantages, over the formality, coldness, and de-personalization of the Church as corporation or institution. This basic premise is not at all altered by the obvious fact that house-churches are not perfect. Indeed, if we waited until we could do anything with perfection, human beings would never do anything at all!
*******
We must all be careful of "all or nothing," "black and white" thinking. (This is an i.d. mark of the sign scorpio, but, of course, can occur with anyone.)
So, when it comes to the early house-churches in Christian history, the implication should never be that they were flawless or perfect. And it was not our intent to support that inaccurate inference. Are house-churches good, constructive, and valuable? Yes, there can be no doubt of it.
Are they preferable to the gigantic impersonal corporations, churches as formal institutions? For me and many others, they are. Do they create warmth, intimacy, deep spirituality, and mutual support? Yes, they do.
But here's the question: Are they perfect? As you might suspect, with human beings working and playing together, they are not. No human enterprise, my friend, has ever been perfect. Even under the perfect guidance of the perfect Spirit of Love, imperfect human beings create imperfect systems. So, of course, the house-church is an imperfect system of imperfect people. But it does lack the hideous, widespread
politics of the formal Church. Absent is the budget of billions of dollars, which attracts corruption and dishonesty. Absent also is the implied and inevitable social stratification between formal "clergy" and "laity," more closely approximating the system of Jesus, in which all were equal sons and daughters of God.
Absent also is the list of dogmas set in concrete, to which everyone must subscribe. This insistence on mental sameness creates a Church of conformity, not of Love. It also destroys spiritual creativity, inventiveness, and originality. In time, the most microscopic variations of belief are damned as "heresy" or, in Islam, "apostasy."
In summary, the house-church has several advantages, many of them Love-advantages, over the formality, coldness, and de-personalization of the Church as corporation or institution. This basic premise is not at all altered by the obvious fact that house-churches are not perfect. Indeed, if we waited until we could do anything with perfection, human beings would never do anything at all!
*******
The True "Spiritual Master"
*******
The definition of a "spiritual master" is the person who has mastered the self. A genuine "master" is not, and does not seek to be, the "master" of other people. They are not less than (s)he; (s)he is not "their" master, as if they were mere "servants." The true "master" has mastered humility, and does not see her(him) self as "better" than, or superior to, others. The major quality that marks the selfmastery of any being is her having cultivated as perfect, and as universal, a Love as possible.
This should be the very first priority in any definition. All historical masters, including Jesus, the Buddha, Lao Tzu, and Patanjali, agree that this is so. But Love is barely mentioned in the attempt by Maticintin ("Winged Wolf") to define "masterhood,", and is second or third on the list of identifying characteristics.
The primary emphasis is on the master's "knowledge." While knowledge is crucial -- and wisdom even more so -- it is not the primary identifying quality of a true spiritual master. Historical masters were never presented as simply walking encyclopedias. Cultleaders often ignore this fact, because an indispensable aspect of Love is freedom -- precisely what they want to steal from their followers.
Her definition smacks of grandiosity and ego. She claims the master literally "knows everything" about the natural world. The writer claims that she is herself such a master. In fact, she pathetically, ludicrously labels herself a "Wisdom Master." This betrays strong ego, in compensation for weak selfesteem. She is a cultist, who will do virtually anything to get her followers to adore her. Again, this is psychological compensation for self-dislike.
If anyone in the world "knew everything" about nature, biomedical and other scientists would be beating a path to her door, and then, beating that door down to get to her. The mysteries of molecular and cellular biology (cytology) are abundant, as are those of genetics and related fields. According to Maticintin's own limited definition, she holds the secrets to all the mysteries of nature.
Such a "master" is obligated by conscience to cure cancer, starvation, and all the other medical ills of the world. And no one, including Maticintin, has ever had the knowledge to do so. This woman is clearly a pretender to "mastership," if we accept her own definition.
Of course, everyone would love to be a "master." In her fantasies, Maticintin is no different: She longs to be a "master." But her dreams have become confused with reality, and she believes that she is a master already! But a true master would be so unselfconscious (egoless), and so comfortable within her own skin, that it would never occur to her to trumpet and highlight her mastership, as she has done. A true master would be a master of humility, one of the "fruits" of the "tree of Love."
She would refuse to selfdisplay, and would share her infinite "intrinsic" knowledge with the whole world. A true master would be so generous, and so selfconfident, that she would not even seek credit for her spiritual brilliance.
For she insists, correctly, that much of the wisdom of the master is inherent or intrinsic, not learned. It is karmic, and she is born with it. This includes, she says, full knowledge of physics, or "how the universe is formed." So, questions of subatomic structure should be child's play for the "master" to elucidate. Such a master should be able, and willing, to perfect nanotechnology, and so, to create a world of infinite material riches, feeding, and fulfilling every need of, every
person.
This knowledge includes also "how the karma of all life-forms are intertwined within it [the cosmos]." So, the giant and complex problems facing groups, nations, and important leaders should be able to be prophesied in advance, before they happen. No one has ever manifested this kind of precognitive accuracy. And you can bet that if anyone ever did show this kind of prescience, there would be an immediate media frenzy! This person's name would instantly become a household word. But, as noted, a real "master" would not be marked by knowledge alone, but by deep and tender compassion.
She claims that a master's "detachment" would make him "fearless." This is true, and this could be very easily put to the test, in several ways. Maticintin has claimed to be a fully enlightened master, to have overcome all fears. Has anyone ever put this claim to a real test?
The part about "selfless" attention to the "good of the whole" is spot on, and quite accurate.
She misidentifies "God" as "void." From one perspective, God is indeed the Buddhist sunyata, or "infinite potential"-- the spiritual meaning of "void." But this emphasis is to miss the entire point that God is more immediately, and more practically, and more positively Love.
At the conclusion of the piece, she identifies herself as a "master." If she makes this incredibly glorious claim, she has a lot to prove. Talk is cheap, and easy: Anyone can say anything. But her own criteria must be met before anyone with half a brain will believe her unbelievable claim to be a true "master."
It is interesting to wonder how this selfproclaimed master, who "knows everything" about everything in the cosmos, would fare on a college-level exam in biology, chemistry, or physics. Her proposition that the master is omniscient could be very easily tested. It is seriously doubted that she would pass such a series of comprehensive exams.
*******
The definition of a "spiritual master" is the person who has mastered the self. A genuine "master" is not, and does not seek to be, the "master" of other people. They are not less than (s)he; (s)he is not "their" master, as if they were mere "servants." The true "master" has mastered humility, and does not see her(him) self as "better" than, or superior to, others. The major quality that marks the selfmastery of any being is her having cultivated as perfect, and as universal, a Love as possible.
This should be the very first priority in any definition. All historical masters, including Jesus, the Buddha, Lao Tzu, and Patanjali, agree that this is so. But Love is barely mentioned in the attempt by Maticintin ("Winged Wolf") to define "masterhood,", and is second or third on the list of identifying characteristics.
The primary emphasis is on the master's "knowledge." While knowledge is crucial -- and wisdom even more so -- it is not the primary identifying quality of a true spiritual master. Historical masters were never presented as simply walking encyclopedias. Cultleaders often ignore this fact, because an indispensable aspect of Love is freedom -- precisely what they want to steal from their followers.
Her definition smacks of grandiosity and ego. She claims the master literally "knows everything" about the natural world. The writer claims that she is herself such a master. In fact, she pathetically, ludicrously labels herself a "Wisdom Master." This betrays strong ego, in compensation for weak selfesteem. She is a cultist, who will do virtually anything to get her followers to adore her. Again, this is psychological compensation for self-dislike.
If anyone in the world "knew everything" about nature, biomedical and other scientists would be beating a path to her door, and then, beating that door down to get to her. The mysteries of molecular and cellular biology (cytology) are abundant, as are those of genetics and related fields. According to Maticintin's own limited definition, she holds the secrets to all the mysteries of nature.
Such a "master" is obligated by conscience to cure cancer, starvation, and all the other medical ills of the world. And no one, including Maticintin, has ever had the knowledge to do so. This woman is clearly a pretender to "mastership," if we accept her own definition.
Of course, everyone would love to be a "master." In her fantasies, Maticintin is no different: She longs to be a "master." But her dreams have become confused with reality, and she believes that she is a master already! But a true master would be so unselfconscious (egoless), and so comfortable within her own skin, that it would never occur to her to trumpet and highlight her mastership, as she has done. A true master would be a master of humility, one of the "fruits" of the "tree of Love."
She would refuse to selfdisplay, and would share her infinite "intrinsic" knowledge with the whole world. A true master would be so generous, and so selfconfident, that she would not even seek credit for her spiritual brilliance.
For she insists, correctly, that much of the wisdom of the master is inherent or intrinsic, not learned. It is karmic, and she is born with it. This includes, she says, full knowledge of physics, or "how the universe is formed." So, questions of subatomic structure should be child's play for the "master" to elucidate. Such a master should be able, and willing, to perfect nanotechnology, and so, to create a world of infinite material riches, feeding, and fulfilling every need of, every
person.
This knowledge includes also "how the karma of all life-forms are intertwined within it [the cosmos]." So, the giant and complex problems facing groups, nations, and important leaders should be able to be prophesied in advance, before they happen. No one has ever manifested this kind of precognitive accuracy. And you can bet that if anyone ever did show this kind of prescience, there would be an immediate media frenzy! This person's name would instantly become a household word. But, as noted, a real "master" would not be marked by knowledge alone, but by deep and tender compassion.
She claims that a master's "detachment" would make him "fearless." This is true, and this could be very easily put to the test, in several ways. Maticintin has claimed to be a fully enlightened master, to have overcome all fears. Has anyone ever put this claim to a real test?
The part about "selfless" attention to the "good of the whole" is spot on, and quite accurate.
She misidentifies "God" as "void." From one perspective, God is indeed the Buddhist sunyata, or "infinite potential"-- the spiritual meaning of "void." But this emphasis is to miss the entire point that God is more immediately, and more practically, and more positively Love.
At the conclusion of the piece, she identifies herself as a "master." If she makes this incredibly glorious claim, she has a lot to prove. Talk is cheap, and easy: Anyone can say anything. But her own criteria must be met before anyone with half a brain will believe her unbelievable claim to be a true "master."
It is interesting to wonder how this selfproclaimed master, who "knows everything" about everything in the cosmos, would fare on a college-level exam in biology, chemistry, or physics. Her proposition that the master is omniscient could be very easily tested. It is seriously doubted that she would pass such a series of comprehensive exams.
*******
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
People First
*******
In the United States, and in other places, greed has become the Number One religion, and oil is often its god.
Corporations often roll over human rights like a bulldozer. The voice of the people is often drowned out by loud machinery, and leaders become dull, insipid, and insensitive due to the lure of megabucks.
This hurts people seriously, and in many ways. So, it is antiagapic (against Love), and counterspiritual.
As a solution, we need continuously to emphasize the Way of Compassion -- by both words and activities. Not only that, but we need to demand that our leaders -- religious, economic, and political -- restore to society the values of goodness, kindness, empathy, generosity, and fairness. Where dollars become the center of life, compassion fades and evaporates.
The current system has betrayed all people except the very wealthy. Through its direct action to support only corporations through "corporate welfare," it has ruined and reversed the rights of senior citizens (prescription-drug bills that favor the pharmaceutical industry) and young people (every child left behind). It has stripped the people of power by granting billions to energy-companies, and has decided to ruin even the planet itself, for immediate bucks, by reversing decades of
positive eco-legislation. It has wounded the most vulnerable members of our society, including, most disgracefully, the very veterans who have maintained our rights by paying the ultimate price.
Let us do everything possible to bring compassion into the public spotlight and the arena of public discussion. For if compassion is allowed to die in a flood of oil and blood, everything valuable within the human psyche will also perish.
*******
In the United States, and in other places, greed has become the Number One religion, and oil is often its god.
Corporations often roll over human rights like a bulldozer. The voice of the people is often drowned out by loud machinery, and leaders become dull, insipid, and insensitive due to the lure of megabucks.
This hurts people seriously, and in many ways. So, it is antiagapic (against Love), and counterspiritual.
As a solution, we need continuously to emphasize the Way of Compassion -- by both words and activities. Not only that, but we need to demand that our leaders -- religious, economic, and political -- restore to society the values of goodness, kindness, empathy, generosity, and fairness. Where dollars become the center of life, compassion fades and evaporates.
The current system has betrayed all people except the very wealthy. Through its direct action to support only corporations through "corporate welfare," it has ruined and reversed the rights of senior citizens (prescription-drug bills that favor the pharmaceutical industry) and young people (every child left behind). It has stripped the people of power by granting billions to energy-companies, and has decided to ruin even the planet itself, for immediate bucks, by reversing decades of
positive eco-legislation. It has wounded the most vulnerable members of our society, including, most disgracefully, the very veterans who have maintained our rights by paying the ultimate price.
Let us do everything possible to bring compassion into the public spotlight and the arena of public discussion. For if compassion is allowed to die in a flood of oil and blood, everything valuable within the human psyche will also perish.
*******
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)