Weekend in LA

My wife and I spent last weekend down in LA. Before we sold our house in Redwood City, we briefly considered moving to the LA area because of the large job market, the relatively inexpensive real estate, the huge Thai and other Asian communities, the wide variety of education opportunities and entertainment options, the moderate weather, and the fact that my friend of 35 years lives there. We even looked at houses there in late 2003 and liked some of the ones we saw. But the traffic was terrible, the air was dirty, there was the ever-present danger of a massive earthquake, there was too much gang violence and other crime, and it was too far away from family and other friends. We decided that Sacramento was a better choice in that it offered many of the benefits of LA with fewer of the liabilities. We’re delighted that we made the choice we did.

But it’s still fun to go to LA from time to time, and it takes only about five to six hours of driving to get there. When I was younger, I thought I despised LA. After all, I grew up in the San Francisco Bay area, and we looked down on “La-La land” as a place of stifling traffic and smog and of the superficially rich and phony. But it was easy for me to buy into these stereotypes because I hadn’t actually been there since I was a kid. Once I started going there fairly regularly a few years ago, I discovered that I liked the area more than I expected and that it wasn’t really so different from my beloved Bay Area.

We drove down there this time with my wife’s aunt and uncle. My wife’s uncle works for the Hyatt Regency Hotel and can get free accommodations for family and friends anywhere. We stayed one night in the Hyatt Regency on Sunset Boulevard in West Hollywood. It was disappointingly ordinary. Our room was scarcely indistinguishable from that of a Motel 8 at what would have been more than three times the price if we had paid for it. But we spent the next night in the Hyatt Park Regency near Beverly Hills, and that was an entirely different and far more luxurious place. I didn’t know it at the time, but that hotel overlooks the 20^th Century Fox studios, and I might have even been able to watch them shooting a movie had I ventured over to the hotel sundeck and garden and looked out.

When we weren’t eating and shopping in Hollywood’s “Thai Town” (the largest Thai community outside Thailand, from what I understand), we spent a fair amount of time driving around Beverly Hills looking at the fancy houses and cars. I wish we’d had a map of celebrity houses at the time. I admit that I’m still a kid at heart who still gets something of a thrill out of being close to the stars. I also found myself daydreaming of what it would be like to live in one of those gorgeous, tree-shaded houses and drive a fancy Mercedes, BMW, or new and sporty Bentley like the one I saw on Santa Monica Blvd. I can understand the intoxicating allure of these things, even though I’d like to think that even if I could afford them (which, of course, I’ll never be able to), I would eschew them for more modest trappings of the “good life” that I think I pretty much have already. No, even if I had Bill Gates’ money, I wouldn’t live in Beverly Hills. But I might drive a new BMW 330i.

I used to think it was flat-out immoral to live in anything better than a modest house, drive a modest car, eat in modest restaurants, stay in modest motels, or even hire someone else to mow your lawn or clean your house. But now I’m more inclined to believe that there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with nice houses, cars, restaurants, hotels, and services if one can readily afford them and doesn’t become so jaded and spoiled by them that one looks down on and can’t enjoy anything less and feels superior to those who can’t afford anything better. After all, there’s something to be said for paying good money to people who build quality products and provide quality services in a world filled with mediocrity and just plain junk.

I know that it’s largely academic for someone like me to contemplate these matters, unless I win the Publishers Clearinghouse Sweepstakes that I dutifully enter upon every opportunity. But as long as I don’t lose sight of my highest priorities, I don’t think it hurts to daydream a little and to enjoy if not admire a little glitz, glamour, and luxury. And my reading of Ken Wilber has helped to show me that spirituality and materialism aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive. Indeed, Spirit can be seen as giving rise to and encompassing all of Reality such that a fuller embrace of the material world can constitute a fuller embrace of Spirit. I think it largely boils down to the attitude with which one embraces the material world.

I could say a lot more, but, as usual here of late, I feel inclined to say less for the time being.

Disney Hates Christians?

Chuck Colson used to be President’s Nixon’s special counsel. He even ended up in federal prison for his role in the infamous Watergate scandal. But he became a Christian and eventually developed into one of America’s most prominent evangelical ministers. He recently wrote an article originally appearing in the online magazine Breakpoint and subsequently carried by Beliefnet in which he complains about Disney’s respecting Asian religion by building a theme park in Hong Kong according to feng shui principles and burning incense while, at the same time, insulting American Christians by allowing “Gay Days” and featuring evolution exhibits in its domestic theme parks.

The posted reactions from Beliefnet members to Colson’s article have been unanimously and often harshly negative. This is what I posted there.

Many here have expressed their opinions of Colson’s article, and, interestingly, that opinion seems to run unanimously against his message. I admit that I feel a strong tendency to agree with many of the comments. However, I don’t like to rush to judgment in matters such as these. I like to consider all sides of an argument carefully before expressing a definite opinion. So below is an open letter to Mr. Colson addressing my questions and misgivings about what he wrote.

Dear Mr. Colson:

I’ve just read your Breakpoint article “Feng Shui at Mickey’s House,” and I must admit that my immediate reaction was one of bemusement and incredulity that an intelligent person such as yourself could have penned an argument or complaint that, on the face of it, seemed so patently absurd and ridiculous. But I don’t like to jump to conclusions about things like this. I like to give arguments and complaints and the people who voice them due respect and consideration. That is why I’m writing to you now. I’m hoping you can clarify a few matters for me about your article.

If I understood you correctly, you accuse Disney of bending over backward to placate Asians in Asia with the “kooky Eastern fad” of feng shui and burning incense while figuratively spitting in the face of righteous Christians here in America with “Gay Days,” “blasphemous” movies, and public displays of evolutionary theory. You seem to imply that Disney should show at least as much respect for fundamentalist Christian sensibilities here in America as it does for Buddhist ones in Hong Kong but that it obviously doesn’t, and that good Christians should and do take offense at this.

First of all, what is your definition of “fad”? An online dictionary I consulted defines “fad” as “A fashion that is taken up with great enthusiasm for a brief period of time; a craze.” No doubt, any dictionary you might consult would offer essentially the same definition. That being the case, did you know that feng shui has been practiced in one form or other in Asia for probably thousands of years? Does this sound like a mere “fad”?

Second, you call feng shui Buddhist, but did you know that its origins predate Buddhism by millennia and that, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica, “feng shui can be classified as either magic, religion, or science, but it is questionable whether these categories have any validity in Chinese thought; rather these so-called magical practices are an intrinsic part of the worldviews expressed in China's main religious and philosophical systems…”? In other words, feng shui is, by scholarly account, an integral thread in the Asian cultural tapestry and worldview and not some faddishly new and narrowly Buddhist belief. And what this suggests is that, unlike fundamentalist Christian antipathy to gays and evolution, feng shui is so widely embraced by Asian peoples that Disney’s building its Hong Kong theme park in a way that honors feng shui’s principles is, at the very least, likely to draw more paying customers and bring in more money than not having “Gay Days” and evolutionary displays in its American parks could probably ever do. In other words, isn’t it more plausible to believe that Disney doesn’t respect Buddhists more than fundamentalist Christians or disrespect fundamentalist Christians more than Buddhists, but that it’s simply trying to earn more money by making its businesses more attractive to a broader range of people in ways that are both legal and harmless? Isn’t this more plausible than your implication that Disney’s on some kind of sinfully perverse mission to slight fundamentalist Christianity and offend fundamentalist Christians?

Third, you call feng shui “kooky.” But if by “kooky” you mean that feng shui is strange, crazy, or silly falsehood, why is the belief that there are methods for optimizing the flow of vital energy for good health and prosperity any kookier than countless fundamentalist Christian beliefs including the belief that God was given birth in human form by a virgin to show us the only “way, truth, and life” out of all the ways taught by all the world’s enduring religious traditions, and that he then rose from the cross after his crucifixion to visit with his disciples before ascending to heaven?

Fourth, you dismiss feng shui as sheer “superstition.” The same dictionary I consulted earlier defines superstition as: “A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance.” No doubt your dictionary would agree. How then is feng shui any more superstitious than the belief that reading a book penned by men and following its prescribed conduct and praying and repenting to an unseen deity will send one to a heavenly realm of everlasting bliss after one dies? Many would no doubt agree that feng shui seems a whole lot more rational and credible than these Christian bible stories.

Fifth, isn’t Disney a private company that does not claim that either it or its theme parks are Christian? If so, why is it under any obligation not to allow gay people a special day for gathering in its privately owned, non-sectarian parks to enjoy rides and other attractions together, and why should a modern, privately owned, non-sectarian theme park not be able to present a display of modern biological science’s best understanding of life on this planet?

Finally, why would an intelligent and thoughtful Christian person feel offended if a privately owned, non-sectarian company runs its business and theme parks in ways designed to optimize its earnings by appealing to the broadest possible range of customers both here and abroad?

I could ask many more questions about your article, but I’d like to see and respectfully consider your answers to the questions above before I proceed or form any strong conclusions regarding the merits of what you wrote in Breakpoint.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Lethal Injection Is Torture?

As I’ve said before, I’m against the death penalty. I have many reasons for this. They include the horrible possibility of executing the innocent, the tremendous advantage of the rich and famous over the poor in avoiding the death chamber, and the dehumanizing effect of the death penalty on the people who carry it out and on society as a whole. Many have elaborated on these themes; I won’t do so now.

I believe that some crimes are so heinous that those who are found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of committing them should forfeit their freedom for the rest of their lives. No ifs, ands, or buts. But I can’t think of any crime that deserves the death penalty. The more heinous the crime, the more mentally ill, defective, or disabled the perpetrator is likely to have been at the time, and I don’t believe in killing people for being any of those things, any more than I believe in killing people for being unable to see, hear, or walk.

However, I, like most who oppose the death penalty or consider it a necessary evil, have taken some consolation in the adoption of lethal injection by most states as the method of choice for executions. If executions have to be carried out, at least the condemned don’t have to suffer once the process commences. They’re mercifully drugged into a deep sleep before they’re poisoned to death. Or so we thought.

A recent study suggests otherwise. Researchers Dr.Leonidas Koniaris and colleagues at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, analyzed the execution protocols of Texas and Virginia (where 45% of the nation’s executions are carried out) as well as autopsy toxicology data from 49 executions in other states using lethal injection. What they found is profoundly disturbing, or at least it should be.

Execution by lethal injection is a three-stage process. First, a general anesthetic like sodium thiopental is administered to induce unconsciousness, followed by pancuronium bromide to paralyze the body and breathing muscles, and then potassium chloride to stop the heart. However, if not enough of the first drug is administered, the condemned could remain conscious to experience the misery and terror of suffocation and the “excruciating” pain caused by the administration of potassium chloride without being able to move or in any way express their agony.

The researchers found that the executions in Texas and Virginia were carried out by unsupervised medical technicians (Doctors are prohibited by their professional ethics from participating.) who weren’t trained in anesthesia, who didn’t monitor the anesthesia or collect data during or after the execution, and who weren’t subjected to any peer review afterwards. The researches also analyzed the toxicology reports from the other 49 executions and determined that most of the executed didn’t have as much sodium thiopental in their blood as would be required for surgery, and that 21 had thiopental concentrations consistent with consciousness. In other words, many who are executed by lethal injection may suffer a little or a lot after the drugs are administered.

I realize that many would argue that these individuals deserve to suffer for the suffering they inflicted on others. Nothing I could say here would likely change their minds. But those of us who don’t believe in an “eye for an eye” or who accept the Constitutional prohibition of “cruel and unusual punishment” should be very concerned about lethal injection and seek to insure that it’s either carried out humanely or not all all. If we’re going to kill people in the most cold-blooded and premeditated way possible, let us at least not torture while we kill.

No Gay Foster Parents in Texas?

A state representative in the Texas legislature is trying to pass a bill that would make it illegal for gays and bisexuals to be foster parents. Rep. Robert Talton, who is Republican, says, “It is our responsibility to make sure that we protect our most vulnerable children, and I don't think we are doing that if we allow a foster parent that is homosexual or bisexual.” He has also baldly stated that children are better off in orphanages than in the foster homes of gay or bisexual parents. Under this bill, prospective foster parents would be asked about and investigated as to their sexual orientation before being accepted, and people already serving as foster parents would be subjected to the same. Anyone found to be gay or bisexual would be prevented from acting as foster parents, and those who already are would have the children under their care immediately removed from their homes.

This bill sailed through the Texas house under a 135-6 vote and is now on its way to the senate. If it passes, as it surely will, Texas will become the only state to ban gays from being foster parents, but I can well suppose that it won’t be the last, unless the Supreme Court prohibits it. This seems unlikely, especially if Bush is able to appoint anyone to the Court.

I felt very angry when I first heard about this. Now I mostly just feel sad that so many people think the way these Texas legislators think or, perhaps, pretend to think in order to curry favor with religious fundamentalists bent on making this one nation under the God of the literally interpreted bible.

I presume that one of their primary rationalizations for passing this law is to protect children from being turned into homosexuals or bisexuals either as a result of being molested by adult foster parents of their own sex (So what about placing children with foster parents of the opposite sex?), or more subtly conditioned into thinking that sexual intimacy with people of the same sex is morally and divinely acceptable--an open invitation to a headlong plunge into homosexual depravity and ultimate damnation at the hands of an angry God.

So far as I know, there is no compelling evidence that children raised by homosexuals are more likely to be molested or to become gay than are children raised by heterosexuals. If there is, I think that it needs to be presented to the American public for our careful consideration. But I suspect that the only “evidence” these legislators have for banning gays and bisexuals from being foster parents is a few questionable passages from the “good book” saying that homosexuality is a sin.

But even if one believes that it is a sin, how does it necessarily follow that children raised by adults who practice this “sin” behind closed doors are going to choose it for themselves? It has always seemed to me that Christian fundamentalists suffer from an inordinate fear that homosexuality is so intrinsically and overwhelmingly attractive that we must all be protected from the slightest expression or mention of it lest we be seduced by the tremendously powerful dark side of our carnal desires. What’s more, I have always found it paradoxical that fundamentalists believe in free will and that sin is an expression of free will (i.e., a freely willful choice to violate God’s commands), yet they’re so intent on protecting us all from being "turned into" sinners--homosexual or otherwise--from seeing sin around us. It seems to me that if one really believes that God damns only sinners and that sin is a free choice, then he shouldn’t be afraid of people sporting sinful “lifestyles” around him, since he has the God-given power to resist their sin. In fact, it seems to me that he should be grateful for the opportunity to demonstrate to himself and to God almighty that he is exercising his free-will to choose virtue over vice in the presence of vice and not only in a world where all vice and temptation has been sanitized away. For just as there cannot be true courage without the overcoming of fear, how can there be true virtue or righteousness without the overcoming of sinful temptation? As Freud said, “The moral man is not he who is never tempted, but he who resists his temptations.”

As for me, I believe that if we’re going to start protecting foster children from potentially corrupting influences, we should begin by making sure that they aren’t placed in the homes of adults who believe in biblical fairy tales and who teach them that if they don’t constantly repent of their disgustingly sinful urges and acts and do their very best at all times to walk the straight and narrow path of God’s blessing, they’ll burn in screaming agony forever and ever in Satan’s torture chamber. That, to me, is perhaps the ultimate psychological abuse and corruption of a child.

Senseless Tragedy

A few days ago here in Sacramento a man got into a fistfight with two other men, took a punch to the side of the head, fell to the ground, and died a couple of days later. His organs were harvested for transplantation. He was 39 years old. He was a banking executive with a long, full life ahead of him. He left behind a 12-year-old son.

The other men involved in this tragedy left the scene after the victim collapsed onto the pavement, and they turned themselves in the next day after learning that the man was mortally injured and that police were looking for them. The police declined to arrest them because it was tentatively decided that this was a case of “mutual combat” which, according to witnesses, the victim instigated by pulling his car over, jumping out, and launching the first punch.

I don’t understand why these men weren’t arrested for at least fleeing the scene after their victim fell to the ground unconscious, but the DA may still press charges after reviewing the case. I don’t understand why a young man with a young son and so much promise had to die such a senseless death. Some witnesses said he was very loud and obnoxious during the professional basketball game he attended before the incident and that he later, intentionally or not, aggressively cut off while leaving the arena parking lot the vehicle containing the men who killed him. On the other hand, his friends and family said he was a calm and good-hearted man who never raised his voice in anger, did his job well, was a loving and devoted father to his son, and coached a boy’s soccer team.

I suspect that there was truth in all these accounts. He probably was an essentially good man who was nevertheless intensely competitive and liked to blow off steam at sporting events and drive aggressively in his luxury sedan and who didn’t take any crap from anyone. Now he’s dead because he and the other two men got reflexively caught up in an escalating chain of testosterone-fueled overreactions.

Life has probably always been precarious, but it seems even more so now in some ways as more and more people and cars crowd into tight spaces and hurry through the day at an ever more feverish pace and pitch to ‘perform’ and ‘produce’, and all around them, in real life and on so-called ‘reality’ television, people disrespect, distrust, deride, and destroy their ‘competition’ to win the big game or the big money or simply survive to see and perform and compete another day.

If only people would slow down, calm down, relax, and live mindful lives of respectful loving-kindness to themselves and others. But, you say, they can’t afford to in this fast-paced era that demands more and more from us in less and less time! Yet, it seems to me that we can’t afford not to. If we continue living the way we do now, life will become less and less worth living, and more and more lives will end prematurely in pointless, violent tragedy the way Mark Leidheisl’s did on a pleasant spring evening on a Sacramento street.

Same as the Old Pope?

I’m not Catholic, but I’ve still been very interested in the Church’s selection of a new pope. I watched in awe as the cardinals assembled for their conclave in the Sistine Chapel, with the sublime five-hundred-year-old paintings of Michelangelo adorning the west wall and ceiling. I hoped that these men would be led by a higher wisdom to choose a new pope who would usher the Church and its “flock” of a billion souls into the world of the 21^st Century, where women, homosexuals, the desperately poor and oppressed, and interfaith dialogue would receive a fair hearing.

However, I was hardly surprised by the choice the cardinals made of a man who seems poised to keep the Church mired in the psychology, theology, and ethics of the Middle Ages. Old institutions and old men tend to respond to change and challenge with a fearful clinging to tradition, no matter how flawed it might be.

In summarizing the reactions of more progressive minded Catholics to the new pope, gay Catholic Andrew Sullivan probably said it best when he wrote:

I was trying to explain last night to a non-Catholic just how dumb-struck many reformist Catholics are by the elevation of Ratzinger. And then I found a way to explain. This is the religious equivalent of having had four terms of George W. Bush only to find that his successor as president is Karl Rove. Get it now?

Perhaps Pope Benedict XVI will surprise or even astonish us with a mind and heart transformed by his new office and the “Spiritus Sanctos” into loving and compassionate openness to the realities of today’s world and to adversities and sufferings Thomas Aquinas could have hardly foreseen or understood 750 years ago. But if he doesn’t, maybe it will be a blessing in disguise. Perhaps untold numbers of Catholics who earnestly seek to know God and Truth will finally realize that neither is to be found solely within the tired myths and dogmas of institutionalized antiquity, but must be realized through a newer, more vital, more integral approach that honors, embraces, and combines the best understandings and practices of the past with those of the present from every wisdom tradition and discipline.

Mixed Feelings About John Paul II

The pope’s funeral took place today. Dignitaries from all over the world attended, and the media shared it with all of us who weren’t there. What I saw of it was majestic and moving. It seems that countless Catholics and non-Catholics alike admired and adored John Paul II, and the television media has been singing virtually non-stop praises of his person and papacy ever since it became aware that his death was imminent.

While the pope lie dying, countless millions all over the world prayed for him to die peacefully and for his soul to rise to heaven. But doesn’t the Church teach that God is supremely wise, loving, and merciful? Then why pray to God to either do what he, for his own reasons, had already decided to do with the pope or, for his own supremely good reasons, had decided not to do? Did the praying multitudes believe that their prayers would or even should persuade God to do what he wasn’t, in his infinite wisdom, planning to do already?

I’m inclined not to believe that people’s souls live on after bodily death. But if they do, I hope, although I do not pray to a biblical god, that John Paul’s soul has found peace and joy in its new life. And if there is no personal afterlife, I’m glad that the pope’s suffering has dissolved into painless oblivion. Nevertheless, I have mixed feelings about his papacy and his church.

On the one hand, I believe that he did his best to serve an institution in which he believed and which he loved with all his heart, and I respect and admire him for this as well as for his intelligence, erudition, and enduringly charismatic presence on the world stage. Yet, I also believe that while he and his church have done great good in this world, they have done an equal if not greater amount of terrible harm.

My ambivalence is well represented by two articles I read online today. The first is by the Reverend Jim Wallis who lauds John Paul II for his steadfast and inspiring commitment to a “consistent ethic of life” that all of us, especially those on the religious right and political left, would do well to emulate.

The second article, by Christopher Hitchens, argues that when the pope’s formal pronouncements were consistent with traditional Church teachings on such issues as sexual morality, contraception, and the right to die, they and he have been consistently and often devastatingly wrong, and that there was sometimes grave and sometimes ludicrous inconsistency between his words or the Church’s teachings on the one hand and his deeds in terms of his handling of such matters as child abuse by priests, genocide in Rwanda, his opposition to the liberation of the Kuwaiti and Iraqi people from the clutches of Saddam and of the Afghani people from the Taliban, his speedy beatification and canonization of such dubious figures as Cardinal Stepinac of Croatia and Jose Maria Escriva respectively, his complicity in the idolization of the Virgin Mary, and his silence in the face of the Assad regime’s blatantly anti-Semitic remarks during his visit to Syria in 2001. Hitchens ends his article with these harsh words:

“Unbelievers are more merciful and understanding than believers, as well as more rational. We do not believe that the pope will face judgment or eternal punishment for the millions who will die needlessly from AIDS, or for his excusing and sheltering of those who committed the unpardonable sin of raping and torturing children, or for the countless people whose sex lives have been ruined by guilt and shame and who are taught to respect the body only when it is a lifeless cadaver like that of Terri Schiavo. For us, this day is only the interment of an elderly and querulous celibate, who came too late and who stayed too long, and whose primitive ideology did not permit him the true self-criticism that could have saved him, and others less innocent, from so many errors and crimes.”

I don’t know who the new pope will be, but I’m sorry to say that I suspect that he will be just as flawed a representative of a flawed institution as was his predecessor, if not more so. Nevertheless, I hope that he can do some good in a world that desperately needs it.

Talk Less, Listen More

We all know politicians who proudly assert that God is on their side in war and in their domestic agendas. This has always struck me as self-righteously presumptuous, arrogant, and dangerous. For those who are unshakably convinced that a personal Supreme Being endorses what they do are very likely to want to keep doing it no matter how dubious and destructive it is without giving it a second thought, and their appeals to fundamentalist religion usually manage to draw enough popular support to allow them to keep doing it until it has inflicted untold suffering and even death. What’s more, they and their supporters tend to disparage, demonize, and oppress those who disagree with them. For if God is on their side, then those who oppose them also oppose God, and those who oppose God are simply evil and deserve to be ignored and worse.

How unlike these sanctimonious politicians was Abraham Lincoln who urged the people of his day to stop insisting that God was on their side and to start hoping and praying that they were on God’s side. What a different mentality it is to go from dogmatic, unyielding insistence that one is right to open-minded and open-hearted acknowledgement that one might be wrong and to respect those and the opinions of those who say they are.

I am reminded of the words of a Hindu sage who when asked about the difference between prayer and meditation answered, “When I pray, I talk and God listens; and when I meditate, God talks and I listen.” How I wish that more politicians and regular citizens would do less talking and preaching and more reflective listening, by whatever name, to the “still, small voice” speaking from deep within their hearts and souls.

Birthday Musings

I was born 52 years ago today. Since then, I’ve lived an uneventful life compared with most of my peers. Yet, still, I have laughed and cried, loved and hated, acquiesced and rebelled, lusted and despised, found and lost, dreamed and despaired, played and worked, given and taken, helped and harmed, succeeded and failed, lived and died, and now I’m beginning a new life in a new place with a wonderful wife I don’t begin to deserve but will cherish as a gift of divine grace for as long as we have left together in this uncertain world, and then…who knows?

When I was twenty, I didn’t believe I’d live to see thirty. When I was thirty, I was convinced I wouldn’t see forty. When I was forty, I knew for sure that I would never make it to fifty. Now here I am at 52 and counting and grateful for every awful and delightful and indifferent moment with which I’ve been blessed, and looking forward, with a mixture of happy anticipation and anxious concern, to every nanosecond that remains, but paradoxically trying harder to root myself in the here-and-now that my head tells me I can never leave even when my heart is lost in present memories of the past or present anticipations of the future.

Alan Watts used to say that most people mistakenly believe that the present comes out of the past like a plant from its seed when, in fact, the past comes out of the present like the wake left behind a ship. I believe that there is truth in both perspectives. Everything happens in the present, but what happens in the present-that-is-now is shaped by the memories and other effects of the present-that-was. When we see where we’ve been and what happened while we were there, we may be seeing and acting on it in the present, but we are seeing and acting on the present-that-was through a brain and mind conditioned by the present-that-was in a world affected in countless ways by the present-that-was.

Birthdays are an especially good time to look back on the present-that-was to see the good and the bad, the right and the wrong, the beauty and the ugliness, and to let that vision of the present-that-was help us to live with more mindful integrity, wisdom, and skillfulness in the present-that-is and the present-that-will-be. Or may be. Will I be here to post another blog entry a year from today? I don’t know. All I know is that I am here now looking back over my 52 years and grateful to still be here today.

Unconditional Compassion

Like much of the nation, I sat spellbound in front of my TV last Friday and Saturday as I watched the awful saga of Brian Nichols unfold. I have always opposed the death penalty and preached the need for unconditional spiritual love and compassion for all no matter what they do. But I confess that vindictive hatred toward Nichols flared inside me as I saw accounts of his cold and senselessly murderous actions juxtaposed with photos of his victims and stories of what wonderful people they were and how devastating their deaths were to their coworkers, friends, and families.

I'm ashamed to admit it, but a dark, ugly part of me briefly entertained fantasies of a vigilante force of police officers apprehending Nichols outside the public eye and secretly whisking him off to a secluded hideout where they would, to quote the Ving Rhames character in Pulp Fiction, "get medieval on his ass."

But these thoughts and all the hatred they fed and fed off of vanished when Nichols stopped being the viciously cruel Terminator and abstract embodiment of evil incarnate and became instead the hapless human being I saw meekly submitting to law enforcement personnel and shuffling along in handcuffs and leg shackles under a throng of security worthy of Hannibal Lecter.

And when I heard friends and family of Nichols interviewed, media reports on Nichols' childhood and adolescence, and Ashley Smith's riveting account of her time as Nichol's hostage, I not only no longer hated this man, but I felt growing compassion for him. Here was a young man who could have pretty much had it all. He was born into a middle class family and, by all indications, enjoyed a solid upbringing by responsible and loving parents. He was blessed with good looks, an easygoing disposition, articulate intelligence, and enough athletic talent to land him a spot on the football team of a Division 2 school. Yet, he dropped out of school after three semesters, briefly attended and played for another college, was arrested several times for disorderly conduct, worked as a computer technician for UPS, and ended up on trial for vindictively kidnapping and repeatedly raping his ex-girlfriend for leaving him after he impregnated another woman. Then came the terrible, inexplicable, murderous climax of last week.

Some might hate Nichols all the more for throwing away his seeming advantages in such a spectacularly violent and destructive way. But I look at this man and think that something must have gone radically haywire inside his brain or mind to lead him so far astray of the promising path that once lie before him. Even if no one can yet or ever explain what it was, there had to be something, and how terribly, terribly sad rather than contemptible to see him ruin his life and the lives of so many others because of it!

But beyond the sorrow and compassion I felt for Nichols, I felt moved literally to tears by the way Ashley Smith reached out to Nichols and connected with his soul with her compassionate and loving heart and simple but profound faith in God. A cynical person might say that she was merely pretending to care about him in order to save her skin, or that the extreme threat Nichols posed afflicted her with Stockholm syndrome. But I want to believe that the caring and concern that Ashley Smith expressed to and for Nichols was neither pretense nor pathology, but the liberated expression of the unconditional love and compassion that lie not only at the core of her being but at the glorious center of each and every one of us. I want to believe that the Lord within Ashley Smith's heart spoke to and reached the Lord buried deep within Brian Nichols' heart and convinced him to do the right thing when he could so easily have done something far, far worse.

When I speak of the "Lord within," I'm not talking about the Lord of Christian or any other popular religious convention. I'm speaking of the "which than which there is no whicher" that I want to believe constitutes our essence and the very fabric of the kosmos, but whose radiance expresses itself through most of us via 'random acts of kindness' to strangers and in more abiding love and devotion--though still too-often fraught with conditions, qualifications, and fluctuations--to family and friends.

Many would no doubt smile at my flowery words and say that it's all well and good to talk about seeing the "Lord within" others until they threaten your life. Then you should regard and despise that person as your enemy and do everything in your power to escape or neutralize him. If Ashley Smith had run or grabbed one of the unguarded guns and used it when she first had the chance, she might very well have saved her life for her own sake and for her daughter's without placing it in the prolonged and terrible jeopardy she did. She was very, very lucky that things turned out the way they did, and the rest of us should not assume that we would meet with the same fate if we reached out to our captor the way Ashley did to hers.

That may be true. But I'm glad that Ashley Smith acted the way she did and that Brian Nichols responded the way he did without harming her or anyone else, including himself. And I can't help but believe that if more people in this world were like Ashley Smith, there would be far fewer people like Brian Nichols plunging off the deep end into awful violence and murder. I also believe that even if acting like Ashley Smith got me killed, maybe, just maybe it's better to live a shorter life with a heart filled with unconditional love and compassion and faith in the core of divine goodness in all of us than to live a longer life brimming with overriding mistrust, anger, hatred, and desperate fear. That is, maybe it’s better to live a short time in heaven than a long time in hell.

Cursed Are the Handicapped?

I just read that the judge sentenced Scott Peterson to die for his crimes. I’m against the death penalty in virtually all cases. But I don’t wish to explore that theme here. I just want to note that the judge said that Peterson’s acted in a "cruel, uncaring, heartless, and callous" manner. In other words, the judge seemed to be saying, it wasn’t the objective nature of the crimes themselves that justified Peterson’s death sentence, but Peterson’s subjective state-of-mind.

But what is the rationale for this? If Peterson is, as many have argued, sociopathically lacking in normal human conscience, this might make him beyond rehabilitation by current psychotherapeutic methods, but since the judge’s sentencing choice was between lethal injection and life in prison without possibility of parole, what difference does it make if there’s no reasonable expectation that Peterson could be sufficiently rehabilitated to re-enter society? And is there compelling reason to believe that Peterson’s sociopathy makes him a significant threat to other prisoners? I suspect that the threat posed is entirely TO rather than FROM Peterson.

So, it seems to me that the message the judge sent to society is that we kill people for being sick or crippled with a lack of conscience. We wouldn’t think of killing someone because they can’t see or hear, but we think it’s perfectly okay to kill someone because they can’t feel normal human regard for life and normal guilt and shame for taking it.

Someone might protest that we wouldn’t execute someone for being blind or deaf because, after all, they haven’t murdered anyone, and we won’t be executing Peterson for not having a conscience, but for killing his innocent wife and unborn child. But what if he murdered his wife and unborn child precisely because he had no conscience? What if his cold-blooded and remorseless actions were symptoms of illness or products of a psychological defect? What's more, if the judge would have spared Peterson's life had he exhibited more of a conscience, wasn't his lack of conscience the decisive factor in his sentencing?

Honor Thy Meat?

My wife prepared a chicken and basil dish this morning for breakfast that neither of us liked. To underscore just how unappetizing it was, even our omnivorous cat wouldn't eat a small piece of the chicken I gave him. Yet, I forced myself to eat as much of it as I could not only to please my lovely wife, but also because I felt guilty about throwing in the garbage so much meat that some poor chicken sacrificed its life to provide us. In fact, it almost feels like sacrilege to throw meat in the garbage.

I remember a published dialog in Playboy (yes, I actually did read some of its articles) between Arthur C Clarke and Alan Watts in which Watts said that if we’re going to eat meat, we at least owe it to the animal to honor it with as much gratitude and respect as we can by preparing its flesh with our highest culinary skill so that we might savor it as we reverently incorporate it into our own bodies and being, to which Clarke replied: “Yes, but I doubt that the animal would appreciate that posthumous honor, Alan.”

However, even if it makes no difference to the animal that is already dead what we do with it, doesn’t the way we treat animals either as living beings or as dead food affect us for better or worse? If we callously mistreat living animals or thoughtlessly kill, cook, and eat them, doesn’t this condition us to undervalue if not outright dishonor the precious sacredness of life in general, and if we do not value and honor life, how do we end up treating ourselves, other people, and the world at large, and how happy can we be?

I do believe, even though I have yet to compel myself to always act accordingly, that those of us who have the wherewithal to nourish ourselves adequately with a vegetarian diet should seriously consider doing so. And so long as we continue to eat meat, I believe that we should at least prepare and eat it the way Watts suggested and take pains not to waste it needlessly.

Blessed Are the Peacemakers?

If people try to put peace ahead of evolution, they won't get either. If they put evolution ahead of peace, they'll get both. (Michael Nagler)

I’ve just read an article by Carter Phipps in What Is Enlightenment? that has me rethinking my long-cherished assumptions about peace. Many of us who are preoccupied with becoming more ‘enlightened’ or ‘spiritual’ believe that we should be cultivating extreme equanimity or serenity within ourselves and spreading peace throughout the rest of the world. And we can point to great sages and sacred texts that reinforce this view and inspire us to act accordingly. “Blessed are the peacemakers,” says Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, “for they shall be called the children of God.” “Be peace,” urges Thich Nhat Hanh. “One day,” said Martin Luther King, “we must come to see that peace is not only a distant good but a means by which we arrive at that good.”

Yet, many of the same sacred texts and wisdom traditions that exhort us to make peace also defend violence and war under certain conditions. The Jewish Talmud says, “If a man comes to kill you, forestall it by killing him.” Saint Thomas Aquinas writes: [In order] “for a war to be just, three things are necessary. First, the authority of the sovereign. . . . Secondly, a just cause. . . . Thirdly . . . a rightful intention.” The Hindu Bhagavad Gita has the divine Krishna admonishing the great warrior Arjuna, anguished over the prospect of shedding blood in the cataclysmic battle shaping up before them, to “Arise with a brave heart and destroy the enemy.” And when we look at the real world where nations invade and plunder other nations for wealth and power; of rape, torture, and forced labor camps; and of genocidal holocausts, it seems pitifully naive to think that we could end this horrendous violence, suffering, and death with a peaceful response. It’s true that Gandhi eventually gained India’s independence with nonviolent resistance to British colonial rule, but does anyone seriously believe that he would have had the same success with the Nazis or Khmer Rouge?

No, it seems that even the most steadfastly moral or loftily spiritual person or nation must have might behind their being right and be willing to exercise it when there is no other recourse for defending against immoral or unspiritual violence. As Robert Cooper, former advisor to Tony Blair, once said: “Force without legitimacy brings chaos: legitimacy without force will be overthrown.”

Yet, Phipps argues that the desirability of peace is an even broader issue than one of just defending against aggression. Carl Sagan wrote that “We are star stuff, contemplating the stars.” And when we look at the unfathomably vast universe from which we arose as well as the natural world around us, we see the apocalyptic violence of the Big Bang, colliding galaxies, and exploding suns in the cosmos and the redness of tooth and claw on Earth. It seems that we are born out of cosmic and natural violence and sustained by it, and, furthermore, many physical and biological scientists contend that the physical universe, the biological world, and we human beings are dynamic processes whose “Evolution proceeds by the greatest amount of conflict or tension that the organism or living system can creatively bear,” says former environmental activist turned Christian minister Michael Dowd. In other words, without the peace-defying stresses of tension, conflict, and even violence, there is physical and biological stagnation. And if this is true, is it any great stretch to think that utter peace throughout the world and serenity within the individual might stifle psychological, cultural, and spiritual growth within people and nations?

I’m not sure what to think, except that I need to reflect and learn more about the nature, strengths, and limitations of peace even as I continue striving to engender it in myself and the world. Perhaps I should begin by understanding and pursuing genuine peace not in the simplistic terms of a complete absence of psychological, social, or military conflict but as Spinoza sagely defined it: “Peace is not an absence of war. It is a virtue, a state of mind, a disposition for benevolence, trust, and justice.”

An iPod Defense

My cousin wrote to me the other day about my iPod post. Here is some of what she said:

I find it funny that you'll "wait until these devices come down in
price or improve in features"--is that your real objection then, despite
what you say in your post about technology disconnecting us from
each other? . . . I heartily agree with Andrew Sullivan and his thoughts about where
this new, individualized technology is leading us. At a time in our
history when we need to reach out to others more than ever with
understanding and openness, it is unnerving to see the direction we
are heading. Unless the "improved features" include a mute button, I'd
wait a long while before taking the iPod plunge.

This is how I replied:

I believe that I ended my column against the evils of iPods the incongruous way I did largely as an expression of subtle if not silly humor—i.e., it’s such a harmful device that I’m going to wait until the price drops to buy one and become a zombie. But I also believe that an iPod, like most inventions, is neither good nor bad in itself, but only in relation to how it’s used. How would I use one?

I would put most of my CD collection on it and, more importantly, my growing library of recorded lectures and discussions about philosophy, spirituality, science, art, politics, and so forth. I could then easily access any of this wonderful wealth of material anytime and anywhere I wished. Sometimes I might do it at home by plugging my iPod into my home hi-fi system. Other times, I could take it to my business technology class and use it during the first hour while I’m practicing my touch typing skills, or listen in the car for the forty minutes before my medical terminology class, or while taking a morning walk, or while I’m browsing books and magazines in the library or the bookstore. Or I could play a selected lecture or musical piece for my mother or friends when I go to visit them. Would I take my iPod with me and use it everywhere I went and constantly isolate myself from the world of birdsong and children’s laughter and social interaction? Hardly. But there are times and places where I think I could put an iPod to excellent use not only as a way to enjoy and enrich myself, but also as a means of sharing and connecting with others.

Yet, right now these devices are still too expensive and, from what I understand, flawed for me to buy one. I might never buy one no matter what. But I think a case can be made that they aren’t all bad, and I suspect that even Andrew Sullivan would agree. After all, I believe that he still has and uses his. Maybe he just uses it a little more judiciously.

Why Cultivate Chi?

An old friend of mine teaches Tai Chi Chuan. He wrote to me the other day about how his teacher first demonstrated the power of chi to him by sending him flying across the room with a very short and effortless punch to his well-padded chest, reminiscent of Bruce Lee's famous "one inch punch." My friend then went on to describe how he proceeded to cultivate his own chi over years of dedicated practice. The following is my reply to him:
I'm very intrigued by your stories of chi in action, and I'm sure I'd
be even more intrigued by experiencing it directly the way you have.
I confess that I'm skeptical that chi exists as anything beyond
skillful application of physical leverage or biomechanics, although
I'd like to believe that it's more than this. At the risk of asking
the impossible, could you tell me how you define "chi" or what you
understand it to be?

When you write of Dim-Mak, you quite clearly imply that you think chi
is more than grossly physical motion or energy but is, instead or in
addition, a subtler kind of energy that can be harnessed to foster
life and health or to destroy them. But if there truly is such a
thing as a death blow, might it be more simply the skillful
application of sufficient physical force to precisely the right place
in the body to kill someone in a manner that a good forensic
pathologist could explain in strictly physiological or otherwise
conventionally scientific terms? Or is it something more than this?

Furthermore, could you tell me how you or anyone you know (e.g., your
Xi) benefit from cultivating or harnessing chi? Do you use it merely
in defensive or martial applications of tai chi chuan, or to impress
yourselves and others with its power and with the human capacity to
manifest this power, or does it have other uses? Many sages warn
against cultivating so-called siddhis or miraculous powers because
they say that this can divert people from more important spiritual or
overall development. That is, one can become so preoccupied with
figuratively moving mountains that one fails to do what's necessary to
grow wiser, more loving, and more integrated, complete, and fulfilled
as a human being. I guess what I'm asking is how your progressively
learning to harness chi benefits you and others overall. I don't mean
to suggest that I don't believe that it does this for you, for I
suspect that it does. I'm just curious about how you think it does
this.

iPod Solipsism

I read a brilliant article this morning by Andrew Sullivan about “iPod people.” He says that we are becoming so encased in our own personal bubbles of self-selected music, TV and radio programming, Internet feeds, and so forth that we increasingly tune out, isolate ourselves from, and miss so much of the world outside that makes life worthwhile. Says Sullivan, “Technology has given us a universe entirely for ourselves — where the serendipity of meeting a new stranger, hearing a piece of music we would never choose for ourselves or an opinion that might force us to change our mind about something are all effectively banished.” We miss “That hilarious shard of an overheard conversation that stays with you all day; the child whose chatter on the pavement takes you back to your early memories; birdsong; weather; accents; the laughter of others. And those thoughts that come not by filling your head with selected diversion, but by allowing your mind to wander aimlessly through the regular background noise of human and mechanical life.” Yet, he admits to having an iPod of his very own and to having a very difficult time giving it up. But he remembers a day when he forgot to take his iPod with him to the airport and how his initial “panic” gave way to “something else. I noticed the rhythms of others again, the sound of the airplane, the opinions of the taxi driver, the small social cues that had been obscured before. I noticed how others related to each other. And I felt just a little bit connected again and a little more aware.”

I confess that I have thought many times about purchasing my own iPod or comparable variant and taking John McLaughlin, Bach, Alan Watts, and Ken Wilber with me wherever I go. But then I think of the iPod zombies I saw all day when I worked at the airport; that great episode from Star Trek: The Next Generation where the Enterprise crew are mind-controlled by a seemingly harmless video game given to them by aliens bent on taking over their ship; Thich Nhat Hanh’s and Eknath Easwaran’s gentle but firm calls to mindfulness; and now Sullivan’s thoughtful article, and I think I’ll at least wait until these devices come down in price or improve in features and reliability before I join the ranks of the living dead.

Letter to a Friend

I'm sorry to hear about [your wife's] car and purse being stolen. I can well
imagine how unsettling it was to [your wife and son] to feel "violated,"
and how annoying it was to deal with the aftermath of the theft. I
once lost my wallet down in LA, and it was a hassle calling the credit
card companies and doing the other things that one must do to take
care of business. However, it's nice to know that the custodians
cared enough to look for the car and that they saw and reported it to
police. I'm also glad that no one was injured in the ensuing chase.
At least part of me is. Another part of me wishes that the people who
stole your car and then endangered the police and public in the chase
had gotten their "just desserts." As it is, they'll probably plea
bargain their way down to a misdemeanor. [My wife] and I often watch
World's Wildest Police Videos. I confess that I enjoy the exciting
chases. But your story reminds me that the cars I see chased and
sometimes crashed are stolen from families like yours and that
innocent people suffer from this.

Speaking earlier of "just desserts" has me wondering what "justice" is
in a case such as this. What should happen to the guys who stole your
car? On the one hand, I believe that people who do such things
deserve to be punished in some way. On the other hand, I still
believe that what they did was, in a sense, the inevitable expression
of the state of the universe at the time that they did it. As I wrote
in an old poem: "Whichever way you go, Tao is sure to flow." Or as one
of the characters in the recent movie Before Sunset says, "If you
put two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen together, you'll get water
every time." I guess I still look at this pretty much the same way I
have for a long time. The people who stole your car may not have been
able to act otherwise under the existing conditions of that moment in
time, but the right legal and social response to their act, along with
broader individual, social, and cultural changes, may sufficiently
change future conditions to prevent these and other people from
stealing cars and running away from the police. Ken Wilber has
founded an Integral University that brings together leading experts
in many fields including psychology, law, and criminology to look for
integral ways to do precisely this.

Present Moment...Wonderful Moment

When I was in Thailand between mid and late December, I kept a journal. Here is one of my entries:

I’m sitting here at 1:30 in the afternoon on a bench in a small park by the Chao Praya River in old Bangkok. [My wife and her sister] have left me to myself while they go shopping. It’s nice to be by myself for a while in this grand city. It lets me feel like a grown-up, even if the feeling is more of an illusion than a fact. The truth is, I don’t know how I’d manage in this or any other part of Thailand by myself for any length of time. How would I get around or take care of virtually any of my basic needs by myself?

Of course, I don’t need to. I’ve married a sweet, loving, and extremely attentive Thai woman who grew up in Bangkok and has been to just about everywhere else in Thailand that I’d ever want to go. But wouldn’t it be wonderful to be able to take care of myself here and to know that I could do it if I needed to?

I doubt that this is a conviction I’ll ever have, or at least not one grounded in reality. For this entire trip has made it ever more clear that I am not functioning with a full deck, as they say, or even with half a one. I don’t know precisely what’s wrong with me or why, but I do know that I am broadly and deeply defective, incapable of doing a huge number of things that most human beings can do easily and well.

Yet, for a few hours here on a beautiful Bangkok afternoon by myself, I can almost feel capable and confident, like an adult, instead of a perpetual child.

This vacation in Thailand has been an adventure. It hasn’t always if ever been joyful, but I don’t regret coming here or a moment of the time I’ve spent here. In fact, I wish I could stay longer. But [my cat] waits for me back home, as do a whole new set of life’s duties and responsibilities. I may never be able to mature into a fully-fledged adult, but I need to act as much like one as I can. Not like just any adult, but like an adult who consistently walks his own integral path centered on mindfulness. It’s a tall order for someone like me. Perhaps an impossibly tall one. But what decent alternative do I have to trying, to giving it all that I have for as long as I have left?

However, let me begin not by contemplating my future, but by rooting myself in the here- and-now of this lovely December afternoon, sitting on a shaded bench in a little park by the Chao Praya River in Bangkok as the sounds of traffic and music and chirping birds and people’s voices speaking mellifluous Thai and other languages fill the air, and young Thai women more heart-wrenchingly beautiful than human beings have any right to be, with faces and bodies like angels from heaven, stroll by. I am nothing to them, but each and every one of them is more beautiful and precious to me than all the grand palaces and temples and jewels and natural landscapes in Thailand put together. Perhaps someday I can feel that way not only about my wife and supernaturally gorgeous Thai girls, but also about every person and every living thing in existence. That is one of my loftiest goals, and I believe that the path to it is one of mindfulness. Breathing in…breathing out. Calming…smiling. Present moment…wonderful moment…I am alive…I am home…In the here and in the now…

A middle-aged monk in saffron robes approaches. He sits down by me and begins to make conversation. He teaches Buddhist meditation at a nearby temple. Thai Buddhist meditation is grounded in mindfulness. Breathing in…breathing out…Calming…smiling…Present moment…Wonderful moment…

A True or False Dilemma?

I’ve just finished reading a story about Justin Hall, a 30-year-old man who some consider to be the “father of web diarists” because he kept a weblog that extensively and intimately documented his daily life with text, pictures, and video for eleven years until he quit early this year. Just before he quit, he made a riveting short video called “Dark Night” in which he pours out his anguish at feeling so alone and lonely. How ironic, he laments, that his efforts to connect with people on the web through his blogging art, and in his hands it really IS an art, seems to have made him more lonely than ever in that his sometimes startlingly intimate self-disclosures have not only pushed people away from him, but have also taken up so much of his time that there’s too little left to cultivate close relationships with people in the flesh.

I began this blog with the notion that I would use it to reveal my “naked” soul to myself and the world. But I’ve not really done this, at least not with anything approaching Justin’s level. And even if I were to do it, what would be the result? Would it draw me closer to other people and them to me, or, if I became really candid about my experiences and my deepest thoughts and feelings, would I scare people off? And what is it that I really want to accomplish with this blog?

In his video, Justin anguishes that one of the huge dilemmas he faces is between his art and human relationships. One gets the sense that he loves his art, yet it’s also painfully clear that he feels terribly, terribly lonely and that he believes his art bears large responsibility for this. My “art,” modest as it is, is to clarify mostly my thoughts and some of my feelings in written form to myself and share them with the world, now in my blog and later in a book about credible religion. But I also have a wife and should have a life away from my art, and I wonder if I have the resources to serve both masters at the same time, or if I really must do as Justin, at least for the time being, has done and choose between them. The problem is, I don’t think I can be truly happy without both, or truly happy with both if I can’t give them both my all.

So, what do I do?

Unchanging Spirit and the Wisdom of Insecurity

Yesterday, I questioned the power, nature, and even existence of Spirit. In his thought for today, Easwaran writes that we all hunger to connect with the unchanging and divinely perfect spirit of “infinite wisdom, infinite joy, infinite love” that comprises the core and essential nature of our being. But, as I have written before, if our essence is this Spirit, why don’t all of us know it and show it, and why do even the most enlightened people on the planet not seem infinitely wise, joyful, and loving?

Some sages have said that the greatest obstacle to enlightenment and happiness is our clinging to the notion that there is a perfect, unchanging realm within or without that we must find, unite with, or otherwise accord with or obey. Alan Watts wrote a wonderful book entitled The Wisdom of Insecurity in which he argued that enlightenment comes from realizing in the deepest possible way and completely accepting and relaxing to the fact that the unified Reality with which we’re inseparably linked is ever-changing. In other words, there’s no solid foundation to rest on, no unchanging Spirit to cling to, and only when we realize this in the “marrow of our bones” will we be enlightened.

Yet, I have this crazy notion that both Easwaran and Watts are correct and that my task is to understand how.

Does Spirit Exist?

Many people who pursue a contemplative path believe that we are essentially divine Spirit entrapped in a mind, body, and universe that make us forget who and what we truly are and block our inner light from illuminating our consciousness and the world outside with its infinitely loving and peaceful wisdom. Thus, they use meditation and other spiritual disciplines to remove misguided thoughts and emotions from a position of being able to prevent Spirit from shining brightly within and without.

Some have even gone so far as to suggest that senile dementias such as Alzheimer’s disease progressively strip away the obstructing mind so that all that is left is radiant Spirit. I wish this were true. I wish there were a bright side to the senility that afflicts so many people in this world. But I have been around quite a number of senile people, including spending several years as full-time caregiver to my grandmother, and it certainly never appeared to me that, as their mental deterioration became progressively pronounced, they were becoming more and more actualized spiritually. On the contrary, they seemed to be regressing away from mature Spirit into a world of infantile preoccupation with themselves and with basic, physical subsistence.

Yet, if losing one’s mind doesn’t liberate Spirit to shine brilliantly, what keeps Spirit imprisoned? For that matter, how could even the strongest mind obscure awareness of divine Spirit? Or does Spirit, divine or otherwise, even exist?

Me, my wife, and our nephew on Jontien Beach in Pattaya, Thailand at sunset. 

Using the Mantram to Sleep and Feel Better

One of the interlocking elements of Easwaran’s spiritual path is to silently repeat a well-chosen mantram as often as one can, and especially when one is feeling agitated or stressed. He also suggests doing it when you go to bed. This can have two beneficial effects. First, it can help clear your mind of thoughts and attendant emotions that might otherwise keep you awake. Second, he says that there’s a fleeting moment between wakefulness and sleep when the trapdoor to the deepest recesses of consciousness swings open and you can send the mantram through that door to echo in your consciousness and work its transformative magic even while you sleep.

I often have trouble getting enough sleep. I tend to wake up very early in the morning and can’t go back to sleep, except when I’m able to use my mantram to crowd out distracting thoughts. I suppose I could count sheep instead, but saying my mantram seems more satisfying.

I recently read about how scientists have discovered a link between obesity and sleep deprivation. It seems that not getting enough sleep causes the body to release too much of a hormone that stimulates hunger and too little of its counterpart hormone that produces a feeling of fullness. At 6’4” and 200 lbs, I probably don’t qualify as obese. But I have other problems such as poor short-term memory that have also been linked to sleep deprivation. My sleep deprivation is chronic. But it has also been less severe since I’ve taken to reciting my mantram when I go to bed and when I wake up early in the morning.

This illustrates how a practice aimed at one’s spiritual being can also help one’s physical being which, in turn, can help one’s spiritual being in the sense that a well-rested and healthy body (and mind) is likely to benefit more from spiritual practices than is a tired and sleepy one. Just try meditating or contemplating when you’re struggling to stay awake.

Is Christianity Hopeless?

I'm currrently engaged in a discussion in the 'Integral Naked' forum on the future of Christianity. More specifically, we're discussing whether institutional Christianity can ever develop the kind of theology of evolutionary panentheism that is embraced by the likes of Br. Steindl-Rast and that many of us find far more plausible than the seemingly primitive biblical monotheism to which institutional Christianity clings.

Today, someone wrote that he's been "dialoguing" with Christian fundamentalists about this, and that they've unanimously voiced their disdain for such "heresy" and for those who endorse it. This is what I posted in reply.

And I don't believe that it's only Christians with a blue center who think this way. I suspect that even most Christians at orange, green, or even higher levels would consider evolutionary panentheism and those who endorse it to be heretical, although they might be less harshly condemnatory about it than were the blue meme Christians with whom you 'dialogued.'

I know that I must sound very pessimistic about Christianity's potential to evolve, and, in fact, I am. I believe that Christianity, as an institution, is so inherently resistant to growth beyond literally bibliolatrous monotheism that the likes of Steindl-Rast will probably always sit at the radical fringe of the faith and that the cause of transforming Christianity from within is probably doomed to fail.

However, I hope I'm wrong.

Training Our Senses to Serve Us

Like many people, I don’t eat the way I should. I eat too much fat and way too much sugar. Easwaran’s thought for today addresses this and countless other situations where we indulge in sensory pleasures that undermine our health and well-being. He advises us to see and handle our senses as though they were small children in need of gentle but firm discipline to overcome their understandable unruliness after years of being encouraged by the media and allowed to run roughshod over us. If we make a concerted effort to do this, backed by the strength and wisdom we stand to gain from committed practice of meditation and the other elements of Easwaran’s spiritual path, our senses will come to readily obey and serve us as we endeavor to live wholesome lives of selfless service to the world. It will be far from easy, Easwaran cautions, but it will unquestionably be worth every iota of effort we pour into it.

Robert Redford's Integrity

Robert Redford appeared in the latest installment of the delightful program "Inside the Actor's Studio." This was after the host, James Lipton, had been pursuing him for ten years. Redford has acted in and directed so many good and popular films! And it came across very clearly in the interview that he takes acting and filmmaking very seriously and is a thoughtful, serious man. This might not sit well with a lot of people who like their actors as well as their friends to laugh and smile and joke a lot. I suspect that many people feel uncomfortable around the likes of Redford. But I doubt that he cares a whole lot. For he seems very intent on being the best film artist he can be and on being straightforward and honest in everything he says and does. In short, he strikes me as a man of unusual integrity. Of course, it's surely possible to combine honesty and integrity with a warm and pleasing personality that draws people to it rather than pushes them away, but that is so very difficult for some of us to do. And if we have to try too hard to do it, then we are almost certainly not being honest and acting with integrity.

One theme that kept sufacing during the interview was how important it was to Redford for actors to truly listen to each other in front of the camera and for people to truly listen to each other in everyday life. He even said that what turned him off the most was when people are so caught up in their own thoughts and agendas that they don't really listen to others. How I agree with this, even though my own listening skills often leave a lot to be desired.