Thursday, September 27, 2018

Remembrance, heaven and the first theonoia.

Ever since my days in the monastery, when I took his name, I’ve been a devotee of St. Dismas. That classic interaction between the Crucified Christ and the Good Thief—Dismas says “Remember me when you come into your Kingdom” and Jesus responds “Today you will be with me in Paradise.”—the words “Remember me" still make me sit up and listen.

If “Staying with Suspension” has it correct, Contemplation, Enlightenment, humility and “having the mind of Christ are all a matter of remaining at what it calls the "first theonoia,” a place of pure, unanalyzed perception. Normally, we think of memory like it's a mental maneuver that fishes insights or experiences out of the file cabinet of who we used to be-- in the service of who we currently think we are. If such egotism is ultimately a mask we have to get rid of, "memory" has some limitations.

Aspiring to the first theonoia gives the Jewishness of Christianity’s origins a run for its money. Remembrance is absolutely pivotal to Judaism. The answer to the Passover question “Why is this night different from all other nights” begins with the words “we were slaves of Pharaoh in Egypt.” For Jews, Remembrance is a way of actualizing God’s saving potential, an act that gave their lives freedom and law and promise. The Scripture frequently says “Remember, O Lord, your people.” In psalm 25, the poet says “Remember not the sins of my youth.”

This all builds on a single assertion: What God fails to remember does not exist. And it broadens easily. When Dismas said “Remember me, when you come into your kingdom,” he was teaching us that “What the messiah fails to remember is not saved.”

But if past and future don’t exist, if the first theonoia is worth remaining at, the way we throw around the word “remember” needs to be workshopped. Taking everything Under the Influence has said about cognition into consideration, it makes sense to say “Remembering is a dismembering of the Self.

It follows from this that past and future are deconstructed too. The past and the future are about actualizing potential and being grateful. The only reason the passover meal and the eucharist claim to make the past present is to live in accord with God’s will right at this moment. The only reason the future is something to aspire to is because we want to hope in God’s providence, and be grateful for it, in the now. If we can’t do that, then our rumination about past and future become unreasonable attempts at control: we mull over the past and feel anxious about the future. We cultivate expectations about how life should be—sometimes, much to our own dismay, we even call those expectations themselves ‘hope' and it creates myriad resentments. Remembering where I came from, hoping for the future have become excuses for living in remorse and anxiety, for seeing the worst parts of my “self” hemming me in, in front and behind.

So remembrance is a dismembering of the self. But Remembrance, in Jewish thought, leads to heaven. Jesus response to Dismas was “Today, you will be with me in paradise.” Heaven is another concept that needs to be workshopped. In the post “Emptiness in the Life of God: Resurrecting a Concept," I’ve identified Non-being as heaven. It can also be God—whether we mean God as "personal deity", or God as “impersonal ground of being.” Hazrat Inayat Khan, the late 19th and early 20th century sufi teacher wrote "Non-existence Sings with the Song of the Harp. To Him we return.” In this case, Non-existence, which I have Identified with Heaven, is identified as personal—analogous to the higher power. Ultimately, the point is that heaven, at the very least, is living on resources that aren’t self—something bigger and more free than ego and attachment and desire. It’s Nonself, or the Soul, that gets the work done. Non-being, beyond the confines of an incarnation, is heaven.

There’s a Koan that addresses this: case 29 in the Hekiganroku, the second of three famous collections of Koans. It says “A monk asked Daizui “When the Kalpa fire flares up and the great cosmos is destroyed, I wonder, will ‘it’ perish or will it not perish?” Zui said, “it will perish.” The monk said “Then will it be gone with the other?” Zui said, "it will be gone with the other.”

Katsuki Sekida, editor of the collection of koans I work out of, processes this Koan as an understandable attempt to figure out what happens after we die. It is, in essence, three questions: first, it asks if we will be gone. Then it asks if we will be alone when we’re gone. And if we won’t, it asks what will happen to the others.

As is typical of Koans, that’s not all that’s happening. Remember that Koans collapse time. When Daizui answers “Will it be gone” by saying “it will be gone” he’s asking, in essence, why the self that is “us” isn’t gone already. When Daizui answers says it will be gone “with the other” he’s assuring us that “the beyond” is at least an experience of non-self, but we realize too that what we are, with the other, is gone. Nothing of “self or other, here or there" is left for us to cling to. The answer to the Koan, indeed, heaven itself, is the first theonoia. It’s either pure perception in the here and now, or it’s nothing.

If we take the theories of Under the Influence, the Jewish sense of remembering, or the work of Koans seriously, past and future cease to matter because all the potential of the present is actualized. This vision of Heaven accords with the four humble truths of Jesus, mentioned in last week’s post. If heaven is anything, it’s non-being. And the way to get there, in this life, is non-self and the Tenfold Way. When those teachings translate into actual, practical ways to remain at the first theonoia, then what Therese of Lisieux said is true: “All the way to heaven is heaven.” All that’s needed, I suppose, to wake me from my denial, is the deafening hush of one hand, clapping.

Thursday, September 20, 2018

Where we've been so far: The Basic Teachings of Under the Influence

Under the Influence hopes to impart the equanimity of the Messiah. With the Church, Under the Influence considers Christ to be a definitive revelation. If the Church should choose to claim exclusive rights to rectitude, however, Under the Influence will go quiet: when people know who they are, they can let others be a little bit right as well. When people know their liabilities, they dispense with attempts to convert others, and instead they're eager to troubleshoot their own denial.

Knowing the usefulness of their own tradition is, in the end, the very reason people of faith examine the resources of other traditions. Under the Influence reminds the Church of its own words: Nostra Aetate’s claim, for instance, that "The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in [Non Christian] religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. Indeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ "the way, the truth, and the life" (par. 2).  

In other words, if a teaching is the way, the truth and the life, that teaching is Christ, whether it comes from Buddha or Torah or Hanuman. This curiosity to know other faith traditions is an obligatory part of being a Catholic, but being Catholic is a help to salvation at best—by the Church's own admission: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation." CCC 847

This is no mere "tolerance:" rather, Under the Influence would have the Church join students of all traditions who have taken their seat at the feet of Wisdom. There may but one path for each of us, but there are certainly many paths for God. We are not Students of the Way until this tension renders us quiet. We have not heard Rabbouni’s voice until he speaks to each one of us alone, about each one of us alone. We are not Students of the Way until we’ve seen that Wisdom is equally accessible to all, and that we need the mirror of others to clearly see ourselves.

Among teaching tools for Wisdom, Koans—driven by paradox, as they are—these have pride of place. In a Koan, the Cosmic Consciousness wields creative tension like a sword: the Divine calls our own consciousness to expand. Koans do certain "transformative work:" they render all places “here,” make all distances nil and all times “now." They render all people “me,” and obscure the lines between hearing and feeling. They make all processes realized, and divorce stimulus from response. They unite opposites—and as such, heal the divisions in the human psyche that began in abstraction, continued in sin, and embedded themselves in cultural deludedness.

So far, this is what Under the Influence has discerned to be true:

God is a person-with-a-nature, not a person-with-a-self: God’s attributes are the closest thing he has to a self. I, too, am a person, not a self. My Ego is a false self. I wear an ego around town, the combined projection of the eight evil thoughts. Due to these mutually donned disguises, God and I are distant. I over identify with ego and attachment. Morality holds sway: some paths are holier than others, heaven above is a remote goal, just as hell below is a fear. I substitute examination for experience. I substitute beliefs for belief. As I move out of denial, through the dark night of the senses and the spirit, I become my true self more and more. In the healthiest of dualisms, we practice the presence of God. Christ has no body but ours, no hands but ours. In the healthiest of dualisms God perceives us through the body of Christ: we see Time, Desire, Reality Thought and Paradox, but through them God sees us. We realize that our “beliefs” about God are largely a system of blame, projection, dualism, superstition and egoism—and that was echoed in the culture: in its own dualism, in its projection of time into past and future, in its moralistic equation of humanity with its actions. We hoped there might be a way to stop abstracting, to cease acting out of the false self. God’s gaze entices us.

At first we asked for a bottom line. And we found an answer in the five pillars of Catholicism: Prayer, Service, Creed, Seasonal Awareness, and the Practice of the Presence of God. After a while, the bottom line became less important. It wasn’t because we’d obtained what we’d desired, but because both the desiring, and the person doing it, diminished in importance.

The Cross, the place of Suspension, is the first Theonoia. It is the logos: symbolized by the serpent, it was with God in the beginning, just in the coded messages of the prophets and the psalms. The Logos is the truth to which the Sacraments point: Though concealed, God is literally present in all creation.The logos asks that broken-heartedness be a permanent reality for us. Humility is the natural tendency to remain at the first theonoia—a place of pure perception once confined to contemplation—and the foundation of Christian enlightenment. Inhabiting suspension empties us of self, and our desire of attachment. God, once distant and accessible only in ecstasies, draws closer as our humility becomes permanent.

As we move from dualism to monism, God sheds his attributes, his self to become the ground of being. No paths are better or worse, they just are. Working out our purgatorial predicament, our disposition alternates between times of serenity, when we feel united to God, and times of anxiety, when we feel distant from him—but the changes aren’t up to us, and have little to do with our desire. As holiness grows, holiness becomes less of a merit badge, and consciousness of sin grows alongside our knowledge of God’s mercy. But we don’t interact with God as a person, the way we did when dualism held sway. Now God is as close as our breath: it’s us who live far from ourselves.

And that is how it was, in the beginning: God and humanity were one. Then it fragmented, thought about existing instead of just being. All life became abstraction.  People were given bodies to learn to return. God sent rabbouni to recapitulate all things, remake all creation in God’s image. His teachings all had the four Gospel Seals: impermanence, non-self, acceptance and interbeing. We were given the Humble Tenfold Way—so that we could gradually embody the lessons of the logos and the teachings of the Cross. And in the end, (perhaps after multiple lifetimes) in the breaking of the bread we see the body of Christ: the strangers we were to ourselves show themselves to have been Christ the whole time.

Divinization is just that, becoming God in unity with our true selves, the Christ within. When we saw it as the end of a moralistic journey, heaven seemed like a reward, where we, at best, sat on clouds with God. Eventually, perhaps after many lifetimes of Christ being reborn in us, we saw it as the end of a journey of humility: heaven was a merging of our own consciousness back into Cosmic Consciousness.

Though Wisdom bucks logic, some concepts support its work better than others. In pursuit of union with God and the Crucified Christ, then, Under the Influence presents these core teachings. Suffering is not understandable or controllable by logical constructs: as such, it’s the perfect mouthpiece of the Logos. However, Under the Influence makes bold to claim that, were the Cross to enumerate its core teachings, these would be them.



The 4 Humble Truths

(On the Doctrine of The Cross, Part 1 and 2)

All life is abstraction
All is in need of recapitulation
The Vehicle of recapitulation is the Body of Christ
The Way of the Body of Christ is the Humble Tenfold Way


The Humble Tenfold Way

(On the Doctrine of The Cross, Part 1 and 2)

You do what you want, but I remember these using this acronym: Practice Perfects In All Eating, So We Knead The Bread.


Humble prayer
Humble presence
humble intention
humble action
humble effort
humble speech
humble work
humble knowing
humble thinking
humble belief


The 5 Sense Organs of the Body of Christ

(On the Doctrine of The Cross, Part 1 and 2)


Monistically, all these things are Christ’s Real presence, union with a God and True-Self in naked reality. Dualistically they’re how God perceives us.  I remember them with the acronym "True Divinization Really Takes Presence"


Time
Desire
Reality
Thought
Paradox


The 4 Gospel Seals

(On the Doctrine of The Cross, Part 1 and 2)

All Christian teachings will agree with these principles. These are the “marks” of Christian Transformation.

Impermanence
Non-self
Acceptance
Interbeing


The 5 Pillars of Catholicism

(The Five Pillars of Catholicism)

These are the 5 things with which every Catholic has to contend. Whether to contend with them is not optional, if we would call ourselves Catholic. How we contend with them is up to us.

Prayer
Service
Creed
Seasonal awareness
Practice of the Presence of God


Spiritual Stages

(On Trendy Brunch Spots and The Dark Night of the Self,
Defining Terms and Filling in Gaps)

Denial
Dark Night of the Senses
Dark Night of the Spirit
Suspension
Dark Night of the Self
Heaven/Divinization

The Theonoias

(Staying with Suspension: Christian thoughts on Wisdom, Cognition and Enlightenment)

1st theonoia: No difference between God and who I AM.  Non theorizing about either of them.  A state of pure perception

2nd Theonoia: Everything gets names and Labels.  Man gets a "garment of Flesh" or an ego. The False Self believes it, and the world, are permanent.  The True Self knows everything "Inter-is" in everything else, that the whole world is just patterns of energy, and people are just patterns of energy wrapped around consciousness.

3rd Theonoia: We string our labels together to get theories and physical laws and rules.


Self:

(On removing self from knowing,
Permanence, Self and Christianity)

Because all life is abstraction, self is synonymous with ego.  It can be, by degrees, healthier and unhealthier.  It is an abstracted identity, the net effect of the eight evil thoughts.  The eight evil thoughts are gluttony, greed, sloth sorrow, lust, wrath, vanity and pride.

The evil thoughts are, first and foremost, expressions of original sin--in that sense, they're universal, more a cause for compassion than anything else.  And only problematic if we willfully and habitually follow them.

Thursday, September 13, 2018

Raising a Glass: Parting with Ego, Celebrating Engagement

Three years ago, when dating Jackie was new, and I lived in an apartment owned by the Eastern Rite Catholic Church next door, she and I fell into a pattern that would become the norm. It’s the “I get up at 7 to write, she sleeps till noon” pattern. She and I have never lacked time for ourselves: I’m a former monk, who used to rise at 2 in the morning to precede Vigils with coffee and writing. She’s a former Amazon employee who courted shift-work disorder—her eight hour work day began at 10 at night. On any given night, when I start getting tired, she breaks out her “me time” coloring book. On any given morning, including this one, coffee gets made and Under the Influence gets written while she sleeps.

I say all this as preface: I've been writing my way, for as long as we've dated, through a transition in my relationship with self.  I've used poems to name its selfishness.  I've written whole tomes on its gradual expansion.  I've gotten indications of what giving it up would look like.  Our growing commitment is as much a story of ego renunciation as it is anything else.

Three years ago, in any case, knowing me to be a bit of a wordsmith, Jackie bought me a magnetic poetry set. I find them generally limited in their ability to stimulate the hoped-for creativity, but there was one morning back then that I, while coffee was brewing and my new sleepy girlfriend was on my mind, pieced together this verse:

“Remember your heart surrounds all universes. You are never less than vast.” The little verse seemed unreasonably profound, given my limited word-choice and compared to my usual total absence of pre-coffee insights. Despite not really knowing what it meant, I kept it. It has remained, despite several moves, on my refrigerator ever since.

Last June, Jackie and I emptied the refrigerator of any food that would spoil and hopped on a plane bound for Dublin, Ireland. My father and his wife live there—Pop is a choir director, my step mom a vocal coach. They live, quite literally, across the street from downtown Dublin’s St. Stephen’s Green, in a historic home that would cost thousands of Euro per month to rent, were it not part of his compensation.

We’d planned a week of tooling around Dublin, with a two-day booking for just the two of us in the suburb called Dun Laoghaire, and a mildly posh hotel. We weren’t just “poised to have good fun.” On every level, and for two reasons, the stakes were higher. For one thing, Jackie’s deceased father had always wanted to take his daughter to Ireland, the land of her ancestors. Also, we’d been talking for a year about the possibility of getting married. I spent about a year saving money for a ring, trying to figure out her ring size, figuring out which to commit to, of the several she said she liked. Sure, we were planning it, and I was planning for it to happen in Ireland, but within that, spontaneity was in order.

When we got to the hotel in Dun Laoghaire, we decided we’d end each night in the hotel pub, with a round or two to celebrate the day. Neither of us were particularly given to drinking or bar-culture. But we'd met in a bar—the Chicago Bear, near midway in Chicago—so one night, after a nice supper in town, we went out on the sparsely populated pub’s vacant patio. Without ceremony—I didn’t kneel, or anything—I asked Jackie to marry me. She said yes.

The engagement trip was perfect—and it’ll be a good story we’ll get to tell for the rest of our lives. Our engagement also means, interestingly enough, that I’m marrying my guru. I wasn’t prepared, that much is certain, for the strength with which that would later hit home.

Some time ago, I made a request of All-Things-Transcendent. It’s one of the few times I am absolutely sure that one of my thoughts had counted, not simply as mental noise, but as prayer. I’ve always been terrified of my ego, in a way that earlier chapters of my life have addressed through overuse of alcohol—not to mention all kinds of manipulative attempts to get my fragile ego’s needs met. Having become, lately, fed up with such constant focus on myself, I faced the statues of Buddha, Hanuman and Jesus on my puja table and made a request: I asked them to help me to cope with my Ego. My run-ins with my false-self began at 18, and now I'm 38, still freak out when it registers that I wear a mask with people. I asked my triad of enlightened guides to help me fully accept my own brokenness. It’s true, I didn’t want ego to mess up my own life, but still less did I want it negatively effecting Jackie’s.

The Gospel and the Dharma colluded with the universe to respond. It took a form I initially didn’t like. I started noticing that I was throwing the weight of my own selfishness around. All over the place. This could be as simple as needing to get past Jackie in the kitchen, and getting annoyed when she didn’t move. “Having a need, and expecting people to know about it without voicing it” is a classic move of my cranky false-self. Each time it happened, I noticed it. I’m gradually becoming more conscious of the need to speak gently. Another frequent stop was “I feel like I’m bearing all the responsibility for something, and I expect you to share it without talking to you about it.” We split the cost of things much more lately, and I've learned to ask for that in a way that minimizes pressure, but at first it was “I’ve been paying X alone for years, and I need help.” Never mind the fact that she pays a number of bills for the both of us too. My ego is pretty adept at ignoring evidence that unseats its entitlement. I was terrified, and it was appalling.

Even without considering Jackie: the voice that objects "She's not affirming me enough" is just a way of deflecting my attention and the blame for my own broken-heartedness, for the tensions of being formed by the logos. Maintaining that tension (in my own life) is my responsibility. I ran from it a bit too much at first. One day, though, I was washing my hands in the bathroom of a Chili’s—the restaurant where many of our relational insights occur, it seems— and it struck me that all of my recent clashes-with-self were the universe delivering on its promise. Before they can be taken from me, my deficiencies have to become as visible to me as they are to others.

When all of this clicked—why I’d been so confronted with myself, and what the universe was doing—I felt I owed Jackie an apology. One Saturday I sat her down—I was wearing the “serious face” way before she was awake enough to deal with it—and I said “I owe you an apology. I spend all of this time on my stupid blog, talking about how illusory 'self' is—I make all this noise about how the past and future don’t exist, that the present is all we have. But as soon as something comes along that I’m attached to, it’s 'I want X, and you never do Y.’ That’s not fair to you: because who am I? How constructive is my attachment to that desire? I’m so busy offloading my egotistical crap on to you, even as I'm not asking myself how I deal with ego and desire in the present moment. Well, I feel like a hypocrite, and I suck. And I’m sorry.”

Some might say, “Jesus, Josh, that’s a pretty heady way to pick apart an argument. Does conflict resolution always have to include such blatant nods to the Dharma?” My response is “Remember, I’m a big nerd. So, um, heck yeah it does.” Ms. Jackie, by the way, cultivates a less intellectual spirituality, but doesn’t hate what she knows to be my spiritual tendencies: much more than I do, she has the patience of Job.

We’ve talked a bit about our vows. We’ll most likely write our own. I haven’t figured out what I want to say yet, but I’ve told her I can at least promise her this: my ego will not run our marriage. The only “outside influence” I want in our relationship is the benevolent third-will that brought us together in the first place—that voice that isn’t mine or hers, but whose ideal for our relationship forms us both. I know I’ll promise to keep my ears open to what it’s trying to teach me.

All of life is a big experiment in what scientific researchers call “the expectancy effect.” What we’re looking for, says the expectancy effect, we generally find. Popular culture usually conflates hope with expectation, but hope is Egoless—the assumptions that rule our interactions are, all of them, eventually harmful— to the exact degree that they don’t square with reality. Expectation is what makes relationships hard, and scientific experiments biased.

I say this because, routinely, the way I look at Jackie is the way she appears. If I am looking at her without acknowledging that ego is coloring my vision, she seems to me to be full of desires and preferences that grate on the nerves for not squaring with mine. If I am looking at her in a way that’s mindful of the distortions of my false-self, the differences grate on me less.

There’s a third option, but I’ll wait to talk about that. For now, suffice to say that the expectancy effect is the way projection works: “My intention’s like glasses that make everybody look like me.”

I’d like to talk a bit about the ways I’ve been able to take responsibility for eschewing my own assumptions. At the outset, an admission: I’ve not had an earth-shattering, spiritual paradigm-shift—or an altered state of consciousness in prayer—for at least a decade. When I talk about growing awareness of spiritual realities, I’m talking fundamentally about processes of slow-reveal. I get pieces here and there. Sometimes they come together—and maybe I level up, but only slightly. The drama’s largely gone out of the spiritual life for me, and that’s ok: it just means that watching the face of God for an eye-twitch is about as interesting as watching the linoleum curl.

Here are some of the pieces that have been lately coming together. In the midst of the clashes I’ve had with ego lately, Ram Dass said something that struck me on a heart-level. He said “You don’t have to listen. You don’t have to try. You just have to be together, and it will all happen.” At the time I was so constantly being bombarded by anxious run-ins with my own selfishness that I clung to this like Titanic passengers do life-preservers. I did all the silly things, like go to the refrigerator and write it on the dry erase board. It was a paradigm that didn’t turn on my own, shoddy efforts, and I needed it desperately.

Jackie and I, on the day of our engagement
I’ve been actively wondering what living would look and feel like if something other than ego ran my life. Driving to work recently, I was listening to an audio book by a man named “Sadhguru.” From a very early age, altered states of consciousness and a variety of samadhi experiences simply began happening to him. He didn’t seek them, they just happened. He says of himself, in a way that manages not to sound egotistical, that he learned the spiritual life completely from experience—that he relies on no guru or particular religious philosophy. To an extent, though his categories are generally Eastern, I trust that he’s telling the truth, that he has learned his lessons from experience. He recounted a spiritual experience in which the boundaries of his self expanded to include the visible world. I was in my car when I heard it, on South Chicago’s 103rd street, near the end of my morning commute. As Sadhguru described his experience, I looked at the traffic, the street, its lights and the horizon, and I thought “What if they’re all me?” For just a second, they were. The message on my fridge had proven true, if only for a moment. “Remember your heart surrounds all universes. You are never less than vast." I had had a brief experience of peace, of what total non-opposition to the world would feel like. Then the car in front of me stopped fast and I snapped back into normal consciousness. I’ve tried to access that space again, and the trying gets in the way of reuniting with it. Sadhguru’s “altered states of consciousness” happened without his working for them. And I’ve long since learned I can’t manipulate providence. As that insight sinks in, if my “self” is becoming larger and larger, I’m trying less and less to know that its happening or cling to the journey’s insights.

There are times, when I am at my most spiritually attuned, that I’ve looked at Jackie, and haven’t see anyone. Sure, her consciousness is present, but her body, and the set of desires that make up her “false self” are nowhere to be found. Surely she’s present to my eyes, but I’m present to her with something other than my eyes. At those times, she is, at most, a mirror of my own selfishness. That is, she’s only solid or permanent to the degree that I’m bouncing my unreconciled desires and drives off of her. Like any insight, or like unfamiliar saviors breaking bread after talking on the road, those insights disappear as soon as they’re beheld. Only if I were more consistently egoless could I sustain that mode of seeing things.

But perhaps even egoless existence could not sustain spiritual awareness. Perhaps we’re all vehicles of higher forces like the Holy Spirit, like the Gospel and the Dharma and whatever spiritual powers of which Ram decides you’d be a useful conduit. If I am blessed with multiple lifetimes, it may take that long for me to be as truly detached from spiritual realities as I claim to be from material ones. Then, perhaps, spiritual insights will be like the clouds—the ones I see out my window even now, as I write—they’ll come and go, like everything else, and I’ll let them.

With regard to my life with Jackie, there’s one last stop to make: one last insight, and it belongs to Maharaj-ji. It came to me, as so many of his insights do, through Ram Dass. Ram Dass was complaining to Maharaj-ji about the political state of the world—but I’m getting ahead of myself—for a moment, let’s check back in with Jackie.

One day, Jackie and I had the air-mattress set up in the living room (in the summer, our in-window air conditioner is only effective enough to cool the front room. Our bedroom is a sweaty place to sleep indeed.) I woke up briefly, and looked at Jackie, smoking her e-cig and playing video games on the couch. Then Maharaja-ji’s advice to Ram Dass—responding to comments about the world’s imperfections—they were the loudest thoughts ringing in my ears “Can’t you see?” Maharaja-ji asked, “Can’t you see that it’s all perfect?”

I looked at the couch, and in a brief moment—in my mind’s eye—I saw a sequence of images: first, I saw Jackie and I sitting on the couch. She was just sitting on her typical end of the couch, doing her thing. I was sitting at mine, but inside of me I could see my whole system of egotism and desire trying to reach out for her, depriving both of us of peace. I was busy with inner-grasping Second, I saw us both—still sitting on the couch. But this time my ego and desires were calm. Our images appeared like grey clouds, and each cloud had a locus of consciousness inside it.

I knew, of course, not to get hung up on the images. Even Isaiah, seeing heavenly visions of the temple, knew them to be temporary. Hammering home the way imagery was facsimile at best, he said “this was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of God.” Feelings, in my case, were better indicators: the emotional tone of the first image had been anxious and conflicted. The second image felt much different. It was totally even, totally peaceful. Jackie and I were still ourselves, each of us, but we were unified—no more serene for being together, no less serene for being separate points of consciousness.

As I drifted back off to sleep, I heard Maharaja-ji in my head again: “Can’t you see? Can’t you see it’s all perfect?” The words flashed through my mind, and the experience was over: just a little taste of something larger, that’s all the cosmos wanted me to have.

I awoke, the next morning, and egoic consciousness had reasserted itself. We two were back to our old selves, bumping into each other in our tiny kitchen, slowly going nuts with claustrophobia. But perhaps I’d just fallen back into my old habits of projecting my self onto other, unsuspecting points of consciousness. I don’t know.

And ultimately it doesn’t matter. We’re engaged.  When Jackie responded to my question, a small vial of her father's cremains hung around her neck.  We were engaged in the country of our ancestors--they were silently present with the trip's every lifted glass.  We’ll have a small wedding when we can afford it. We just have to be together, and all that needs to happen—despite the roadblocks of my egotism—will happen. We’ve got forever, after all. The hope that it gives me is full of presence and clarity and peace. It’s true, there is no past. And in the end, anyway, always is swallowed by now.

Thursday, September 6, 2018

On the Doctrine of the Cross: Part 2

In last week’s post of dreadful-boring title “On the Doctrine of the Cross: Part 1,” Under the influence attempted to say what taking up our cross looks like, not in the illogical terms of Koans, not in the symbols of parables, but plainly. It was with a certain trepidation that I undertook the task…however, when one notices that the Apostles Creed and Nicene Creeds are a summary, not of the core teachings of Christ, but of what the Church believes aboutChrist and itself, the need is clear. So, taking a catechetical framework from the disciples of buddha—who rank among the other-christs with whom my thinking resonates most deeply—Under the Influence named what it thought would count as “The Four Humble Truths.” Longer descriptions are available in that post, but in brief, they are “life is abstraction,” “all is in need of recapitulation,” “The Solution is the Body of Christ” and “The Humble Tenfold Way.” The Tenfold Way, in short, are the different aspects of the humility that enabled Christ to accept suffering and death.

Again, with the help of Shakyamuni’s friends, Under the Influence notices that there’s more. Today we should talk about "The Five Sense Organs of the Body of Christ” and “The Four Gospel Seals.” Eventually, I feel another classic Under the Influencelist coming on, but each will be prefaced slightly, to get as complete a look at the whole elephant in the room as possible.

The "Five Sense Organs of the body of Christ" is an idea that grows out of the more non-dual aspects of the Christian Tradition. Keep in mind that Christianity is an incarnational religion, and incarnations are dualist by nature. That said, God’s name is “I AM,” and his spirit renews and sustains all creation-- our ultimate destiny is Divinization because Christianity accommodates more monistic views of God as well. Posts such as “On Suspension: Holding Non-duality Together” talked about Br. Lawrence of the Resurrection’s "Practice of the Presence of God.” Quite simply, this is paying non-forceful attention to the fact that all of creation, and every responsibility, is an effort, on God’s part, to be with us. The post “A Revised View of Time: Christian Reincarnation Revisited” mentioned Therese of Lisieux’s doctrine that “Christ has no body, now, but yours.” Combined with the practice of the Presence of God, such a doctrine of "alter-christus” does as much as can be done to flex Christianity’s underused monistic muscles.

Just as Therese and Br. Lawrence tried to awaken our own passive volition, our own gentle attention to the truth, The "Five Sense Organs of the Body of Christ" attempt to emphasize the Divine intention constituting the other side of the effort. That’s one aspect of it: for lack of a better image, these things are how the Triune Godhead perceives the world. Jesus historical body, the visible body of Christ that is his wounded Church, the mystical body of Christ that includes all people, known or unknown, who are dear to Christ’s heart—all of these “images” describe part of the whole. And, just as the doctrine of concomitance says receiving the Lord’s Eucharistic body is receiving his blood as well, I would suggest that seeing one part of the Body of Christ is to see the whole Christ. Christ, when asked to show the disciples the Father, said “He who has seen me has seen the Father.” As was stated in “Ecclesiology and Ego, Trinity and Transformation,” the doctrine of Perichoresis, which talks about the cooperation of the members of the trinity, explains why the members of the Trinity are visible in each other, In the same way, the many different “aspects” of the body of Christ are merely microcosms of the whole. To put a modern spin on it, the whole body of Christ, like energy, cannot be created or destroyed. This requires a bit of nuance, that we’ll talk about later—Christ was begotten, not created, but also his death wasn’t fake in any way. But the “Transmutation of Energies” is a helpful idea from Tantric Buddhism. It says that life and death, sin and virtue, up and down: these aren’t opposites as much as different forms of the same energy. This isn’t intended to undermine the reality of Christ’s incarnation, suffering and Death, as Docetism did, but might help explain the cycle of Birth, Death and Resurrection. The “Five Sense organs of the Body of Christ" are Time, Desire, Reality, Thought and Paradox. As we talk, we’d do well to keep in mind that all of the “Sense Organs of the Body of Christ” are microcosms of the whole Body of Christ. Let’s talk about each of them:

Time: Time is the first sense organ of the body of Christ. In “A Revised View of Time: Christian Reincarnation RevisitedUnder the Influence asserted that time isn’t linear, it’s a circular double helix. The post said that time is Christ’s Body, and Christ’s Body is time. Christ’s historical existence was a microcosm of the whole, so as to show us that our historical existence is similar.

Desire: Owing to imprecise distinctions, desire gets a bad rap in the spiritual world, so let’s make our distinctions razor sharp. “Desire” is Christ. “Ego" and “Attachment” are not, though. So the Humble Tenfold Way mentioned in last week’s post, along with "cultivating detachment” are absolutely pivotal in exonerating desire. Clear of ego and attachment, all desire does what Christ did on the Cross. From his crucified state of suspension, he said “I thirst.” When we’ve heard the Gospel with the ear of our hearts, all of our desires are united and at rest in the one desire to be Divinized, to merge back into cosmic consciousness.

Reality: The post “Staying with Suspension: Christian Thoughts on Wisdom, Cognition and Enlightenment” said that the core of both Contemplation and Enlightenment (understood as the permanent humility of the Crucified, or of Benedict’s 12th step) is remaining at the “First Theonoia” of pure perception. This is reality: a pure, unlabeled and unexamined view of things as they are. The Taoist Term for it is “Pu” meaning “unworked wood, inherent quality, simple.” So—to paraphrase the thought of Thich Nhat Hanh—when Christ took bread, said “This is my body” and broke it for the students of the Way, he was speaking plainly of Reality.

Thought: All thought, when emptied of self and clinging, is, as it were, gravitationally drawn toward the first theonoia. So thought as a natural capacity is a neutral tool. When ego and attachment get ahold of the tool, it alienates us from our true nature, that’s united with God. What St. Paul thought he was using as a metaphor for the Church was actually a non-dual perception of reality, and it is so because he thought humbly. Humble thought is one of the ten dispositions of the Humble Tenfold Way. Fully embodying the Tenfold Way, we live in accord with our true nature as Other-Christs.

Paradox: Up is down, and down is up. Death is life, and life is death. Christ has died, Christ is risen. The Logos made Flesh, with the Father in the beginning, will come again. And now is the acceptable time, when all this is taking place. Accepting the reality of Paradox is an important part of letting the Church’s God-Concept flex both its dualistic or remote muscles as well as its monistic, immanent muscles. Short of that, we’ll allow logic to become what the Wisdom of Solomon called “a prison not made of iron.”


It’s a truism in Judaism to say “What God does not remember does not exist.” Under the influence would not only say “What Christ does not remember is not redeemed,” it would go even further and say “What God does not perceive cannot be Humble” These five things are all ways that God perceives us. If we, in return remember him, remain with Jesus at the first theonoia, we’ll commune with him to the greatest extent possible in this life.

It only remains for us to ask about the Cross: what, indeed, are the core principles it was trying to teach us? What is its message? Let’s outline what Under the Influence calls “The Four Gospel Seals.” When these are articulated simply enough, they’d be four teachings with which every more complex doctrine must cooperate in order to be counted as Christian. Here they are:

Impermanence: All things are impermanent, all reality composite. This goes hand-in-hand with God’s providence. Jesus, speaking of the lilies of the field, says “Not even Solomon in all his glory clothed himself like one of these. But if God so clothes the grass in the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the furnace, how much more will He clothe you?” Isaiah 40:7 says "The grass withers, the flower fades, when the breath of the Lord blows upon it; surely the people are grass.” In Matthew’s account of the Gethsemani experience, Jesus lives into his acceptance of this from the moment he said “if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; yet not what I want but what you want."

Non-self: The “willing not to will” that Jesus cultivated in Gethsemani is the core of his teaching to his disciples. “If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me. For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will save it.” Non-self isn’t even an excuse for anxious repression of thoughts of self. Non-self is a radical acceptance of a present moment in which our attachments will be paraded in front of us until they no longer disturb us. As that happens, Jesus will hear his life coming out of our mouths when we say “Now my soul is troubled. And what should I say—“Father, save me from this hour”? No, it is for this reason that I have come to this hour.”

Acceptance: There’s an old saying “Suffering is pain that you have not yet accepted.” One might say “It’s fine to sit under the bodhi tree and troubleshoot self-inflicted suffering, but when you sit under the fig tree and wait for the mob with swords and clubs, that’s another matter.” Jesus and Buddha, however, are ultimately alike: nothing, for either of them—neither an angry mob nor a triad of Mara’s daughters--could change the fact that now is an acceptable time. Jesus suffered consciously, with eyes on his own heart—he was not docile--that might have proven him mentally absent from his sufferings. He wasn’t willful—self-will is a steam that eventually runs out, and the messiah would surely have leaned on his omnipotence eventually, as the wicked thief advised. Jesus accepted everything willingly and attentively. The Big Book of Alcoholics Anonymous has an oft-highlighted phrase in its dog-eared pages. “Acceptance” it says “is the answer to all of my problems today.” I read it and it solved part of my psyche’s puzzle. Now I know it’s the teaching of Jesus. It was the christ of contemplation lifted up, drawing me to himself and revealing his wisdom.

Most would say that Jesus' words from the Cross were added for effect by the gospel writer. Intellectually, I have no doubt it’s true. Intuitively, my experience of Lectio Divina renders me less certain. When a person's spent their entire lives poring over a text, its words can serve to spontaneously name emotions. For Jesus, “Eli, Eli, Lama sabachtani” could have been as spontaneous an answer to the Koan of his suffering as Chao Chou’s phrase “the oak tree in the front yard” was to the Koan “What is the meaning of Bodhidharma coming from the west?” Jesus words could very well be a proof of the quality of his attention.

Interbeing: This term was coined by Thich Nhat Hanh: it’s his simple re-working of the buddhist teaching “interdependent co-arising of cause and effect.” It calls all causality into question, for one thing. Everything’s just happening. That it’s happening because of other things is debatable at best, outright untrue at worst. For another thing, it’s why the smallest, insignificant action can be part of living consciously. Everything is contained in everything else. This is also the teaching of the Jesus portrayed in John’s latter chapters. “If you have seen me,” says Rabouni, you have seen the Father.” Later, he says “I am in the Father and the Father is in me.” Interbeing is perichoresis—the non-conflicting interrelatedness of the members of the trinity—overflowing heaven and pervading all creation. "I in them and you in me, that they may become completely one” so that the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.” Christ is in the stranger, in the breaking of the bread, in the experience of “things as they are” flowing out of contemplation. The working out of our purgatorial predicament—doing our purgatory here on earth—is the “bread to eat that you do not know” which is the will of our Father in Heaven.


When we meet God's gaze in the 5 Sense Organs of the Body of Christ, the act of bearing our own cross teaches us "The Four Humble Truths", "The Humble Tenfold Way", and the "The Four Gospel Seals."  If Jesus speaks in the symbolic language of parables, it's to lay bare what's been hidden since the foundation of the earth.  If Jesus speaks through Koans, it's in the illogical, coded silence of our own DNA.  And if the teaching of this post (and its predecessor) is true, then Christ is speaking plainly, and not in figures of speech.  All salvation hangs on cooperation with it!  Behold the Cross, indeed.