Let’s just say, for the sake of discussion, that there was an historical “person” named Jesus who attained the enlightened ‘Christ Mind’ and shared that message with the world. It’s NOT too hard to believe, (even though the similarities between the symbolic and mythical ‘messiah’ figures of other cultures, are profoundly striking and should be considered)
So what did this Jesus look like?
Should we rely exclusively on biblical accounts in relation to the appearance of this enlightened master? Or was he a swarthy Arabic man? Maybe he was a full-blooded African as other historians claim, or simply the tall, thin and frugal looking Caucasian man with long hair (a popular rendition attractive to many westerners). Or what if ‘he’ was in fact……..a woman?
Ahhhh! Blasphemy you speak!!!
You laugh at such silliness, but wait! Once you insist on a form and a body, the discriminating ego-mind will demand ‘appearances’ and you will SEE those features in your mind and they will be real for you.
When you enter your Christian church, are you moved by what you see? What if the crucified Christ had the features of a black man? Or an Asian woman? (we can be just as moved by the ‘virgin mother’ however, as long as the roles are clear).
Therefore, we have left the unlimited realm of ‘archetype’ and entered the restricted zone of STEREOTYPE ("a simplified and standardized conception or image invested with special meaning and held in common by members of a group" -Amer. Herit. Dict). And we are all too familiar with the deleterious effects of stereotyping. It tends to lock down one’s perspective, to where you just might miss the deeper meaning found behind the forms. Archetypes are the message and do not require forms or persons, (although we can make that attribution). However, stereotypes demand form, which can distract from the message. And, as history shows, often do!
And what about Buddha? Was he really the laughing fat-man or was he an emaciated long-haired, hippy-type? And what about Muhammad? or even Moses? Or Adam and Eve?
If you believe “the names come from figures in history” then you may unwittingly attribute to these historical “figures” the ‘values’ traditionally inherent to that form or appearance. Stereotyping is a ‘real world’ problem. Thus, it seems reasonable that the same problem is found through the numerous interpretations of historical figures prior to image recordings. Of course, for the biblical literalists who rely solely on the ‘text,’ there is only one physical Jesus and for the Buddhist one embodied Buddha.
However, I believe there may be hundreds, if not thousands. Call me crazy!!
Alas, this may only be a mere trifling and insignificant issue for which I fail to add anything substantial to the discussion (as many claim is my tendency). However, racism, sexism and all the other judgmental ‘isms’ are easily observable on a multitude of levels, from the most severe to the most minimal. This “type” of SEEING is often unconscious to the mind that discriminates differences and all minds do SEE differences. For many, Christian dogma and doctrine is one big distraction. However, for others it has resulted in a more expansive view.
If your Jesus is a tall Caucasian youth and mine is an old squat, pot-bellied, Arabic woman, will you judge me deluded or deranged? Will I be ostracized, derided and spit upon?
Such is the infamy of Christian history…
We can say the names with reverence based on the archetypal message they present for all people, but without needing the criteria of appearances, features, bodies or persons based on ‘historical’ analysis. In this way, we may finally come to cease our obsession with the forms that often result in missing the content that the forms symbolically express. I imagine there is little argument that the world is sorely in need of that salvational, redeeming content. If only we could break from historical forms and persons.
There is a strong possibility that there was no man named Jesus, nor one named Buddha. However, there most certainly is Christ Mind/Buddha Mind. And it is blissfully free of form.
Hallowed be thy message, since the names no longer serve me…
The 'story' of Christ can be identified in every culture and on every continent. All had their savior 'god,' (Mithras, Dionysos, Attis, Isis, Osiris). Christ is the messianic archetype or redeemer archetype that exists within the "preconscious" of all sentient beings. We live and structure the chief components of our life by myth. The Christ idea can be considered as the highest idea or myth we wish to manifest in our lives.
Therefore, we seek to manifest this message in our minds, our actions and our lives.
The plan of salvation is archetypal and 'within' all minds. This primordial salvation archetype is universal and recurrent throughout every culture and can be observed throughout recorded history and long before the scribing of the biblical texts.
"Sin" is nothing more than a failure to correspond with the universal meaning as contained through the archetype of salvation. However, the outward expression of salvation will be interpreted differently by every separate mind that considers the meaning and applies that meaning to their lives.
The question is not be why does this archetype exist, since Jung and other scholars have clearly made the case for its existence in all minds, but from where does it originate?
However, I can imagine how those who ascribe to the logic of "the bible says it so..." may fail to identify this archetypal strand which runs through all religions and can be seen in all religious texts.
The Christ message is totally inclusive and beyond forms, historical personalities, agendas, teams, etc, etc. We may not be ready for an interpretation emphasizing that level of freedom, but nevertheless, I believe we are heading in that direction.
So for now, I suppose we will continue to render unto Ceasar (judge and discriminate), in quiet assurance that soon it will no longer be necessary (I think it crucial that we keep faith in that assurance).
Corresponding with Being-in-the world, or the ground of Being, may be an end to discriminating differences or "judge not lest ye be judged." To me, this means that when you judge (discriminate) another you essentially condemn your 'self' to said judgment (and the guilt inherent in that). In the all-inclusive ground of Being (or Source/God) there are no differences to be SEEN, since the eyes are no longer relied on as proof, but something deeper and more profound and that is the Perennial Philosophy which never fades but can only intensify through time.
The fundamental "tenets" as postulated by the authors of the Biblical texts can liberate or enslave the mind obsessed with the literal. My issue is not with the "tenets" of Christianity, as many resonate with me personally. My issue is when it is proclaimed that to believe this, requires this correlate be unequivocally accepted as well. Can we not accept this idea of Christianity, but also this of Hinduism and this of Advaita Vedanta, and this of Judaism, and this of Buddhism, etc, etc?
Christianity does have a tendency to exclude "non-believers," as do all religions. If we experience love through an exclusive communion, or satsang, can we superimpose that upon the parts of the world we fear? If not, then what is the purpose of communing? Source/God does not apportion off parts of the whole to be blessed, (I suspect that is our doing) but is revealed in whole or not at all. All else is merely clues to the whole.
The trinity is useful for egoic mind to separate and divide up aspects of the absolute, when in reality to divide and separate may obstruct realization of the whole. Also, I feel we must be careful in formulating ideations of a "Transcendent Father" as this may dissociate from the Spirit Within. I imagine one could conceptualize a transcendent deity or a theistic-otherness, and the Judeo-Christian ideologies are founded on this perspective. I suppose if one is lifted up from that concept and not belittled or abnegated. Problem as I see it, is religions attempt to aggrandize religion itself at the expense of man's soul. Just think, if Source/God were really 'in' you, what would be the point of "church.
I imagine those that correspond with Spiritual Oneness may not SEE "differences" as dividing, but as unifying. However, if the rise of another in this worldly plane causes even the slightest inner disturbance to us, then we may need to review what and how we have judged another, from lack or abundance. I often find it disconcerting that so many need to assess others so frequently and suffer unnecessarily because of that assessment from lack.
I do believe that both Jesus and Buddha's teaching are context bound, however, the message is inherently the same and will eventually lead to the same realization of universal-inner-wholeness.
Through Chrsitian-Advaitist contexts one may realize a richer tapestry of thought that may aid in experiencing "what Jesus as the son of God means." To be bound by any one traditional thought pattern or path may delay understanding through a "dogmatic slumber" (Keirkegarrd).
Liberation will come when differences exist as exterior to the deeper connection within that unifies all and therefore are not preserved through judgment. At that point differences will no longer matter and no longer need be emphasized, but will exist nonetheless.
Jesus was not God since this would be an objectification of that which is beyond substance and form. However, Christ Mind seems to have been the message (similar to Buddha Mind) that Jesus taught through "I and the Father are One." Essentially, the message has been abrogated and nullified by the 'messiah-form' which the Judeo-Christian religions advocate as the quintessential focus of all worship. The egoic mind requires a 'form' represent God. Problem is that focus on forms may dissociate and displace from Truth.
The Jesus of Christ Mind must be a liar and a lunatic because the Truth that is realized from that correspondence is completely opposite of what the world teaches or what the senses inform us is true. This is because the message proclaims "son of God" as not the manifestation of an individual identify, but of a "son-ship" of unified minds. The message that "I and the father are One," must be all-inclusive and, therefore, no one is excluded.
Christ and Buddha are IN you. The timeless message needs little work in order to realize. Both proclaimed that you need DO NOTHING to correspond with that message and all your "doings" may keep you from it.
Nevertheless, in this world of existence, the idea "no pain, no gain" seems to dominate our thinking and our time. Maybe the idea of hard work and sacrifice is an obstacle to Truth. However, we have done it this way for so long, I imagine the ego would rebel against such a radical change in belief.
The Christ and Buddha message are the same and come from the same origin and will resonate with the same part of your mind for which it resonates with all individual thinkers.
I find it interesting how the spiritual 'map-maker' Ken Wilber (Integral Theory) and his loyal Integralites, seem to be campaigning for relevance by denouncing other spiritual ‘map-makers.’ This campaign is no different from the current U.S. political beliefs-bashing we’re witnessing today (even though the integralists attach disclaimers that they are not really being "mean-spirited")
The Integral theory is a smart, esoteric package of beliefs, or an intellectual “map of the territory,” that is relevant in many ways to many people. However, I wonder if this denigration of other ‘maps’ may result in a backlash against the Integral Theory. Last time I heard it was Deepak Chopra. Poor guy, I’ll bet he didn’t see it coming, but alas, he was victim to the infamous “pre/trans fallacy” attack. (I wonder if he felt the blow?).
The pre/trans fallacy has relevance, yet it seems easily applicable to any spiritual state of mind that does not fit Wilber's own spiritual "map." In fact, through this reductionistic method it seems likely that all transrational states (beyond normal everyday consciousness) can be interpreted as prerational childish babble. But that argument is old, so I'll spare you.
However, now it seems the Integralistas are going after “The Secret” by Rhonda Byrnes and company. I read “The Secret” (and watched the DVD) several years ago and, although I found many flaws in the presentation and missing links to the theory, I thought that on the whole it was quite an empowering message. Sure, there was a lot of glitz and glam about it (and bit too much object obsession) but if it helps to empower an engagement with Spirit, and if that engagement leads to an experience of greater abundance, then all the power to it.
What we really want is NOT an abundance of things, but an experience of abundance.
I just can’t understand why Ken Wilber would feel the need to criticize these formats. Does the immense popularity of these belief systems cause him jealousy or, like ‘government,’ does he feel the need to protect us from ourselves?
This dialogue was posted on Integral Naked so I thought I would talk about some of the points made.
As with any “you create your own reality” schema, The Secret fails what can be called “the Auschwitz test.” According to The Secret, everyone who was murdered at Auschwitz—or Rwanda, or Darfur—created that reality for themselves, and therefore they are to blame for their fate. For obvious reasons, this position is an unconscionable as it is untenable.
This commingling and convergence of the collective and individual mind-consciousness is one aspect “The Secret,” and much of the current “law of Attraction” literature, does not extensively address (certainly not to the extent Wilber expounds on his own spiritual theory, which is literally mind-boggling to put it mildly). However, if you read the works of Thomas Troward, an early 20th century intellectual and prolific advocate of this “law of attraction,” (LOA) you will understand that the Divine Mind or Universal Consciousness is a composite of both individual and collective thought-substance. Therefore, both modes of “attraction,” or reality-creation, are in operation-all the time.
If 10 million minds believe fear and anger justified, then the results of that collective thought patterning will be manifest and we can, and do, see that manifestation worldwide. However, the collective does not cancel out the individual as both are expressions of Spirit or, as Wilber would state, "Kosmos."
What “The Secret” proposes is that on some level (which implies “quantum”) we create our reality, individually and collectively. However, the convergence aspect of individual and collective consciousness is NOT ruled out, its just that the focus of The Secret is the individual component.
Auschwitz, Darfur, Rwanda and all present day and historical atrocities are an amalgamation of a collective consciousness addicted to fear and the manifestations of fear. This can be curtailed, and even completely alleviated, through the collective-mind when each individual consciousness seeks to experience an abundant life devoid of fear. Fear obstructs the Joy of Being in any consciousness, including the collective.
By teaching that the world quite literally revolves around you, The Secret encourages and entrenches narcissism. In developmental psychology, narcissism doesn’t mean an unhealthy obsession with thinking only about yourself, it means you can’t think about yourself. The capacity for self-reflexive awareness just isn’t there. The entire world and everyone in it is simply an extension of your-self, and you are literally unable to take the perspective of another human being. This is not mystical union; this is pre-rational fusion, and without the ability to take the perspectives of other sentient beings, the entire foundation for ethics evaporates.”
Good grief, how KW loves that concept of "narcissism"! My friends, when you hunker down into your lotus to meditate your way to enlightenment, make no mistake the goal of that moment is narcissistic, since YOU desire enlightenment for YOURSELF. However, it seems KW has cherry-picked his own version of narcissism that he ascribes to the field of developmental psychology. For KW narcissism is when you “can’t think about yourself” and the entire world becomes an extension of yourself, in other words the narcissism of an infant, undeveloped ego-self. I don’t know why he took a clear and concise psychological term like “narcissism” and twisted it into a distorted concept he calls “pre-rational fusion.”
Essentially, for Wilber, “The Secret” promotes sociopathic narcissism in which we selfishly ignore others in our quest to manifest material possessions, all others be damned. The very idea that one who adheres to the Law of Attraction, as promoted by “The Secret,” fails to take in the perspective of others or even realize others exist except as an extension of self, is a reductio ad absurdum.
Clearly, most of the reputable “law of Attraction” theorists emphasize that “attracting” from Divine Mind, “universal consciousness” or Spirit must be aligned with the collective good of said named “universe.” Obviously, if I want my mother-in-law dead this is not aligned with a loving and rational universe or Divine Mind and, in fact, may negate or nullify that universal quality or substance. I may terminate my mother-in-law, but most likely this will only bring up and reinforce the reality of my more dormant "shadow" elements from the depths of consciousness right up into my face and into my everyday experience. I will in fact, “attract” or manifest a reality most disturbing and not advantageous to me in any way. I would suggest that all you sociopaths out there NOT seek change your lived-experience through the "Law of Attraction."
Actually, you are creating the universe moment-to-moment, but it’s not the “you” that you think. According to the great contemplative traditions, every person has at least two “selves”: the finite, temporal, egoic self-sense, and the infinite, transcendental, unqualifiable Self, or I-AMness. Your Self, your I-AMness, is indeed giving rise to the entire radiant Kosmos in this and every moment, but The Secret teaches that your separate self has the power to personally manifest a new car, win the lottery, or cure cancer… and this simply isn’t how things work.
Hmmm…but both “selves” are in fact “you” as an expression of that universal wholeness, since nothing is excluded or left out of the Oneness Equation. There is no clear cut partition. Even Wilber contends that “the self is all over the place” (Eye of Spirit) so why shouldn’t those who achieve a greater organization of the self-psyche reap the rewards of that escalated or higher correspondence with the universe, "Universal Consciousness" or Spirit.
It seems that Integral Theory does not seek to integrate the two selves (or transcend and include), but counter-productively denigrates and excludes the “self” that desires and wants. The Buddha proclaimed self is suffering, but only from a belief of incompleteness.
Does everyone have to be an 'enlightened master' in order to correspond with Spirit? (even in some small way). The contemplative traditions overemphasized detachment from egoic self for a reason. This is because the exterior world is a reflection of a seemingly all-encompasing, compulsive addiction to ego-self desires. In other words, if I re-program your passive personality to attain the extreme of aggression, you most likely will settle into an assertive center as your new baseline functioning, but you will not attain the extreme because your current personality baseline is against it. If taken to the extremes your natural predisposition will be to find the center.
Nevertheless, the more you attempt to break free of egoic mind the more strongly it clings to you. Maybe instead of breaking free we must first learn to harness or, more specifically, manage it (and this is a Wilber principle!).
There seems no reason to me why a mind corresponding with Spirit through a deep and abiding sense of gratitude for Being, should NOT generate an experience of abundance. Notice I emphasize the 'experience of abundance' and not necessarily a 'manifestation' of abundance, which would be relative to the individual mind accessing Spirit. Whether or not that abundance is objectified or results in physical manifestation is not the point. Yet, the EXPERIENCE is always the point.
From an experience of completion why should you not “attract” abundance, possibly even in terms of "objects" within consciousness or manifest physical abundance? When one is synchronized with the universe, coincidences do NOT happen and often ‘things’ have a way of just showing up because their supposed to.
But you must first seek synchronization and many claim that involves a consistent experience of love and acceptance. Possibly, the greater the synchronization with this "Universal Consciousness" the greater the manifest abundance and this seems congruent with the law of cause and effect in which a greater cause will generate a greater effect.
"The Law of Attraction” is true—as far as it goes. The problem is that The Secret takes this one relatively small piece of the puzzle and makes it the entire puzzle. A positive outlook will change your life and your intentions will co-create your reality, but so will brain chemistry, interior level of development, family relationships, natural disasters, cultural trends, language structure, environmental toxins, and, basically, the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.
I agree, “The Secret” only gives a “piece of the puzzle,” but I don’t feel it advocates this as the whole puzzle. Notice how Wilber equates “the Secret,” and the The Law of Attraction it promotes, with simply having “A positive outlook.” KW is so deeply entrenched in his "quadrants," he will allow only the most enlightened of minds to converge the left and right quadrants or, more specifically, allow the interior world of individual experience to alter the exterior experience of consciousness as manifest.
Wilber lumps aspects of our empirical, objective facticity with his concept “interior level of development.” Like that can be studied! No, but the interiors of awareness can be self-formulated, regulated and built upon to create incredible experiences through the interior unfolding externally. It's your experience, do what you will to enhance it
Developmentally, if one uses a scale ranging from archaic to magic to mythic to rational to pluralistic to integral to super-integral, The Secret teaches the magical thought structures that were humanity’s leading edge several hundred thousand years ago. As Ken explains, The Secret encourages childlike “primary process thinking,” which can be in the form of “the law of attraction” (e.g., if one black thing is bad, then all black things are bad) and “the law of contagion” (e.g., if this particular man was powerful, then a lock of his hair must be powerful too).
Yes and many claim this childlike “primary process thinking” is less stifled and obstructed by fear (conditioned) than the supposed evolved minds of the developed ego. What may be interpreted as “magical thought structures” of time long past, can now be re-interpreted as miraculous forms of thought-consciousness, which can create wonderful experiences for those who can “pray ceaselessly”(correspond with Spirit) and thereby reformulate the experiences of their life.
The importance of understanding how unconscious psychological shadow elements color and affect one’s experience, and how The Secret can agitate, alienate, repress, or—perhaps even more worrisome—act on these disowned elements of consciousness.
Yea, and for $250 you can purchase Ken’s enlightenment package (which is glamorously presented), which will, after many decades of hard work, identify your “shadows” and free you up to become an enlightened master. Obviously, Shadow elements will obstruct the crystal clarity of consciousness and the experience thereof. Nevertheless, The LOA advocates claim that the exterior experience will require a more mindful awareness and, hence adjustment of these interior shadow elements. Fear and anger will obstruct not only what you might manifest, but how you would experience that manifestation.
The exterior world is a reflection of an interior state, collectively and individually. Therefore, if the exterior is not an experience to your liking, seek to change the interior. Even cognitive psychology tells us this much, “it’s not reality that disturbs you, but your interpretation of reality that disturbs you” (Aaron T. Beck, MD, paraphrased).
The genesis of the pre/trans or pre/post fallacy, and how The Secret is a perfect example of elevating pre-rational childish impulses to trans-rational spiritual glory. Simply because both categories of experience are non-rational, they can easily be confused, and often are.
The impulse to attain an experience of joy and abundance in your life is most likely not childish and can even be considered a return to a consciousness less ego-formed (preconscious?), and thus less stifled, through the experiences of an external world. Yet, Ken would chastise you for being prerationally childish and immature in this joyous "state" since you have NOT evolved to a "stage" where it could be correctly interpreted as useful.
The Reality Creation Hypothesis, which includes the LOA, has been around for centuries in every culture and on every continent. From the Gnostic interpretations, to Plotinus and Parmenides. It can be observed within the Buddhist and Advaita Vedanta traditions. In the western 20th century we can find it in everything from Shirley Maclaine, the Seth books, Abraham-Hicks, Conversations with God, A Course in Miracles, etc, etc. Even theoretical physics, or quantum mechanics, often seems to inadvertently imply a veiled correspondence between thought and physical manifestation (although scientists are loathe to admit as much and if they do they are resigned to the lunatic fringe).
Obviously, we have no objective, empirically studied accounts of any consistent reordering of the quantum level of time and space. Nevertheless, the evidence seems to be mounting in favor of our ability to redirect and possibly even control the objects of consciousness or, more succinctly, our experience of an exterior manifest world. “The Secret” merely opens a door for many to actually consider that potential.
As opposed to Wilber’s critique, I don’t necessarily believe “The Secret” attempted to give the whole picture (unfortunately, not even Wilber can do that, although he may think he does) but maps out a direction that is understandable to many (as opposed to Wilber's ideas). Like the teachings of the “ancient masters,” it only serves to remind us of Spirit too long ignored and the benefits of an enhanced awareness.
The Law of Attraction has helped many to, at the very least, alter their experience from one of deprivation to one of abundance. It may not get you a Porsche or a mansion on the Riviera but, if by focusing on your experience of Being-in-the-world (Heidegger hyphenated to denote unity), you experience an increase of love peace and joy, isn’t this the internal essence of an engaged life that we all seek to experience (and who knows, maybe even a Porsche). Besides, if you shoot for the stars, but merely land on the moon, isn’t that in itself an amazing feat?
I don’t want to be an enlightened master. Rather, I just want to embrace a greater conscious experience of joy in my life. And I aim to do just that employing every scrap of information that I find useful (including Integral Theory, The law of Attraction and, yes, even “The Secret”).
I would suggest that those who have experienced a feeling of empowerment through the ideas as touched on by "The Secret" read the original theorists (Troward, Holmes, Haanel, Behrend, etc, etc) who first postulated these ideas and presented them to the world. There is a secret that "The Secret" failed to unveil. I wonder if Ken Wilber knows, but isn't telling?
Most of the personal development blogs I often read seem to emphasize that surrender means the letting go of, or release of, pain and suffering. I contend that surrender confirms loss, while acceptance asserts that you have nothing to lose.
The need to surrender confirms loss or failure. Therefore, you have not released yourself, but further bound yourself to a belief in your own inadequacy and littleness. Choose carefully the words you use to define yourself since what you think you ARE, is what you will maintain yourself AS.
Acceptance identifies and asserts that what was once fought against is no longer deemed worthy of battle. You do not surrender and thus admit defeat, but rather you accept and admit freedom from conflict. You cannot win nor lose, conquer nor surrender, since neither is applicable to a life of acceptance.
Many might contend that this is exactly what “surrender” means. However, if you surrender to your depression, you essentially concede that it has controlled your life, thus might it not have that power to do so again? Does your surrender give it that power? Are you now subordinate to your depression, since you have surrendered to it, and does this requires that you no longer resist being defined by it as opposed to your defining yourself in anyway you choose?
Acceptance means that you can now define IT.
I believe "surrender" is a western perception and you will rarely encounter this concept in eastern philosophy or spirituality. This relates to the western ideology of control through conquest. It reinforces the idea that conflict, battle and the waging of war are the chief components of overcoming your "defects." Surrendering to the conflict asserts that the conflict has won and you have lost.
Acceptance demonstrates that there never was a battle nor is there anything to win.
The American Heritage dictionary defines surrender as “to relinquish possession or control of to another because of demand or compulsion” and “to give up in favor of another.”
When you surrender to your depression, you allow IT control. However, if you accept your depression, you allow it an equal presence in your life along with all other parts of your whole. As such it loses power to control.
"Does this mean I should not seek to alleviate my depression?"
No. What you fight against and surrender to, reinforces the need to conquer it and the worthiness of the battle. Yet, what you accept needs no resistance and need not be conquered. What you resist must persist, what you accept merely becomes a part of the experience we call Life.
This is difficult to comprehend through the western paradigm of overcoming or conquering, rather then joining with or unifying. We demand war and rarely admit defeat. We demand the world conform to our expectations and, rather then closely examining the validity of what we expect, we continue to blindly demand it acquiesce.
You hold yourself hostage to these same standards.
"But if I “accept” my addiction do I not give it power to define me?"
If you accept your addiction, it will recede from view. It only HAD power because you resisted it. If you surrender to it, you assert it once had power over you, thereby making it that much harder to accept and alter.
"But isn’t detaching a form of surrender?"
As the dictionary defines, to surrender is to "relinquish control to another because of a demand." Therefore, what is surrendered TO must then assume control. These are the spoils of war.
Make no mistake, the mind is conditioned to differentiate between power and powerless. Acceptance immediately equalizes the playing field. Surrender emphasizes loss of power and imbalance. In your surrender, you may experience a brief feeling of relief because you are no longer waging war. But make no mistake the judgment of loss is upon you and will dog your steps from here on out.
To accept is to join with and make One. Your addiction is you and in accepting, you MUST see it differently and in that way IT must recede in importance and control. If its no longer important and no longer compels your behavior, how can it be considered an addiction?
To surrender to adversity means you were once pitted against it. Now the opponent has grown in size and power. Therefore, In surrendering will you really forget that you were once at war and that you have lost?
Hardly, in fact, does not surrender simply reinforce your littleness and set the stage for future battles requiring additional surrender? Although you deny this, the fact is that essentially you define yourself by the struggles that have been won or lost. Your life is a series of overcoming or being overcome, winning or losing, “the thrill of victory or the agony of defeat.”
"Nothing clings to the mind like the past" and therefore, nothing is as powerful in defining the future. If all is accepted, what power does it have to define? Surrender defines loss, acceptance defines that there has never been anything to lose. The future is easily and effortlessly accepted simply as it unfolds.
God does not require your surrender, only your acceptance.
Many would argue that I merely engage in hair-splitting, semantics. Yet, I respond that we live by the concepts and beliefs of our mind. Words have power simply because words, even more then images, define who and what we are. Surrender is a concept that defines you as defeated by your suffering, while acceptance defines you as embracing all, even the suffering. There is nothing to surrender TO as all is accepted.
You can only surrender to that which controls. Acceptance nullifies control and asserts equality. The more you accept suffering, the less you suffer (strange how that works!). You can accept everything and in so doing, you make it part of you. Never surrender, always accept.
"This is the ever-present Tao, never resisting or surrendering, but accepting, flowing with and Being."
I've been re-reading alot of Thomas Troward lately and I came across a quote that I thought I would post:
"No man can prove that God has spoken to him; the only possible proof is the inherent truth of the message, making it appeal to our feelings and our reason with a power that carries conviction with it. The Spirit of Truth shall convince you, said the master; and when this inner conviction of Truth is felt, it will invariably be found, that, by thinking it out carefully, the reason of the feeling will manifest itself an intelligible sequence of cause and effect. Short of realizing such a sequence, we have not realized the Truth.
It is a principle that no great system can endure for ages, exercising a wide-spread and permanent influence over larges masses of mankind without any element of Truth in it. There have been, and still are, great systems influencing mankind which contain many and serious errors, but what has given them their power is the Truth that is in them and not the error: and carful inquiry into the secret of their vitality will enable us to detect and remove the error." (Troward, Bible Mystery p.136).
Troward was a Science of Mind advocate and proclaimed that the power of Jesus, through Christ Consciousness (or Buddha Mind, take your pick), is available to all. However, this quote tends to highlight the idea that all major, or mass appealing, religious or spiritual belief systems tend to resonate that Truth (cap T meaning the one and only). Problem is most of the belief systems passed down through the centuries are also chock full of many erroneous holes. Because of this we spend a great deal of time examining and seeking out the holes and missing the Truth that the belief system initially was constructed from and this for some, becomes the focus of a lifetime.
Yet, it is not the holes or errors that inspire and move us, but the Truth contained within the thoughts and beliefs of the system. In other words it is up to us to separate the wheat from the chaff, dwell with the nutritive substance within and be inspired. In fact, sometimes we need to ignore the holes in order to absorb the wholeness.
I like what Ken Wilber and the Integralists have done in relation to identifying the holes in many of our religious-spiritual belief systems. Problem is, it seems that such deep penetration into the errors has sapped the vitality of the Truth as well. So much so, that it might be missed in the constant search for error.
Integral just doesn't move me. Oh sure, it's pretty damn smart, as intellectual systems go, but where's the inspiration?
I just finished reading Integral Spirituality and I felt like I did after completing my college statistics and research class - utterly exhausted and 'spent.'
I agree with Troward in that it will be the reasonable system of belief, one that resonates with the rational mind, that we will seek out. But it will be this and the systems abilty to fuel our deepest emotion that will lift us up to new heights and will be the path we choose. Thought without feeling is bland and lifeless, but thought infused with the emotion that only Truth can evoke (no matter where it's found), will take us farther along the way to bliss of Re-union with the Spirit we seek and may even re-create our world.
“One of the biggest benefits of no longer giving energy to the things you don’t believe in is the discovery that the universe is unlimited abundance. You can go to the inexhaustible ocean with a thimble or a bucket, and take out of that source whatever amount you ask for. If you have enough faith you can take away as many buckets full as you choose and it will make no difference to the ocean. And even better, you can go and fetch from that unlimited supply as often as you like. And so it is when you are dissatisfied with what is, or when what is, is filled with so many problems. You have taken an eyedropper to the infinite ocean, and then set about complaining about how little you have!”(There's A Spiritual Solution to Every Problem, Wayne Dyer p.79)
To believe what this quote illuminates is to arrive at the place of deep peace. This is because deep down you have always believed that things should be different. Yet, even in those brief moments of pleasure, there was always the nagging doubt and that slight feeling of unreality; that this good feeling won’t last. Essentially your moments of pleasure were eroded by the sneaky suspicion that this won't last and so you taint and diminish the moment by preparing for what must eventually come. No matter how much “default” abundance (not based on conscious choice) you attain you still sense a disconnect and that makes all the difference between the persistent joy of the Truth within and the fleeting moments of pleasure we have always experienced as contingent on external circumstances.
Without the conscious connection to the Source/God all we will ever experience is fleeting moments of pleasure. Yet, although those moments are part of the Unified Wholeness, the Being-in-the-world (Heidegger hyphenated this term to denote unity) we are often not conscious of that correlation and, thus we cannot maintain a constancy to the experience.
However, we still end up striving all our lives to have more of these moments. Our daily existence results in deriving joy from future thoughts or “hope.” We hope things will be different some day, next week, next month, next year, after the promotion, once we get the car, house, thing, more money, better relationship, better health, etc, but for now all we can do is "hope" for that potentiality to become actual.
But, moments of pleasure can become more than that, if we build on them from the inside-out with the knowledge that within is 'where' they originate. An example might be a happy time with your children, family or friends. You are experiencing positive emotions surrounding love, closeness and even fun. You then create a thought of where this happy experience is coming from (the inside feeling, not the outside actions which you often cannot control) and build on it by attaching additional thoughts of gratitude and love and by recognizing that all of this is within you. Thus, we reframe our moments of pleasure as not simply parts of the whole, but as moments that are the whole.
You make what may have been a fleeting moment of pleasure into a bigger thought which results in intense emotion and, BaddaBing, you are where you want to be; corresponding with Source/God since Joy is what you come from and is thus your inheritance that you are entitled to partake. No matter what is occurring in your world, do you feel entitled to peace, love and joy? If you don't than you may be depending too much on the outside and such an addiction can only deny your inheritance.
You get a raise or promotion, a hug or kind words from your spouse, you get charged less than you expected, your back doesn't hurt today, a friend calls, etc, etc. It's all usable because its all the whole shebang being altered by you into parts of the whole. This requires that you seek to immerse the parts into the whole and experience it as wholeness or One by making the part the whole. Inform yourself that "this is IT" and thereby dissolve the apprehension and anticipation of what may come after this.
Do this conscious exercise consistently and it will become subconscious habit. This will be your “knee-jerk” reaction to all moments of pleasure. This will become who you are. This will mean constant connection to the Unity from which the universe originates. You will begin to experience joy effortlessly, with only a simple thought, and the universe will provide based on that experience because you are that universe. Fear and unhappiness cannot be sustained by a consciousness at peace within itself. There is simply no room in the mind that is in touch with, and encompasses, everything and every moment.
The atheistic existential viewpoint is that faith in God is "bad faith" since we are asserting that our essence is of God and thus our existence is determined on that belief, rather than the existential creed of "existence precedes essence." For Sartre, God is a copout and you will not experience your existential freedom if you latch onto the religious dogma manufactured by others and that has for so long predetermined your choices. Faith for the existentialist is faith in yourself alone and NOT God, since God is an obstacle to freedom ("the opiate of the masses").
The existentialist would argue that your "faith" is indeed NOT yours at all, but a conditioned factor of the social order you have been indoctrinated with (and Freud would agree, although Sartre disagrees with the concept of an 'unconscious,' while Freud claims that even if you were to surrender all your conscious conditioned beliefs you still would never actually access the conditioned beliefs of the unconscious). You have no free-will since essentially you are a 'robotron' following in lock-step the beliefs of your societal-cultural conditioning.
If you are a "Christian," although you may deviate by degrees, you are victim of the indoctrinated teaching of your socio-cultural conditioning. Your choices are NOT your own and neither is your "faith." Although you may revel in your fantasies of free-choice, you are what you were taught to be, based on the choices provided through the cultural-religious dogma and nothing more than that.
The existentialist would ask, do you really have a thought in your head that was NOT GIVEN TO YOU? You have no free-will, only the delusion of freedom is the foundation of your life since fear of the dread of "nothingness" attends you and you avoid it at all costs. What if you were to completely detach from the expected beliefs of your society? Who would you be? What would you do?
To the existentialist this is the dread and angst of the free fall into "nothingness" that you must finally allow yourself in authentically creating your 'essence' from free-will and NOT from conditioned thoughts, beliefs and values. Thus, the existentialist will completely reject all of what the world provides and shape the self free of all belief systems and, in essence, formulate beliefs based on free-will.
Problem is if one is to reject all values of society, choices must be made from what is available and this makes the project of creating an 'essence' very difficult and always highly suspect. Nevertheless, this is what Sartre advocates in his recommendation that you stop playing the role of 'Christian' and 'Jew" and 'Muslim,' etc, etc, (this is similar to Kierkegaard's "Christian in Christendom") and all the other roles you were taught to be and make your essence your own. Otherwise, you are simply a "role" you play in the belief that it is 'real' and this is a very inauthentic way to live, don't ya think? My point in defining the existential perspective (w/ emphasis of Sartre's gloomy perspective) is that we are inevitably bound by cultural conditioning and culture/society is the origin of all our core beliefs. Core beliefs are the springboard for every thought we think and, although we would like to believe we are free from cultural dictates deeply stored in the subconscious 'container' and that we freely choose who we are, the existentialist claims that this is a fantasy also perpetrated by the culture. Unfortunately we may never be capable of deprogramming from such an all-inclusive indoctrination and this is relative to the culture through which we were, and are, immersed.
Integral Theory is a purely western phenomenon which attempts to provide such an integrative, worldcentric perspective. However, I believe the theorists have not yet plumbed the depths of their own cultural conditioning which has enabled this ideology to develop. The western paradigm seeks to include the eastern, but fails to recognize that it only distorts the core beliefs of the eastern view in making it conform to western ideology, like a square peg forced into a round hole.
I believe Judeo-Christian conditioning will be amenable to integration and this allows the western mind to more effectively apply the integral perspective to the cultural conditioning it has been flooded with since birth. We need to stop chasing eastern paradigms and seek to change the paradigms that make up our own thought patterns. This is because there can never be a worldcentric view free from cultural conditioning that is inclusive of all cultures. However, each culture can more adequately adjust their own paradigm to allow for greater integration within that culture, but NOT outside of it.
The problem I see is that integral has fairly decisively trashed the Judeo-Christian paradigm and is off chasing Chinese dragons. Certainly, the Judeo-Christian view has become distorted through the centuries, so does that mean we simply dump it even though the values and beliefs fill our hearts and minds at both the conscious and unconscious levels?
I think NOT...
BUT ISN'T INTEGRAL THE ABILITY TO SEE BEYOND ONE'S CULTURE?
Is that even possible? The content of mind is based on learned conditioned beliefs and I sense that seeing "beyond" how one was taught to see may be impossible. The very organization of the psyche is theoretically composed of id, ego and superego where the superego is composed of cultural dictates and norms. The ego must moderate between the primitive impulses of the 'id' and the restraints of the superego. The point being that the structure of the superego is deeply embedded within the mind and we are not necessarily conscious of our attachment to culture, but the very structure of the psyche is constructed from it.
However, the need to get to a place where we can see all of it as equally valid with no predominating perspective and possibly no hierarchy of perspectives is entirely desirable.
But so much of Judeo-Christian ideology involves archaic myth like the idea of a savior appearing on earth to take us to heaven
The idea that a savior will arrive on earth, to my mind, is patently absurd and is a distortion of the message that all religions have in common. The "savior" will be a perspective or vision of unity which will override and virtually overcome all perspectives that are NOT inclusive of oneness, wholeness and completion (i.e., 'love'). In other words, the less conditions applied to who is included, as opposed to excluded, will be a revolutionary and highly radical perspective. This seems to be a "practical solution" and I feel that when all minds seek primarily to 'include' rather than to 'exclude' (judgment) we should experience peace on earth, or at least come closer to such an experience.
As pessimistic as I often seem to be, I am actually quite optimistic that we are on that path and even the most restrictive of the Judeo-Christian religions seem to be moving toward progressive inclusion of all perspectives. People seem weary of division and separation and are slowly moving toward embracing a more comprehensive world view without leaving the culture through which they were indoctrinated.
Maybe we need a return to existential ideology based on that 20th century western philosophy. In this way we need to strip away what is inauthentic and inessential to Being. However, the "nothingness" that we finally achieve will be God or closer to God than has ever been experienced before by a large group of minds.
In determining a 'spiritual path' what 'spiritual authority' do you look to, since you are the one making the choice to conform or NOT to conform to the path claimed by that authority? You may surrender to the experience that you believe is derived from the belief system (the teaching or 'text') you choose as 'truth," but make no mistake YOU have CHOSEN it. You decide what or who delivers the 'truth.'
Therefore, you are the final authority and your capacity to choose attests to this fact.
You choose one above another, Christian above Advaita, Judaism above Buddha and, although none, or all, may be "truth," one thing is certain, YOU have made the choice for truth as you believe it. The path, or 'way,' has NOT chosen you, you have chosen the way.
(one may decide that their choice is the only choice that CAN be made and proclaim it as such, and that's called "proselytizing." Most free-thinking people rebel against that since they feel that the freedom to choose is being denied them).
So what does it mean if your choose NO path from the choices available or choose to extract the 'truth' from many paths, not choosing one above another? Does relying on your own 'authority' make you shallow or ignorant? Actually, I sense that those who shun all traditions, and possibly conceptualize their own path or spiritual direction, are not shallow at all, but merely follow the maxim of many great masters who teach that you must FIND YOUR OWN WAY.
Ah, but the ancient teachings contained in the 'texts' are so irresistible in their allure and even the most enlightened 'spiritual master' may get trapped by the cultural deterministic conditioning within all texts and the beliefs from which the text is derived. Words are a product of 'ego,' and in that sense should always be suspect and approached with a cautious, drive-to-question (hyphenated to denote unity). It seems that we need to be plugged in and not to rely on someone else's words is to free-fall into "nothingness."
Maybe in the escape from the text and all the prescriptions that the words symbolize, one can finely be free? Good Luck with that endeavor, because it can be very disorienting to say the least! This is why most will always rely on the text and the belief systems propagated by others in order to seek Source/God.
Yet, it seems both Jesus and Buddha, probably the greatest teachers ever known, overcame the cultural determinism of the age in order to escape from the 'contexts' and realize the truth beyond, or not contained, within the conditioned mind and the words that symbolize that conditioning. They did not rely on the text and developed their own teachings. It is true that their 'beliefs' came from a 'Higher Source,' but we can only make spastic interpretations as to what we feel that Source might have been, and we have and we do... and that's called 'religion.' And we got a million of those. When it comes to whose religion is best, we debate the differences on ad infinitum and, unfortunately, we do tend to advocate one over another (based on separate, relative, egoic, value-systems or, "my gods better than your god"). We love to differentiate between religious belief systems and we do so based on our indoctrinated cultural conditioning. Should we seek out differences based on a religion's accurate conforming to 'reality'? But then, whose rendition of "reality,' since all the major religions differ? In fact, most major religions have so conformed the ancient teachings to current 'reality' as to distort the original message beyond all recognition. (Like when Jesus said "love they neighbor," religion would have you believe that He really meant your next door neighbor, not the guy across the ocean. In fact, if that guy pisses you off you have a right to blow his head off, but that's OK and it's called 'war'). Egos are "righteous," especially when they band together into groups with associated value systems based on relative beliefs in which all others be damned. Nothing is worse then when a group of egos ally together to form a "religion" or develop a spiritual "path" and demand that its dogma be idolized as 'authoritative.'
YOU CAN GO YOUR OWN WAY
I think most will identify and choose what is useful in each religion's dogma and trash the rest as not aligned with the Truth within and this does require a deep self-enquiry, probably deeper than most of us are used to. Nevertheless, this seems to be happening with Judeo-Christian traditions as well as Buddhist. Of course, we still have to be cautious of the allied egos that do this re-interpretation since ego-mind fears rejection and this only tends to make it stronger in compelling others to 'believe.'
However, this is what Jesus and Buddha did and why should we NOT expect to do the same. In fact, once you get past the egoic alteration of the message in all grand spiritual narratives, you will resonate with the Truth contained in the words. But, alas, you will need to avoid dependence on the text and in the 'ultimate spiritual authority,' YOU are that authority. But, do we tend to frequently let others make that choice for us and this can be ingenuine and inauthentic.
God created Being, and man went ahead and made it "human" by contextualizing what was not meant to be limited by doctrine, dogma, religions, paths and the authoritative prescriptions that mold cultures through moral laws. (but now, don't believe me!)
Sadly, the American culture is experiencing an anarchistic spasm in relation to so many people seeing the lies within the cultural prescriptions and this seems as true for religion as it does for government. (there really is no such thing as separation of church and state. The connection is quite subtle and subliminal as to be under the radar of normal perception. But whose morality rules?).
The anchor points are dissolving and many individuals will remain adrift awhile longer, until new moorings can be identified. The Judeo-Christian culture is dissolving right before our eyes and it is a frightening sight indeed. But it had to happen since the lies and deception are now beyond belief and the old 'authorities' are useless in revitalizing those old ideas.
I agree that various religious "contexts" or authoritative paths through which ultimate or absolute truths are 'pointed' out, can be the starting block or the origin of our seeking and, in that sense, the texts and teachings can be useful. However, I think most of the ancient "spiritual masters" have advocated that you will need to detach from the context, or "authority," in order to realize 'truth.' You must seek 'outside the box' since ultimate truth is not contextualized and is unlimited by conceptualizations or pointers of any kind. To remain attached to the scriptures is to be chained to the pointers and to become mesmerized by the pointing finger, only to miss the moon. Time to follow the old existential philosophers deep into the realm of "nothingness" and rebuild from there.
I agree that one can certainly learn from the 'pointers' or contexts from which a 'path' is disclosed. But I also believe that eventually their path must be surrendered and you must stake out your own way. If you rely on the bread crumbs they've thrown for you, you'll only return to where you started. To discover the uncharted, you must throw away the compass and the maps provided by "spiritual authorities" and GO YOUR OWN WAY.
Fortunately, you are NOT alone and there is a guide or teacher WITHIN who knows the way and that guide is not a product of any scripture, sutras, contexts or authority of any kind. Yet, to rely on that guide demands a leap of faith beyond the 'teachings' and that can be a very frightening endeavor indeed.
