Chacaruna

Chacaruna: (n) Literally, bridge person. The Incan name for a Shamanic guide who helps others to cross from one state of consciousness to other states of consciousness.

Ann Druyan–Writer, Producer, Activist

I wanted to share a quote by Ann Druyan, wife of the late Carl Sagan. I believe it captures the essence of the Taoist and Pantheist vision.

"The God of Spinoza, the God of Einstein is our ability to understand nature. That’s how we worship what is sacred, what is holy, by trying to find the deepest understanding of nature. Our bias against this is so strong you can hear it in the word “supernatural”–above the natural. As if our fantasies and our little stories that we make up, whether we made them up 10,000 years ago, or 5,000 years ago, or this week, as if our stories could compete with the reality of nature as revealed by science."

Death, Birth, and Reincarnation

All is impermanent,

All is without a self.

–The Buddha

Today I have had some time to reflect and allow various ideas that have been bouncing off the walls of my skull to coalesce. These ideas were inspired by several films that I have seen recently and that I highly recommend to those on the mystic journey. The one that has dominated my consciousness today is Sukhavati–A Mythic Journey from the collected works of the late Joseph Campbell. This film has helped to flesh out many of the ideas I gleaned from The Quantum Activist, a film about Dr. Amit Goswami’s theories about the nature of existence based upon his lifelong study of physics.

These films and others have allowed me to greatly expand upon an insight I have been playing with for the past several years. It’s difficult for me to put it succinctly into a type of “Executive Summary,” so please bear with me as I try to put it all into words. The central idea has to do with what happens after one’s physical body dies, but it spins off in several different directions from there.

I’ll start with the seed of an idea that has been germinating for some time. As a minister, I was asked by a woman who was terminally ill to talk with her about death. I knew her from having conducted her marriage ceremony a few years earlier. The main question she had was, of course, “What happens after we die?”

I asked her if she wanted the truth or some bullshit answer that might make her feel better. She opted for the truth, so I said that I honestly did not know, but that shortly she would. I also told her that fear and excitement were physiologically identical–it is only how we view them that makes the experience of them differ. She was about to go on a great adventure–the next stage in whatever it is that we are all doing here–and that she could choose to begin the journey feeling fear or excitement.

I don’t know if any of that helped her, but she said it did. A few weeks later, I officiated at her funeral.

This encounter got me seriously pondering humanity’s age-old question of what’s next after this. So I began as I often do with the principles of Taoism. Taoism says that the answers we seek can be found in the natural world. The first question that came to me was, “What happens to the material body when it dies?” The answer–it returns to from whence it came. The Taoists often refer to this as “returning to the source.”

All the material “stuff” that is the body almost immediately begins to decompose so that its stuff can return to the Earth and be recycled. What if the same is true for our non-material stuff? Does that which briefly inhabited the body go back from whence it came and, if so, from whence did it come?

I initially had the idea of a sort of “spiritual compost bin” where the elements that made-up the non-material also decomposed. I didn’t go much further with this until I became aware of Dr. Goswami’s theories via The Quantum Activist.

The core tenant of Dr. Goswami is that consciousness, not matter, is the ground of being–that matter comes forth from consciousness, rather than the other way around. This is actually a very ancient idea in religious traditions, but basically turns science upside down. Undifferentiated consciousness (Dr. Goswami uses the term “non-local consciousness”) is the “pool” from which differentiated or individual consciousness is drawn. This, to me, answered the “from whence it came” question.

The only “problem” with this idea is that it really is a buzz kill for all those people who believe in the individual consciousness continuing to exist after death. So my next stop was Buddhism.

In the film Sukhavati–A Mythic Journey, Joseph Campbell describes the “lake of bliss” where one’s consciousness arrives upon achieving Nirvana. All along the shore of the lake, all the creatures (birds, animals, etc.) are chanting “All is impermanent, All is without a self.” This was the key that seemed to unlock the puzzle so the other pieces could fall into place.

The Buddha taught that there is no self–that the idea of different, individual selves is an illusion. This is the basis of the greeting “Namaste.” It is the acknowledgement that we are not two, but one. Extrapolated out–we are not 7 billion, we are one.

So just as the body is a brief assemblage of material elements that returns to the source, so it is with the non-material. And I feel the word “consciousness” fits better than “spirit” or “soul” as these historically imply an individual consciousness that continues to exist.

This also illuminates the idea of reincarnation. Most people view the concept of reincarnation as the individual “spirit” or “soul” being reborn into a new body. With this new insight, I believe that reincarnation was never meant to be about an individual consciousness being reborn, but rather about the “stuff” of consciousness being recycled–just as the material elements of the body are recycled with each new birth.

One of the things Dr. Goswami discusses in The Quantum Activist is that he had a dream in which he was very clearly told, The Tibetan Book of the Dead is true and that it is his job to prove it. Well this fits in rather nicely. The Tibetan Book of the Dead is about how to guide one through the Bardo–the intermediate state between death and rebirth.

Traditionally, of course, the idea of the death-to-rebirth journey is viewed as something the individual consciousness (spirit) does. It now seems to me that what the Bardo refers to is the intermediate state when the individual consciousness is travelling from death to the “pool” of undifferentiated consciousness. It is then reincarnated from the pool–not as the individual consciousness that it was–but as a new assemblage of “recycled” elements of consciousness.

This could also fit within the Judeo-Christian-Muslim tradition if one views “Heaven” as the return to undifferentiated consciousness (which, coincidently is what Dr. Goswami refers to as “God”).

This would, if one were looking for it, also provide an explanation for the phenomena of ghosts. Ghosts being individual consciousness becoming stuck in the Bardo. In fact that is the purpose of the Tibetan Book of the Dead–to keep one from getting stuck. This would imply that being stuck after death of the body as an individual “spirit” is not a good thing.

Using the analogy of water: when a body is alive, it is the vessel that holds the water (consciousness). When the body dies, the vessel breaks and the “water” returns to the ocean from whence it came. When a new vessel (body) is created, it is filled with water (consciousness) from the ocean. Yes, there may be some elements of the former vessel’s water in the new vessel, but it also contains water from many other broken vessels. If the water can’t get back to the ocean, it gets stuck becoming a stagnant pool (a ghost, or a soul in Hell).

Just some thoughts during the confluence of Earth Day (material) and Easter (spiritual). Namaste!

Mysticism: The Path Less Traveled

 

Mysticism is one of the least traveled spiritual paths. The reason is simple–the journey of the mystic begins where all paths end–entering uncharted territory and traveling alone.

The mystic is not satisfied with intellectual answers to the basic questions of human existence–those are called “philosophers.” Mystics, as the name implies, want to dive headlong into the mysterious experience of existence. The philosopher looks at the ocean and speculates about its nature, the mystic jumps in with both feet and isn’t afraid to get wet. Religious philosophers or theologists debate orthodoxy. But mystics go where no orthodoxy exists.

This is why the Buddha–a mystic–said not to take anything to be true on anyone else’s authority (even his own), but to discover the truth for one’s self. Mystics are like scientists in this regard, which may be one reason why many mystics and scientists (particularly quantum physicists) often appear to be describing the same reality. Perhaps when mysticism and science go far enough, they meet each other traveling in different directions.  

But does this mean the mystic must start the journey as a completely empty vessel? No–the mystic needs to prepare his/her mind by first building a foundation of intellectual understanding. This is why, quite often, mystics are older and (hopefully) wiser when they begin their journey. After years of study–when the answers found elsewhere are no longer enough and armed with a framework of knowledge to help guide the way–the mystic journey begins.

Gnostic Gospels

With Easter approaching, I thought I would share some recent thoughts on Jesus and the New Testament. Now keep in mind what I am speaking of occurred during the First century and–admittedly–I was not present (at least not in this form) and, I’m guessing, neither were you. Also, consider that the earliest gospels were written at least 10 years after Jesus died. Prior to that, they were part of an oral tradition (back then, only a few people could read and write). Therefore all of this is speculation, but speculation based upon the available historical records.

Ask anyone who is more than a Christian in name only and they will dutifully tell you the names of the four New Testament gospels of the apostles–Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. But many of even the most devote Christians don’t know, or haven’t ever heard that these are not the only gospels. Apostolic gospels not contained in the New Testament include the gospels of Thomas, Peter, Philip, Judas, and Mary Magdalene.

So if these gospels were based upon the experience of those who actually knew Jesus, why are they not included in the New Testament? To understand this, we need to look at the history of Christianity from the time of Jesus’ crucifixion to 325 AD.

For almost 300 years after Jesus’ death, there was no established Christian church or religious canon. “Christians” were a largely secret sect of Judaism. Early Christian’s had to hide their religion as there was no First Amendment protecting religious minorities. At the time, there were many different gospels in circulation–none officially sanctioned by “the Church” because there was no church as such to sanction them.

It wasn’t until the Roman emperor Constantine converted to Christianity that the Christian religion as we know it today was established. Constantine formed the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD to establish an “official” Christian church and liturgical canon. At the Council the early Church fathers decided what and–perhaps more importantly–what not would be included in the Church’s official canon. Those that made the cut were included in the New Testament. Those that didn’t were considered heretical and–as has remained the custom–burned.

Most of us would have never known about the non-canonical gospels if it were not for a farmer from the Egyptian town of Nag Hammadi. In 1945 while tilling the soil, the farmer found a sealed urn which contained documents dating back to the 3^rd and 4^th centuries. Speculation is that an early Christian sect–the Gnostics–hid these documents to protect them from the post-Nicaean purge. This find was called the Nag Hammadi library and contained some of the earliest historical documents of early Christianity.

So why were these excluded from the New Testament by the Church fathers? Well of course the “official” Church line is that they were heresy. Must be some pretty bad stuff, right?

Well let’s take a look at what’s so “bad” in these gospels that the early Church deemed them unfit for human consumption–especially since much of their content did not differ significantly from the canonical gospels. Let’s start with the Gospel of Thomas.

The Gospel of Thomas dates to between 60 and 140 AD. Many scholars believe the Gospel of John was written after the Gospel of Thomas and that much of John’s gospel was written to refute that of Thomas. The Gospel of Thomas was likely considered dangerous to the establishment of the early Church in that it really emphasized Jesus’ teaching that the Kingdom of Heaven is within you. It basically quoted Jesus as saying that God was not outside us, but inside us. That he (Jesus) was not special–that anyone could have what he had attained by recognizing their inner divinity (Namaste Jesus!).

Well this implies that to be a “Christian” one needs to follow a mystic path of direct connection with the God within–rather than to use priests and the church as a go-between to ask favors of a god-in-the-sky. Not a good thing if you are trying to establish a corporate church with ordained clerics as its salesmen. If people are taught that the Church and its clergy are unnecessary middlemen, it does not bode well for the collection plate.

In the Nag Hammadi manuscripts, the Gospel of Philip was bound together with the Gospel of Thomas. It contained much of the same mystic language, but what was probably even more problematic was that it contained evidence that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married! The whole idea of things such as virgin birth and religious figures who do not succumb to the temptations of the flesh furthers the idea that these people are “special.” If you want to emulate them, you must remain chaste/celibate. You can’t be truly “holy” and “human” at the same time.

But there’s an even more “dangerous” part of Philip’s gospel. Consider this passage:

And the companion of the Savior was Mary Magdalene. Christ loved Mary more than all the disciples, and used to kiss her often on her mouth. The rest of the disciples were offended by it and expressed disapproval. They said to him "Why do you love her more than all of us?" The Savior answered and said to them, "Why do I not love you like her? When a blind man and one who sees are both together in darkness, they are no different from one another. When the light comes, then he who sees will see the light, and he who is blind will remain in darkness.

Holy sh*t! Not only is Jesus “kissing her often on her mouth,” but he is implying that she is the only one of the apostles who “will see the light.” Mary Magdalene–a woman–the only one of the apostles who will see the light! No wonder the male-dominated Church wanted this put to the torch. But it wasn’t enough to try burning all evidence of this. The Church also began a whisper campaign about Mary being a prostitute to further erode any legitimacy she might have.

At this point, there can be little wonder why the Church tried to erase the Gospel of Mary Magdalene from history. Not only would this put her on equal footing with the male apostles, but it would further establish that Jesus considered her the most spiritually worthy of his followers.

The Gospel of Mary Magdalene dates to between 80 and 120 AD. Since the discovery of the Nag Hammadi library, two other fragments of the Gospel of Mary have been found. Unlike Philip’s gospel, Mary’s does not speak about her personal relationship with Jesus (although a good portion of it is missing). The core of it relates to Mary’s encounter with Jesus after the Resurrection. It was in this encounter that Jesus gave Mary his final teaching.

Let’s divert for a moment and look at just how important Mary Magdalene is in the life of Jesus. She was the only one who stood by Jesus during the crucifixion. All the men were busy hiding and trying to save their own skin. She was the one to whom Jesus revealed himself after the Resurrection. And she was the one to whom Jesus gave his final teaching. These three things are not disputed in any gospel. Add to that the possibility that she may have been his wife and, if not, was most certainly his “girlfriend” and the case can easily be made that she was the most important person in Jesus’ adult life.

So what about this “final teaching?” What did Jesus allegedly say upon revealing himself to Mary? Here’s what she had to say:

I saw the Lord in a vision and I said to him, “Lord, I saw you today in a vision.” He answered and said to me: “Blessed are you, that you did not waver at the sight of me. For where the mind is, there is the treasure.” I said to him, “So now, Lord, does a person who sees a vision see it through the soul or through the spirit?”

Jesus responds that the inner self is composed of soul, spirit, and mind, and visions are seen and understood in the mind. If you think this sounds a lot like Buddhism–you're right. Remember, no one has a copyright on the truth.

When Mary tries to relay this message to the other apostles, many don’t believe her. Andrew responds: “Say what you think concerning what she said. For I do not believe that the Savior said this. For certainly these teachings are of other ideas.”

Peter, Mary’s long-time rival, also chimes in: “Did he then speak secretly with a woman, in preference to us, and not openly? Are we to turn back and all listen to her? Did he prefer her to us?”

I believe this last statement by Peter encapsulates the attitude of the Church regarding the role of women and why the Gospel of Mary Magdalene was such heresy.

If you consider that the Council of Nicaea established a tradition of the Church doing everything it can to eliminate anything that would usurp its male-dominated power–you can easily see the roots of the inquisition, resistance to the Protestant reformation, and the Salem witch trials. Today the Catholic (Roman) Church continues to demand an unmarried priesthood and steadfastly refuses to allow women any positions of power within the Church.

What all of these so-called “Gnostic Gospels” document is that Jesus taught that God is not only without, but within. And that the path of the true seeker is to turn inward. Just some thoughts as we prepare to celebrate rebirth.

The Quantum Activist

I highly recommend the documentary The Quantum Activist (http://www.quantumactivist.com/) about Dr. Amit Goswami. His theory that consciousness, not matter, is the ground of being demonstrates that science and spirituality are but two sides of one coin. Follow one and you will find the other. Trust me, this will rock your world.

Zen Ox Herding

Heavily influenced by Taoism, the Zen Ox Herding poems are a parable for the journey to enlightenment–the Ox serving as a metaphor for the differentiated ego. I offer a reverently edited version of a new translation by Lewis Hyde for your amusement.

I:  Searching for the Ox

Alone in the deep woods, searching in darkness.

Flood-swollen rivers, mountains beyond mountains,

The trail endless and unchanging.

Bone-tired, heart-weary, the search seems hopeless.

II: Seeing the Traces

In the woods, along the riverbank, strange marks all around.

What has bent the sweet grass down just there?

The deepest canyons, the highest peaks–

Nothing can hide the imprint of the Ox.

III: Finding the Ox

The meadowlark sings, sitting on a branch.

Warm sun, light breeze, green willows by the river.

The Ox stands right there;

Where could it hide?

IV: Catching the Ox

He holds the rope with all his might,

The Ox is two-thousand pounds of old habit.

One moment it runs to the high meadows,

Then gets lost in fog-bound river bottoms.

V: Taming the Ox

Without the whip and rope near at hand,

The Ox will soon seek out the nearest muddy wallow.

But, care for it properly and it becomes gentle.

Following willingly, the rope gone slack.

VI:  Riding Home

Riding home on the back of the Ox, he is in no hurry.

Evening mist absorbs the flute tones.

Their harmony carries his heart to the horizon line.

Grass alone is not what keeps this Ox alive.

VII: Ox Forgotten

Arriving home, the Ox disappears.

He sits by himself, content.

His reverie does not bear the marks of time.

The rope and whip lie forgotten.

VIII:  Self and Ox Forgotten

Empty whip, empty rope, empty Ox, empty human being.

"The vast blue sky" is not at all the vast blue sky.

Think of snow falling on a blazing fire.

Just there the spirit of the ancient masters is fully present.

IX:   Back to the Beginning

Seeking the Source, the One True Origin: why all this hard work?

Better to stay at home as if ears and eyes had never opened.

He sits in the cabin. There is nothing to seek beyond the gate.

The streams flow and flowers open, vividly red.

X:  Entering the Village Bestowing Bliss

Barefoot, he walks into the villiage.

Dusty, spattered with mud, how broadly he grins!

He has no need of magic powers.

Near him the withered trees come into bloom again.