PS re Campbell's views about whether or not the Bible can teach you how to be a good person - he DID say Maybe it gives you a few hints, but the Bible also tells you to kill everyone in Canaan, right down to the mice.

I'm sure by those "few hints" Campbell meant the Beatitudes etc ... but what concerns him is the vast weight of conflicting messages the Bible presents. HOw can "Thou shalt not kill" become "March right out there and slaughter every single one those horribly depraved Goddess-loving Canaanites and steal their land and property!" or "Go right ahead and stone that poor women to death for being raped within the city limits" etc???

Those actions and laws were surely the work of certain men! They certainly do NOT smack of "Divine and spiritual revelation" - at least in my book!

And if I'm wrong, well ... I'll stick with the less "Divine" of "revelations", thanks.

daylia

Like I said, if you don't read the Bible as an ongoing process of development and narrative theology, you miss the forest for the trees. . .

There also the issue of Christ updating the covenant and its terms . . .

An interpretive principle re. Scripture is that it was written in the mode of knowing of the writer, and one can presume the sense of God was refracted likewise. IOW, it's only natural that Jews from 3,500 years ago would be culturally similar to others from that period, but the Light they saw they shared, and that Light grew through the years, culminating in the birth of the Light Itself.

I've enjoyed Joseph Campbell's programs with Bill Moyers and have seen all of them at least a dozen times, but he is a Hindu and a Jungian and I am a Christian, though not altogether uninformed by Campbell's views.

Who were the Canaanites and Amalekites? Where would they calibrate according to Hawkin's scale?

http://www.specialtyinterests.net/hyksos.html

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qamorite.html

caritas,

mm <*)))))))><

So, to make war on your neighbours - no matter who they are, which theology they may or may not embrace or which "level" they may "calibrate" at - to slaughter them, forcibly evict them from hearth and home and steal their land and possessions ... THIS is any sort of "Divinely inspired ordinance"???

I REALLY DOUBT IT!!!

Mystic Michael, the material at your second link is a great example of how the cold-blooded, heartless and myopic faculty of human Reason was (and still is) misused to "justify" even the most tragic and misguided of human choices and behavior.

And it's so discouraging to note that the situation in the Middle East has not changed one iota in 5000 years or more! The names and faces, the booty and methods of slaughter have changed, but the godawful song remains the same, does it not?

So much for holding up the Christian end of Jesus' new covenant!

For some inexplicable reason I have this old song by America's most musical mailman, John Prine, running through my head as I type this. If I may share it with you ...

... now some folks they call me a cow'rd
Cuz I left her at the drive-in that night
But I'd ruther have names thrown at me
Than to fight for a thing that ain't right.

I used to sleep at the foot of Old Glory
And awake in the dawn's early light
But much to my surprise when I opened my eyes
I was a victim of The Great Compromise

If the collective consciousness of the ancient Hebrews, or the Christians - or anyone else - had reached the level of Love, there is absolutely no way they could have slaughtered or condemned anybody - no matter which "god" may or may not have "told" them to do what, no matter how "logical and reasonable" the excuses may appear to be.

I, for one, am very sick and tired of listening to the same old bloody music. I'm more than ready for a complete and total change of key! And if Hawkins' work can help any of us, even in some small way to bring that about, well ... all the more Power to him!

Love takes no position, and thus is global, rising above separation. Love focuses on the goodness of life in all its expressions and augments that which is positive -- it dissolves negativity by recontextualizing it, rather than by attacking it. (Power vs Force, pg 90)

Amen to that

daylia

daylia,

I was watching some soldiers relating their story of how grateful the Iraqi people were almost everywhere they went and I saw pictures of children with c-rations and smiles on theor faces.

I also saw the prison cells of Sadaam's torture chambers where 300,000 were murdered and parents were made to watch their children tortured and men
saw their wives violated before their eyes.

Is there any defense for Sadaam's regime and the senseless slaughter? Can you see the humanitarian mission we are engaged in there? We are simply there to liberate those who have suffered under this tyranny.

I have alot of feelings about that, and so does God, I believe. This whole thing has torn me up for three years and I worry about a younger brother who is willing to give his life to protect
freedom. It's only human to be horrified by war, but I can see the necessity. I cannot do that on reason alone, but only through the mind of Christ.

caritas,

mm <*)))))><

Michael, I don't want to engage in a useless debate about the deplorable situation in Iraq, or in America today. My heart goes out to you and your brother ... and everyone involved, but MOST particularly the innocent Iraqi people.

Jesus taught that "My Kingdom is not of this world". There is no way in my heart of hearts that I could ever accept the idea of Jesus giving the go-ahead to any kind of slaughter, or endorsing war for any "reason" whatsoever!

Why did He absolutely refuse to lead his own beloved, miserable and oppressed people in a military revolt against the Romans, as they'd beseeched Him to do? Because He is the Lord of Love, Life and Peace, NOT Hate, Death and War! Jesus Loves us ALL unconditionally, and Redeems, Guides and Heals all who ask.

People like Hitler and Saddam included (as I'm sure you know). Even though this idea is VERY hard to assimilate, logically speaking.

daylia

So, to make war on your neighbours - no matter who they are, which theology they may or may not embrace or which "level" they may "calibrate" at - to slaughter them, forcibly evict them from hearth and home and steal their land and possessions ... THIS is any sort of "Divinely inspired ordinance"???

You haven't really heard what I said about narrative theology and "knowing in the mode of the knower," have you?

Very well, then. Forget the Old Testatment. Start with Jesus and the New Testament. While you're quoting him to Michael, you might also note that he taught, "thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven." Jesus wasn't just concerned about the afterlife.

As for the morality of war, we have plenty other threads on this topic that discuss Iraq and the just-war theory. We also have a thread on the Morality and Theology forum on whether non-violence is a Christian absolute. Be my guest and let your opinions be known on any of them. I'd like to see this one remain forcused on the merits of Dr. Hawkins' writings/teachings and the relation to Christianity. If you'd like to process Joseph Campbell more, start a thread in the morality and theology forum. I know it's not unusual for discussions to meander, but this one is starting to go all over the place.

daylia, I'm not sure what you're looking for here. You lash out, imply that we probably don't know what you're talking about, then when you're rebutted (e.g., changing the Bible), you move on to another topic, lashing out more. What's really going on here? If Hawkins and Campbell answer your questions and satisfy your spiritual needs, that's really fine with me and I'm sure with the other "regulars" here, too.

Well Phil, I have neither the time or expertise to engage in a complete discourse about Middle Eastern history, patriarchy/matriarchy or the history of the Bible here. While I have delved quite extensively into these areas in my formal university studies and on my own, such topics require at least a lifetime of research and study in order to be presented accurately, imo. I'm no historian, and so I'm certainly in no position to do that!

For any historical or philosophical position I'd take or make, experience has proven there'd likely be at least 10 more brought up here to counter it! Such is the nature of intellectual, philosophical, theological debate. While my son was in university studying philosophy, we started calling it "doin the neuron dance" And we don't engage in it anymore, for reasons that include both Love and Health.

Besides, spiritually speaking (not to be confused with religiously, politically or economically speaking) these topics are really quite irrelevant, imo. Whether or not you should kill someone may be arguable while operating from the levels of Reason or below, but once the higher levels of consciousness begin to be experienced the question itself just disappears.

To quote from Hawkins' Power vs Force again (pg 280-281)

quote:

An individual's consciousness is determined by the principles to which one is committed. To maintain progress in consciousness, there can be no wavering fom principle, or the individual will fall back to a lower level. Expediency is never an adequate justification. If it's wrong to kill another human being, that principle can allow no exceptions, regardless of how emotionally appealing a construct may be used to justify the exception ...

Whether or not it's wrong to kill other human beings may be a moral dilemma at lower levels of consciousness; at higher levels the very question is ridiculous. Conventional morality is, therefore, only a provisional substitute for a faculty of higher consciousness. Moralism, a by-product of duality, becomes insignificant as the consciousness level rises through the 500's, and is irrelevant at the level of 600 [Peace]

(emphasis mine)

Now, THAT is why Jesus did not lead his people in violent revolt against their oppressors!

What's "really going on here" is I wanted some intelligent opinions about Hawkins' book, (preferably from someone who has at least made the effort to read it before commenting on it, though!)

Plus, I have been rather enjoying discussing these matters with people who hold a Christian rather than a "new-age" or metaphysical viewpoint, for once! Something about Jesus' face atop this page kept drawing me back ...

But discussing spirituality, "levels of consciousness", religion and morality does tend to take me far afield though ... so please accept my apologies for branching out as I tried to explain my views.

Hawkins and Campbell are helpful to me, yes -- but so are Jesus, and Buddha, and Huna, and Qigong, and Mother Teresa, and Native American spirituality, and on and on and on ... and hey, have you ever noticed what Wisdom can be gleaned even just by reflecting on the wondrous Mysteries of Nature, right there in the mirror, right there outside your door every day!?!

In any case, thanks again for being here and hosting this discussion, and Blessings to all

daylia

For any historical or philosophical position I'd take or make, experience has proven there'd likely be at least 10 more brought up here to counter it! Such is the nature of intellectual, philosophical, theological debate.

Right, but things get narrowed down a lot if one takes Christ as the decisive factor. That's what I try to do, while recognizing truth in other areas and disciplines as well. In the end, however, I'm not simply comparing them to one another, but to how I understand God manifesting through Christ. There are theological and moral implications, here, with all due respect to the anti-intellectual Dr. Hawkins.

From Hawkins: An individual's consciousness is determined by the principles to which one is committed. To maintain progress in consciousness, there can be no wavering fom principle, or the individual will fall back to a lower level. Expediency is never an adequate justification. If it's wrong to kill another human being, that principle can allow no exceptions, regardless of how emotionally appealing a construct may be used to justify the exception ...

That's all fine and well if the ONLY principle at stake is killing. Actually, it's much more complicated than that in many situations, as our thread on whether non-violence is an absolute indicates. In Christianity, non-violence is NOT the absolute moral principle; Love is. Are there times when violent resistance in self-defense is justified by love? The idea seems inconceivable to Hawkins, but one wonders how loving it is to stand by and watch the slaughter of innocents when one can do something about it. Well, at least he will leave this world with his simplistic sense of morality intact.

Conventional morality is, therefore, only a provisional substitute for a faculty of higher consciousness. Moralism, a by-product of duality, becomes insignificant as the consciousness level rises through the 500's, and is irrelevant at the level of 600 [Peace]

This is pure b.s., daylia. Sorry, it just is. The man is so confused I don't even know how to help him, or those who admire him. He's actually suggesting that moral principles only apply to people in lower states of consciousness and that, at some point, we transcend our need to be accountable to them. This plus the fact that he considers duality (even ontological duality) an illusion . . . it's a short leap from here to regarding morality as itself an illusory business. Notice, too, that he uses the word "moralism," which is a bad thing, imo, but not "moral responsibility"--as though the two are one and the same. Confused and dangerous thinking, imo, for there is no state of consciousness -- not even enlightenment!! -- that provides absolute, spontaneous moral clarity. Things do change as we grow, but we never "graduate" from the need to reflect, dialogue, pray and deliberate over difficult moral issues.

But discussing spirituality, "levels of consciousness", religion and morality does tend to take me far afield though ... so please accept my apologies for branching out as I tried to explain my views.

Those topics are very much "on-thread." I was referring to "branching out" that was beginning to be a debate on the worthiness of Scripture, the morality of war, etc. I see how that happened, but we already have deep discussions of those topics on other threads.

Plus, I have been rather enjoying discussing these matters with people who hold a Christian rather than a "new-age" or metaphysical viewpoint, for once! Something about Jesus' face atop this page kept drawing me back ...

My sense is that Jesus is but "one-among-many" resources to you rather than the cornerstone of your life, and that you are ecclectic in your approach to spiritual and even religious truth. Is that correct? That's a little different from mine, as noted above, so we're bound to have different perspectives on some things. Again, all fine with me . . . Let's just be clear about where the differences really are.

(I'll be away for a couple of days presenting workshops. Will check back later.)

Phil I've been pondering whether Jesus is the "cornerstone" of my life for the last few days, so thanks for making that comment! Jesus was - and still is - the very foundation of my spiritual understanding and growth from the time I was old enough to understand the word "spiritual", so I'd say yes. Jesus is much more than just a "resource" to me!

However, the Cornerstone is certainly not the ONLY stone required to make a building, is it?

I don't think of myself as an eclectic when it comes to spiritual Truth. I don't see how one can pick and choose spiritual Truth, because unlike so-called "religious" truths, there really is only ONE spiritual Truth to choose from! The various religions all have a different perspective or "take" on that Truth, of course - but the Truth Itself is the common Thread that unites them all.

So really, the only choice available is accept It, or reject It. Not much room for being an eclectic here!

The challenge, for me, is discerning between truly spiritual and merely "religious" truth. IMO, the phrase "religious truth" is unfortunately a great example of an oxymoron, in most cases. So I'm not really an eclectic regarding "religious truths" either. I prefer to steer well clear of such things altogether.

I see that you and Dr Hawkins really do have quite a few seemingly irreconcilable differences, Phil!
Regarding non-violence, for example, Dr Hawkins states

quote:

Religion is often associated with Force [as opposed to Power], sometimes disastrously so, historically and today; wheras spiritual concepts such as loyalty, freedom and peace don't create strife or conflict, much less war. Spirituality is always associated with nonviolence

(pg 158, Power vs Force)

I, for one, agree with Dr Hawkins on this!

Regarding morality being a provisional substitute for higher consciousness, I think Dr Hawkins is speaking the truth. The spiritual realms transcend the "worlds" of polarity, the "worlds" where nothing can exist without it's opposite. The human faculty of Reason, of which conventional "morality" is but one by-product, is absolutely necessary for survival on the planes of duality "below" the spiritual (ie the mental, emotional and physical levels).

In the spiritual realms or the "highest" levels of consciousness, however, duality just disappears and All is One. Once these "Enlightened" realms of awareness begin to be experienced, the mind and it's myriad of "logical, moral judgments" are put aside like old, outgrown clothing.

This is NOT to demean the faculty of Reason or to become "anti-intellectual" in any way, though! The human mind has a most vital function indeed, as long as it's "owner" is still operating from the planes of polarity. Is it demeaning to my stomach to point out that it cannot think, or to my heart to illustrate that it cannot digest food? No! The stomach and heart have different (and very vital) functions from the brain, that's all. And it's the same with human mental as distinct from spiritual functions and capacity, imo.

I think you'd like what Dr Hawkins says about 12-Step spirituality though, Phil! He devoted a whole chapter to it in Power vs Force, explaining how the success of the 12-Step programs are due to the fact that they are aligned with the principles of true spiritual Power (as opposed to the tactics of religious "Force"). Here's a quote;

quote:

Alcoholics Anonymous respects freedom, in that it leaves choice up to the individual. Its indentifiable power patterns are those of honesty, responsibility, humility, service, and the practice of tolerance, goodwill, and brotherhood. AA doesn't subscribe to any particular ethic, has no code of right and wrong or good and bad, and avoids moral judgements. AA doesn't try to control anyone, including it's own members. What it does instead is chart a path ...

AA is the original example of the power of these principles to cure hopeless disease and change the destructive personality patterns of members ... By the millions, the members of these organizations unanimously agree that admitting the limitations of their individual egos [ie mind, reason, human will] allowed them to experience a true power, and that it's that power that brought about their recovery - which hitherto nothing on Earth, including medicine, psychiatry or any branch of modern science, had been able to do.

Am I right? Do you like it?

Oh, and regarding how to help Dr Hawkins and his admirers - I really don't think that's necessary for 2 reasons;

1. No one's asked for your help yet (at least I don't think anyone has)

2. Dr Hawkins is a bona-fide medical doctor and spiritual healer. An extra ward was built onto the hospital he works at to house the patients who were sent to him for help - patients who were deemed incurable and beyond hope.

quote:

Patients came to see me from every country in the world, and some were the most hopeless of the hopeless. Grotesque, writhing, and wrapped in wet sheets for transportation from faraway hospitals, they came to me, hoping for treatment for advanced psychosis and grave, incurable mental disorders. Some were catatonic, others had been mute for years. But in each patient, beneath the crippled appearance, I clearly saw the shining essence of love and beauty, perhaps so obscuredt o ordinary vision that he or she had become totally unloved in the world ...

I saw that all pain and suffering arises solely from the ego, and not from God ...
But this work became increasingly taxing, eventually overwhelming. I felt an enormous frustration in the face of the tide of human suffering because I could only encounter one patient at a time. It was like trying to bail out the sea with one small cup.

So I suppose that everything you are already doing in your life to help and heal others, Phil, is more than enough to "help" Dr Hawkins and to further his life's work.

daylia

Hello again,
This one has had an out of country experience, but alas, I have returned.

I wish to say that I resonate to a high degree with RWC's post in the closed thread. It is wonderful to be free, in my case, freed by Christ. This has allowed me to explore many philosophies that are so prevelantly everywhere. The truth indeed has set me free.

Pawboard, I feel that I know where you are. My advice, ENJOY. In fact, my advice for all would be to simply enjoy.

We all seek to know God, the Creator of all that is. In my estimation, the only way to truly know God, is to be God. Otherwise, we have only knowledge of rather than knowing. Objective rather than subjective. I'll use brother Phil as an example. If anyone here thinks that they know Phil, they take their knowledge from his post's or their personal relationship and base their knowing on their human feelings. Same with God. We take what we read(bible), our personal relationship and base our knowing on that criteria. This is not wrong nor is it right. It just is what it is.

There can be both beauty and danger in our thoughts (knowing) of our Creator. One of the reasons is that they are thoughts formed by our human mind. A disiplined mind can put aside the thoughts that are dangerous and only buy into those which are beautiful whereas we can see the results that manifest from an undisiplined mind in the horror and mayhem they bring (ie. terrorist, crusaders and such).

The word enlightenment is honey to the lips of a seeker and a gnashing of teeth to the fundamentalist. How could this be? It is seen at such opposite ends yet it is only a word. I sought enlightenment with all effort only to find that the harder I worked, the further away "IT" seemed. I was seeking something that was out there and I was in here. Major bummer.

Something that I discovered, no that is not right, something that revealed itself to me was that there is no enlightenment, but there is an awakening. I am one with God. I am not God, God is not me, but we are One. There is a story that I find describes to some degree this awakening. I'll shorten it for purposes of bandwith.

"We are skin encapsilated ancients and sojourners who are a guest in the Master's(God's) house. All things have been provided for our comfort and convience as well as for our entertainment. To grasp at or claim this or that as our personal possessions is a very rude jesture to our gracious host. Our judgements of his other guests' simply shows our ingratitude of our own stay. Must we be ingracious guest? It really is up to you."

As for me, I'll just be grateful and enjoy. I'll also be happy to be of service to any of the other guest here. Thanks for all.

from the room next door,
I

ps. AK may or may not be accurate. I simply don't know.

Good post, "I." Let me key in on a couple of your points.

If anyone here thinks that they know Phil, they take their knowledge from his post's or their personal relationship and base their knowing on their human feelings. Same with God.

That's true, only a relationship does provide a way of accessing the interiority of another, through the We which encompasses them both. This is a a new reality, not simply an emotional response. In Christian spirituality, we understand God to be communicating Godself to us as we participate in this We/relationship with God. It does mediate God's presence, and, as we are transformed in the relationship, we become more God-like. The ancient Christian writers called this process divinization and understood it as a work of grace.

I am one with God. I am not God, God is not me, but we are One. There is a story that I find describes to some degree this awakening.

Good story, and I relate to what you've written here. Thanks for sharing.

Daylia, good to hear from you again. Let me respond to a few points you make.

You quote Hawkins:

quote:

Religion is often associated with Force [as opposed to Power], sometimes disastrously so, historically and today; wheras spiritual concepts such as loyalty, freedom and peace don't create strife or conflict, much less war.

OK. But religion is far more often associated with Power in the sense that he means in (influence). And it's wonderful when "loyalty, freedom and peace" exist in a community. Truly!

My question is what do you (Hawkins, etc.) do about bullies -- about people who don't really want freedom and peace, but control, domination and the imposition of abuse and injustice? I don't have to tell you that such people exist, and that they are responsible for horrible atrocities. I doubt they're much interested in Hawkins' ideas, or Thoreau, M.L. King, Gandhi, etc. They're consumed by the will-to-power/control and are willing to use violence to achieve their ends. Hawkins seems naive about this and doesn't offer much in the way of practical means to respond.

daylia, I reject the idea that ontological duality disappears. I am being precise in my language here, so please understand. I know from personal experience what Hawkins means by enlightenment, but I've never come to a place where my wife and I, for example, turned out not to be different beings. We can realize our union with God and that we all come from God, but it's a very immature spiritual experience that fails to also recognize the continuing existence of all the different beings that God creates. IOW, our individual existence is NOT an illusion; there really are all these people and creatures and we really all do come from God. It's both.

Re. 12 Step groups. Click around this site and you'll see that I've written several books making use to the Steps. I was a substance abuse counselor for years and have experienced firsthand the benefit of this spirituality. It's not that different from traditional Christian spirituality, however, and, in fact, drew its inspiration from the Oxford Groups and the Jesuits.

So I suppose that everything you are already doing in your life to help and heal others, Phil, is more than enough to "help" Dr Hawkins and to further his life's work.

I'm not sure I understand your point, or where that last part came from.

Cheers.

OK. But religion is far more often associated with Power in the sense that he means in (influence).

If that is your experience, Phil, that's wonderful! Mine unfortunately is much different, and so I've learned to avoid organized religions.

My question is what do you (Hawkins, etc.) do about bullies -- about people who don't really want freedom and peace, but control, domination and the imposition of abuse and injustice? I don't have to tell you that such people exist, and that they are responsible for horrible atrocities.

Bullies etc operate from the level of Force - a weak, destructive level of energy (ie anger, pride, guilt, shame etc). Just by managing to keep one's own energy high in their presence - remaining accepting, peaceful and loving no matter what they do or say - can be a fine antidote. Love and Peace etc are much stronger, more powerful energy fields. Just being exposed to them will raise the bully's energy field as well, in the same way as standing beside a fire raises one's own body temp - making further violent behavior much less likely.

That being said, of course I'd defend myself and those who I'm responsible for (ie my children) in an emergency, using non-violent means if at all possible. Survival is the first law of Nature, and my life and health are my own responsibility, after all! But I've been reduced to a violent response only once in my 46 years of life - and that was while waiting for the police to arrive. I was trying to protect my children from a drunken, violent neighbour who was threatening them, and I was SO ANGRY I came up swinging like Mohammed Ali ... but in hindsight, just by keeping my body positioned between him and my kids probably would have "protected" them just fine without attempting to punch his lights out. All that did was leave me with a very sore hand for a couple weeks, a few extra bruises on my face and a whole whack of guilt.

In most cases, a violent reaction is just unnecessary. So unless I want my own energy level reduced to that of my attacker, it's much wiser to remember the words "turn the other cheek".

Look at Martin Luther King, the Dalai Lama, Ghandi, Mother Teresa, Nelson Mandela, even (of course) Jesus Himself. They all dealt successfully with the atrocities, violence, injustice and suffering they found themselves immersed in by using Spiritual, nonviolent measures. In other words, they were aligned with true Power, not Force.

Ghandi, for example, was dealing with the biggest international bully of them all in his day - the British Empire. Here's what Hawkins says about Ghandi, and the differences between force (ie violence) and true power (ie nonviolence):

quote:

We can, for example, calibrate a historical epoch such as the end of British colonialism in India. If we calibrate the position of the British Empire at the time, which was one of self-interest and exploitation, we find that it was well below the critical level of 200 on the scale of consciousness. The motivation of Mahatma Ghandi (calibrated at 700) was very near the top of the range of normal human consciousness. Ghandi won in this struggle because his position was one of far greater power. The British Empire represented force (calibrated at 175), and whenever force meets power, force is eventually defeated.

We may observe throughout history, society has tried to "treat" social problems by legislative action, laws, and prohibitions - all manifestations of force - only to see those problems persist or recur despite the treatment ... conditions of social conflict won't disappear until the underlying origins have been exposed and "healed".

The difference between treating and healing is that in the former, the context remains the same, wheras in the latter, the clinical response is elicited by a change of context so as to bring about an absolute removal of the cause of the condition rather than mere recovery from its symptoms. It's one thing to prescribe an anti-hypertensive medication for high blood pressure; it's quite another to expand the patient's context of life so that he stops being angry and repressive

(emphasis mine)

Sorry about going on so long here, but I do think these points are SO vitally important! What do you think of his "take" on violence?

While I do respect your views about ontological duality, Phil, I think "enlightenment" has a different meaning for you than it does for Hawkins. I know what he means through personal experience - there's a "Place" within my human psyche where my isolated, frail little Ego just disappears in the wonderous Love and Joy and Awe and Power of Being One with "All that Is". The experience is absolutely beyond words, FAR beyond the mere initial glimpse afforded by my human memory.

I've found that any attempt to use my mind, to logically analyse the Experience while it's happening aborts it completely! And any attempt to describe it afterwards diminishes it and gives a piecemeal, faulty impression. You just can't do it justice with words! Such are the limitations of the mind, of human language and logic. But I will say that I've found it very difficult to "come back" from that Place, to be separate and "myself" again. :-(

Yes, I noticed all the writing and work you've done with 12-Step spirituality, Phil. That's why I thought you'd like what Hawkins has to say about it. I'm curious ... did you?

And I said what I did about your already doing more than enough to "help" Dr Hawkins in response to your comment above ie

This is pure b.s., daylia. Sorry, it just is. The man is so confused I don't even know how to help him, or those who admire him.

I can see by looking through your website that you do your best to help and heal others already. I didn't think you made that comment about "helping" Dr Hawkins tongue-in-cheek! Sorry if I misunderstood you.

Blessings to all,

daylia

Hi again Phil; upon reflection, I thought it might be helpful to illustrate the points I made about how to deal effectively with bullies with this personal anecdote.

Remember the power black-out we had a couple summers ago? Well, the first night of the black-out I was taking my garbage out to the street. Without the streetlights, it was black as pitch outside. As I neared the road, a man rode by on a bike. He saw me and circled back, beaming a powerful light in my eyes to blind me. He rode up right behind me and started muttering all manner of indecent threats in an attempt to frighten me, I guess.

Well, my son was at work and I was alone in the house at the time. I could have played the "victim", played right into his game of abuse and fear. But "Something" possessed me in that moment just to know that All Is Well! Instead of reacting to him at all, I found myself affirming silently over and over that my Angels are always with me, that I am always Divinely protected and guided and that nothing can harm me as long as I stay in that awareness. Thinking about this and thanking my Angels, I felt absolutely no fear! Repeating those affirmations over and over to myself, I refused to even acknowlege his words or his presence, just busied myself arranging my suddenly-oh-so-interesting-looking garbage bags instead.

Well, he lost interest in me after a minute or so, gave up and rode off on his bike. I never saw him again. *whew* I will never forget that experience!

I suspect that if I would have reacted with fear or anger or violence instead, he would have "fed off" my negative energy and continued to bully me. The situation might even have escalated into an outright physical attack. But by choosing to keep my own energy level high instead - (ie by allowing myself only courageous, affirming, loving, grateful and peaceful thoughts and emotions) - either his own energy level was raised by "osmosis" to the point where he no longer found his violent behavior entertaining, or else he simply realized he could not get his "negative energy feed" from me and rode off to find it elsewhere.

Hopefully, for the sake of the other women in my neighbourhood it was the former and not the latter scenario! In any case, I thought this little true story might help people understand the case Hawkins makes for spirituality as it relates to nonviolence. Thank you for the opportunity to share it with others here.

daylia

daylia, I do understand that you've had a bad experience of organized religion, but don't you think it a stretch to use your experience to characterize the historical influence of organized religion? Surely you know what the pagan, Mediterranean/European world was like before Christianity spread? Virtually every positive development in modern society has its roots in Judeo-Christian teaching.

I do know what you and Hawkins are saying about non-violent resistance . . . have read Thoreau, Gandhi, Tolstoy, etc. The mistake, here, is that all these men were working with systems that were basically law-abiding (e.g., Gandhi vs. the British; M.L. King in the U.S.). This approach doesn't work in China, Iraq, and other countries. Saddam Hussein annihilated all resistance without the slightest guilt. You really must see this, for there is a difference in the way we deal with different kinds of bullies.

Again, I understand unitive experiences from personal experience and am not in the least objecting to such. What bothers me with Hawkins is the philosophical monism implied in the way he talks about things.

- - -

Going back to something Michael stated in the earlier thread on Hawkins' 9/14/04 program:
He calibrated George Bush's convention speech at 460, and the concept of global warming calibrates below the level of integrity. Warming is due to the sun's magnetic energy and not linked to the use of fossil fuels.

I learn something new every day.

Now, here's a statement made on a scientific issue, and it's clearly at odds with what most scientists are saying. I'm listening to the program now, but am wondering if AK is even being used as a substitute for scientific research (as it is for philosophical/theological reflection)? Why count the teeth in a horse's mouth when you can just keep asking questions, calibrating, and letting Universal Mind tell you the answer?

daylia, I do understand that you've had a bad experience of organized religion, but don't you think it a stretch to use your experience to characterize the historical influence of organized religion?

*sigh* I've focused on the negative here, I know. It's good you've pointed out the positive, for the sake of balance. It's not wise to ignore either the positive or negative influence organized religions have had and continue to have on human social behavior!

Surely you know what the pagan, Mediterranean/European world was like before Christianity spread? Virtually every positive development in modern society has its roots in Judeo-Christian teaching.

That's quite the claim, Phil, and I'm not quite sure what to make of it yet! I'll let you know ...


Why count the teeth in a horse's mouth when you can just keep asking questions, calibrating, and letting Universal Mind tell you the answer?

Egads that sounds pretty silly indeed! LOL!

Like I said before, the jury is certainly still out regarding AK as a testing method, as far as I'm concerned. I do appreciate Hawkins' basic philosophy though, probably because unlike yourself I don't have any issues around "monistic" thinking. (How could I - I wasn't even aware of such a thing until I came to this site!)

I'm pondering what you've said about dealing with situations like Iraq. These are VERY difficult problems indeed - so thank you very much for your input.

daylia

I just listened to that 9/14 radio show Michael had mentioned, and there you go, at the end of the program: Hawkins calibrated whether the Earth is warming and got a negative. He then went on with a combination of research and calibrations and concluded that greenhouse gases have little to do with global warming.

FWIW, I enjoy listening to the man; he's a jolly spirit, for sure, and quite at home with himself. But there were numerous allusions to karma, reincarnation, the mind not being able to determine truth, and a kind of ecclecticism with regard to spiritual teachers -- all things we've noted. He did acknowledge the existence of an individual soul, but this was not clarified with respect to the divine.

Anyways . . . glad to hear you're pondering the feedback, daylia. I'm enjoying the discussion.

Here's a quote I'm using on Monday's Daily Spiritual Seed:

Whenever you are trying to discern the will of God, quietly sense the quality of your deepest being. Wait patiently. Maybe use your active imagination to create alternative choices. Again, wait patiently. Sense whether there is peace or confusion, consolation or desolation. Then do your best and trust God.
- Rev. Lowell Grisham

This is pretty sound. Compare it to doing a calibration on the issue and see which is more holistically engaging. Perhaps doing a calibration before and after the exercise would be helpful?

http://www.nexuspub.com/articl...ov2003/interview.htm

Chalanda Sai Ma is in the same theological neighborhood as David Hawkins and Joseph Campbell
and seems to be much deeper into the Mean Green Meme
than Hawkins. She has an interesting perspective on America and vision of what our future might be like.

She talks to angels, as I do whenever I visit all of you! Thanks for the discussion.


caritas,

mm <*)))))><

Thanks for that one, Michael. In that 9/14 radio spot, Hawkins spoke gushingly of Huang Po and his teachings on no-mind. Unfortunately, the radio hosts didn't think to ask him if he was, himself, relating to them out of no-mind, and, if so, how he accounted for the intelligence manifest in his responses.

- - -

All you Hawkins fans, I want you to think long and hard about that example I gave above about how Hawkins used AK to inquire if the earth was warming. Having ascertained a negative reply, he then set out to find the science to justify his position. What do you think of that? Do you really think that's an appropriate use of AK? Whatever happened to hypothesis, method, experimentation, review of results, tentative conclusion (i.e., the scientific method)? If we begin with the conclusion, then look for data to back it up, that's not science and is even something akin to divination.

During that interview, someone asked if spiritual presence could be communicated via a video, TV or even audio presentation? He said he didn't know, but then whipped out his arm, did a resistance test, and stated that yes, presence could be so communicated. What do you all think of that? What happened to actually checking your experience to see if presence was communicated?

The more I hear and read of all this, the less I like it!

quote:

I've found that discussions begin to seriously degrade when "the horrible things done in the name of Christ" begin to be mentioned by those taking a "position" with respect to Christianity....

Surely you know what the pagan, Mediterranean/European world was like before Christianity spread? Virtually every positive development in modern society has its roots in Judeo-Christian teaching.

Yes, the Bible has been re-translated, but not edited and revised for political and economic reasons...

Well, right, they really did frown on sacred prostitution, child sacrifice, and other detestable practices from the surrounding religions. I don't think that proves that they just made up their theology, however.

Jews had/have a very healthy, positive view of sex and sexuality.

Where was this Middle Eastern society where women held the positions of social and spiritual authority? Egypt? Mesopotamia? Canaan? Philistia? Greece? Rome? None of the above.

Phil, I've collected a few of your claims here so you'll know exactly which ones I'm referring to. If you are capable of articulating specifics instead of over inflated, slanted generalizations, you might be seen to have something of interest to say about these matters!

It is true that the Churches of the Middle Ages were largely responsible for preserving knowledge through the centuries. That doesn't have much to do with Judeo Christian teachings though! The ancient knowledge the Christians stole, hoarded and hid in monasteries for centuries on end were the fruits of much older, wiser civilizations (ie Egypt, Greece, Mesopotamia).

Ever heard of how the Christians burned the Great Library of Alexandria during the Crusades? The Arab people, and perhaps indeed all of humanity itself has yet to fully recover from the loss of that great store of ancient knowledge! In fact, the hoarding of all "scientific" and "metaphysical" or "esoteric" knowledge by the Christian Church plummeted Europe into the ignorance, horror and squalor of the Dark Ages.

ANd hey, let us not leave the books unbalanced by ignoring such upstanding contributions as the burning of Jeanne d'Arc, the barbarities of the Crusades, the ruination of Polynesia, the raising up of Torquemade, the blatant chauvanism and misogyny propogated by the works of influential Christian scholars/theologians like Thomas Aquinas, the prosecutions and witch burnings of Massachusetts... a long, gruesome, bloody list.

Looking over the above collection of your sweeping, conflicting, glaringly biased, historically inaccurate and rather pathetically misinformed assertions leaves me very doubtful that there is any further benefit to be gleaned by discussing these matters with you, Phil.

Michael, thanks a lot for the interesting link!

daylia

quote:

Ever heard of how the Christians burned the Great Library of Alexandria during the Crusades? The Arab people, and perhaps indeed all of humanity itself has yet to fully recover from the loss of that great store of ancient knowledge!

Daylia, I was not aware that it was the Christians who burnt the Library of Alexandria. But then, I really had no idea who did (and still can not say for sure since one internet expos� does not a definitive answer make). But it seems clear that this issue has been muddled before for pure political or ideological gains:

quote:

[ The story that Theophilus destroyed a library is clearly a fiction that we can very precisely lay at the door of Edward Gibbon. It is in his monumental Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire that we first find the allegation made. Gibbon seems mainly concerned to clear the Arabs of the responsibility of destroying the library and allows his marked anti-Christian prejudice to cloud his better judgement. His excellent footnotes show he had exactly the same sources as we do but drew the wrong conclusions. The story has recently been popularised by Carl Sagan who includes it in Cosmos. He spices the story up with a role for the murdered philosopher Hypatia, even though there is no evidence connecting her to the library at all.

As for your other charges, no doubt some really rotten stuff has been done in the name of Christianity�and good stuff too. But there is little insight, and scant justice, to be gained from giving such a one-sided account of things as if Christianity was the only guilty party or even the worse guilty party. The Crusades, for example, were in response to Muslim aggression. Let's bring Hitler, Stalin and Saddam in on the discussion as well and we might find aggressive secularism to be the most dangerous "religion" of all.

I'll add on to my own points, then some of yours.

I've found that discussions begin to seriously degrade when "the horrible things done in the name of Christ" begin to be mentioned by those taking a "position" with respect to Christianity....

I think you're continuing to show why my sense of this is true, Daylia.

Surely you know what the pagan, Mediterranean/European world was like before Christianity spread? Virtually every positive development in modern society has its roots in Judeo-Christian teaching.

You didn't look up conditions in the Christian/post-Christian era, did you? But you're right about other cultures making a contribution; not sure where I suggested otherwise. Nevertheless, it was Christianity that formed Western culture, integrating contributions from other cultures.

Considering the powerful contributions that science has made to modern culture, we might note the connection between science and Christianity. Don't believe me? See this essay on The Christian Roots of Modern Science or this one on the Christian roots of modern medicine. There are many, many other books and articles on this topic; the connection between Christian philosophy and theology and Western culture is pretty well-established.

Yes, the Bible has been re-translated, but not edited and revised for political and economic reasons...

What I wrote here is true!

Well, right, they really did frown on sacred prostitution, child sacrifice, and other detestable practices from the surrounding religions. I don't think that proves that they just made up their theology, however.

Those "detestable practices" were going on all over the Middle East, and the Hebrews broke from them, largely because of their understanding of God. Again, that's not an exaggerated statement; it's the truth!

Jews had/have a very healthy, positive view of sex and sexuality.

That, also, is true! I'm not sure why you throw it back at me now.

Where was this Middle Eastern society where women held the positions of social and spiritual authority? Egypt? Mesopotamia? Canaan? Philistia? Greece? Rome? None of the above.

You had mentioned that ancient societies were run by women and goddess worship was practiced (or something like that), and that was my response. Those were all hierarchical/patriarchical societies -- the main ones that Jews had to relate to. So the point that they were somehow breaking from well-established, feminist, goddess-religions doesn't hold up.

- - -

Now, my responses to a few of your points:

It is true that the Churches of the Middle Ages were largely responsible for preserving knowledge through the centuries. That doesn't have much to do with Judeo Christian teachings though!

You mean the existence of the Church that did all that doesn't have anything to do with Judeo-Christian teaching? How so? What other teaching accounts for the existence of the Church?

You go on: The ancient knowledge the Christians stole, hoarded and hid in monasteries for centuries on end were the fruits of much older, wiser civilizations (ie Egypt, Greece, Mesopotamia).


My, it's finally "true colors" time! "Older, wiser civilizations." You forgot to add the word, "extinct" in your litany. And I would like to hear just why you think they were "wiser." You're all bent out of shape about Joan of Arc, but I wonder why you give the Egyptians and their enslavement of millions to build monuments such a pass? Or the Babylonians, who swept over the Middle East, deported people, salted fields, cut the eyes out of the men, and raped the women? Can you site a single Christian country that's ever done these kinds of things? Take your time. And read a bit more about those cultures before you presume to call them "wiser," for heaven's sake!

Ever heard of how the Christians burned the Great Library of Alexandria during the Crusades? The Arab people, and perhaps indeed all of humanity itself has yet to fully recover from the loss of that great store of ancient knowledge!

You've got your history wrong -- again!!! See http://www.mediahistory.umn.ed...text/Alexandria.html and other links. The library was damaged several times through history, but all indications are that it was the Moslems under Caliph Omar who delivered the final blow in 642 (another great moment in Islamic history!).

Looking over the above collection of your sweeping, conflicting, glaringly biased, historically inaccurate and rather pathetically misinformed assertions leaves me very doubtful that there is any further benefit to be gleaned by discussing these matters with you

I couldn't have said it better.

Seriously, now, daylia. Where are you getting this highly biased stuff? What's this anti-Christian lashing out really all about? You seem to be going through a time of searching, which is why I think you keep coming back here. I'm glad you do, as others might have the same questions and issues that you do.

ANd hey, let us not leave the books unbalanced by ignoring such upstanding contributions as the burning of Jeanne d'Arc, the barbarities of the Crusades, the ruination of Polynesia, the raising up of Torquemade, the blatant chauvanism and misogyny propogated by the works of influential Christian scholars/theologians like Thomas Aquinas, the prosecutions and witch burnings of Massachusetts... a long, gruesome, bloody list.

I know I responded to much of your post yesterday, daylia, but this little tirade deserves additional comment. You seem to view Christianity as having been a kind of Taliban-like governance, giving only passing lip service to the good that it's done. This is not to deny the blemishes on Christianity's historical record (which Pope John Paul II acknowledged and apologized for a few years ago). The question is whether those kinds of problems are the exception or the rule? You seem to think the latter, but I think that's an extreme position.

Take Thomas Aquinas, for example. St. Thomas was the one who provided the synthesis between Aristotle and Christian revelation that gave Western culture a philosophical foundation that endures, more or less, to this very day. His view of human nature is very holistic and integrative; his ideas on sexuality very positive. Many of his ideas male-female relations were rooted in an understanding of reproductive biology that wasn't really updated until the 20th Century. As John Winjgaards notes:
The texts of St. Thomas, and of the other medieval scholars whom Rome quotes in support of its ban on women priests, have been fully published and analysed in www.womenpriests.org. None of them provides reasons that hold up to scrutiny today. And St. Thomas would have been the first to admit it. Sacred doctrine is a matter of argument, he taught, in the sense that theology must prove what it teaches. And what about learning from biology? �Truth wherever found is ever the truth of God�
- http://www.womenpriests.org/wijnga~1/aquinas.asp

You might also check out this essay on What Aquinas Really Said About Women and What Aquinas Never Said About Women. You will find, there, a more careful and nuanced reflection on St. Thomas' writings than in the flippant "proof texts" offered by radical feminists.

A point I try to keep making is that it's unrealistic to expect the Hebrew patriarchs, midieval monks, scholastic theologians, and others in our tradition to have known what we know now. The had limited development, as do we, but they were stretched by the Light to offer a "next step" in the human journey to God in the Hebrew-Christian lineage. We should (and do) recognize their mistakes, but we should also be extremely cautious in imputing motives into those. That's what bothers me most about your posts, daylia: you imply all sorts of conspiracies, bad motives, and deliberate attempts to keep people in bondage and ignorance, indicating that this was normative and characteristic of the venture, with good things being somewhat accidental and incidental. Do take a look at where you're coming from, here. Indeed, you may be surprised to discover that even your sense of a right to "lash out" is rooted in the ancient tradition of the Hebrew prophets, whose role it was to point out to the people of God their sin and wrongdoing. We stand on the shoulders of all these great people, and chop their heads off only to our future peril.