Most of you know that I have other blogs besides this one...I've decided to reserve this blog for spiritual/esoteric musings, ramblings, expositions, and discoveries. Stop by and give me some food for thought, if you like...I love discussion and debate. And as I mentioned in my profile, all is a chance for Evolution and Enlightenment. So if you got the goods, I say...TALK TO ME! :-) I promise, I'll talk back.

WARNING: Long Article Ahead. Please get comfortable.

I believe I've made it clear how much I respect the Dalai Lama; it was he who got me interested in Buddhism, actually. Although I don't define myself, formally, as a Buddhist -- I like "pagan with Buddhist tendencies" -- I do appreciate the messages His Holiness puts forth.

I have to be honest: despite the fact that I was raised a devout Catholic (I'm talking OLD SCHOOL, vespers in Latin, priest facing the altar and not the congregation, no meat on Fridays Catholicism), and respect Christ and His Teachings (and yes, I do believe He is some aspect of Deity -- God, if you like -- but that doesn't make him any less so than, say, Tenzin Gyazo), I would sooner drill my eardrums out with a rusty fork than hear ANYTHING Pope Adolf Hit--I mean, Pope BENEDICT has to say.

(I respected PJPII, but I get such an EVIL vibe from Benedict it's not even funny...)

Anyway, so the Dalai Lama, speaking of the importance of the guru, said: "Rely on the teachings to evaluate a guru: Do not have blind faith, but also no blind criticism." He also observed that the term 'living Buddha' is a translation of the Chinese words huo fuo. In Tibetan, he said, the operative word is lama which means 'guru'. A guru is someone who is not necessarily a Buddha, but is heavy with knowledge.

Let's review this:
RELY ON THE TEACHINGS TO EVALUATE A GURU. What I think the Dalai meant to say here is that we shouldn't rely on WHO is teaching us something, but WHAT the message is. Moreover, the value of the teacher (guru, whatever) should be determined by the value of his teachings.

You know that old saying, "When the student is ready, the master appears"? I think that we rely too much on all of our lessons being feel-good lessons -- sometimes, the most important lessons are PAINFUL ones.

Let me give you an example (using my own personal experience). On June 21, 2007, I had an accident. A pretty bad accident. Having not eaten the whole day, stressed out from work, and troubled from other incidents, I passed out and went face-forward into the concrete.
You have to understand: this is in NYC.
Needless to say, because I didn't put my hands out to break my fall, I face-planted onto the concrete, breaking my nose, my chin, my cheekbones, three vertebrae in my neck, and knocking out four of my teeth. When I was getting teeth implants, I managed to also break my jaw (and the hits just kept on coming!), leaving me incapable of eating. I went from about 125 lbs. (on a 5-foot-9 frame, that's already on the thin side) to 97 lbs. because I was unable to eat. 

(Don't worry -- I'm fine now -- all's healed, teeth replaced with implants, and my smile is better than ever...and I'm back up to 115 lbs., weightlifting and running every day to keep my strength up...)

On the surface, one might think, "Oh, how terrible!" And, let me be the one to tell you, I've never experienced pain like that before (and never want to again).

But rather than mull about, wondering "Why me?", I took the time to figure out what the lesson was in that fall.

And I realized the message that was there: everything in my life was in turmoil and chaos -- and was, basically, wrong. Wrong job (I was at a job, though in the music business, that was paying me $7 an hour BEFORE taxes -- and I have a master's degree, soon-to-be PhD). Wrong relationship (the gentleman I was dating, unbeknownst to me, had FIVE other girlfriends -- none of us knew about the others until it all blew up in his face -- one of whom he was using for free room and board, which shouldn't have been necessary if his claim of "I make $81K a year" was correct [which it wasn't]. This was, of course, all while he still wasn't legally divorced...). Wrong method of thinking (prior to that, my mode of thinking was "hang'em all, and let the Gods sort them out.").

In other words, the lesson was, "Re-evaluate your life, get your priorities in order, stop screwing around with things that don't matter, trust yourself to achieve all that you've ever wanted and more, and stop worrying about what everyone else thinks."

Hey, I say, if you're going to have a teacher of any kind, there is no greater one than The Universe.
And the lesson of The Universe?
ALL things -- good, bad, indifferent -- are there to teach us something.
Take each lesson as that: a lesson.

DO NOT HAVE BLIND FAITH, BUT ALSO NO BLIND CRITICISM. I'll be honest: I'm skeptical of people who claim to be gurus, and especially when they claim to know *THE* Way to Enlightenment (as opposed to *A* Way). This is also why I have no love for fundamentalist Christians -- aside from the fact that the word "fundamentalist" has its roots in the Latin word fundus, which means "bottom," they certainly are a hateful, judgemental bunch for people proclaiming to be followers of a guru whose primary messages were Love Thy Neighbor and Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged -- or fundamentalist ANYTHING, for that matter.

At the same time, I cannot sit here and say "that wo/man's crazy" or "s/he's a cult leader" or anything else. Why? Because, however corrupted their message may be -- and however their personalities may not "jive" with ours -- the one thing all gurus ("real" or "fake") have in common is that their messages are all based in Truth. And besides, if the Path all leads up to the same spot at the top of the Mountain, who am I to judge? (Remember what I said about fundamentalists?)

For example...let's take Andrew Cohen (put down your blasters, folks).
Now, I don't exactly remember how, precisely, his name came across my desk (as my profile indicates, I'm a journalist -- I get so many stories, and so many names, on so many different days, you're lucky if I remember my mother's name come 5:00 p.m.), but it did, and I decided to go digging around (what kind of journalist would I be if I didn't do my research?).

On one hand, you have his acolytes who proclaim to have achieved Enlightenment (way to go, cats and kittens). And his teachings and dialogues (at least from what I can tell) encourage understanding between people, especially of different ideologies, to achieve a greater good.
Well, that's certainly better than what I was brought up with -- repent or you're going to Hell, go to Church or you're going to Hell, confess your sins to the Priest or you're going to Hell...

On the other hand, you have his detractors, who accuse him of destroying psyches and swindling money and doing everything short of raping children (don't even get me started on that one) and eating puppies.
Mainly, however, the contention seems to be that Cohen's means and methods rank up there with other cult leaders of the past, a la Koresh and Jones, because he uses tools such as psychological manipulation, emotional abuse, and in some cases physical torture, to achieve his goals of "devotion."

Yikes.

Let's reiterate what His Holiness said: No blind faith, no blind criticism.
 
Can I state, for certain, that Cohen does these things? No, I cannot. After all, I've not been to any of his speaking engagements, or whatever you want to call them.
And I, for one, am tired of all the pop-psychology, I'm-OK-you're-OK, coddling of spoiled and entitled and overgrown kids crap. In fact, psychologists themselves believe that the I'm-OK-you're-OK belief system creates more problems than solves them.
Finally, from what I've experienced, and from what I've read and researched,  ALL belief systems have some form of basis in what others may view as "torture."

This includes my beloved Paganism -- what, you thought my Initiation was all flowers and bunnies? I'm sure had an outsider seen what was going on, they'd demand for my Lady's head on a silver platter. I'm sure I don't even need to tell my fellow Pagans what happens when an inexperienced witch -- what I affectionately refer to as "mall Wiccans" -- calls upon a God/dess that is out of her spiritual scope (i.e., Kali'ma, Hecate, Themis).

Or, what about Judaism -- I'm sure we've all heard our share of jokes about the moyle and the bris. I'm not a boy, but I'm sure I can safely say that practice ranks up there in torturous methods. I mean, really -- cutting off a part of the penis, with no anaesthesia, on a BABY? Yet, I've not met a Jew -- devout or lapsed -- that didn't cite that as part and parcel of their faith system. Why aren't moyles refered to as "barbarians"? Because their belief system has greater numbers of acolytes?

Even something as mundane as the military can be viewed as "torture" -- my cousin Gennaro (Jerry) served FIVE tours of duty since the Iraq War began (he's in California now, praise all Gods), and is a pretty high ranking officer in the Army. Regardless of how I feel about the war, I'm proud of him -- but when I heard the sorts of things he was subjected to when he first enlisted, I was stunned silent. It comes down to this: most civilians are not prepared for what those responsibilities entail, and the superiors sometimes need to "break" the soldiers before they're able to "build them up again."
(You can see where I'd draw the analogy to my accident...)
So my question is, how is what Cohen does any different?

As for the contention that Cohen "destroys" egos? I'm of the belief that, if you're a strong person, with a firm sense of Self, NO ONE -- mortal or divine -- can "break" you, brainwash you, or anything of the sort. If you're "broken," or can be, it is YOU who allows yourself to be such, and it is up to YOU to change that (if, indeed, you want to).

The most extreme case in point: Nelson Mandela. A quarter-century in jail later, and still he held firm to his anti-apartheid stance. Of course, countless Catholic saints, Dalai Lamas, Prisoners of War, and the like fall into this category of "unbreakable spirits."

A more mundane, less extreme example can be found in my father: whenever Jehovah's Witnesses come to his door, after they ask him if he's found Jesus, his answer remains the same: a gentle, "Look, I respect your beliefs, and I ask that you respect mine. I'm a Catholic. Would you like a bottle of water before you go?" I've seen him do this for the past 30 years of my life -- why they keep coming back is anyone's guess. Maybe for the free water. 
(Would it be that I were as kind...)

HOWEVER -- and this is important to note -- if what Cohen's detractors say about his belief that he, and he alone, is God is correct, that's when I call for a detraction. (Again, I state: I DO NOT KNOW IF THIS IS CORRECT. IF IT'S NOT, FINE. BUT IF IT IS...)

You see, Christians don't believe Jesus is God -- He is the SON OF God. For all His power, and for the love in His teachings, even He knew that there was Something -- Someone -- greater than Him. His Humanity helped Him realize His Divinity -- but His Divinity made him realize His Humanity, as well.
His Holiness Dalai Lama was made so not because he IS Buddha, but because he is no longer bound by Samsara, and his behavior is Buddha-like. Furthermore, His Holiness is, by his definition, the embodiment of COMPASSION.

And those are just two examples -- even Paganism, for all that's it's defined as a "sect" (even though it's been around longer than JudeoChristianity -- which annoys me to no end), tells us that though we may take the God/dess within us, and become as such in ritual or practice, we ARE NOT, and never will be, the God/dess whom we call upon. (Though should that opportunity arise, I have dibs on being Selket/Sekhmet...)

There is a difference between being aware of the Divinity within yourself, and worshipping another Human Being (by definition, fallible) as Divinity. The former is an expansion of Self -- the latter, an expansion of ego.
I think Cohen has the right idea about ego -- not "ego" in the psychological sense, but "ego" in the commonly accepted sense of "big head/rock star/god in his own mind" sense -- as something that's to be destroyed, something that should be shed in the quest for Enlightenment. However, if he is stating that he, and he alone, is the sole arbiter of Enlightenment, I ask: isn't that feeding the ego that he asks others to shed? So it's do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do? Hmm. And what happens, then, when he's no longer around? Who becomes God then?

Again, I reiterate to all: I take no side in this debate. I, rather, post both sides and allow others to sort them out. And regardless of what I do (or don't) believe, know that I've never been one to drink the first glass of Kool-Aid to come my way.

Regardless of what the "real deal" is, however, the main point is clear: Rely on the teachings. No blind faith, no blind criticism.

I always worry about situations such as these on the Internet, really, because they lend themselves to certain abuses. Because the Internet allows us a certain cloak of anonymity, we have the ability to say WHAT we want, WHEN we want, with little or no regard for others and/or the repercussions.
It's in this disinformation that we run into trouble.

You see, I think the lesson for everyone involved -- and anyone who reads this article, or any others on here or elsewhere -- is that everyone is entitled to his/her beliefs, when it is just THAT, and stated as such: beliefs.
You are, for example, entitled to have the belief that I am a total raging bitch.
You wouldn't be the first to think so, and you won't be the last.
I don't believe you're right, of course -- but I don't believe you shouldn't have the right to think it, and I certainly don't believe that your belief changes what I believe is the Truth.

And others are entitled to take exception to one person's beliefs by stating their own (as I've just done).

Where we run into trouble is in two areas:
1) when we comingle belefs with things stated as fact when they are clearly NOT fact, but merely opinion, guesses, or worse, disinformation, and

2) while the internet provides a certain cloak of anonymity, WITH that anonymity comes a great responsibility to think carefully, post even MORE carefully, and avoid stating "facts" when, indeed, they are not.
 

And while I am all for speaking for those who have no voice, and defending the powerless against those vultures who prey upon them, I also think it weak, a display of lack of intellect, and an incapability to discuss points and opinions clearly when someone descends to name-calling, threats or character assassination in order to attack another person.

You don't have to believe what Cohen -- or the Dalai Lama -- or Christ -- or Isis -- or any other avatar teaches, but you ALSO don't have the right to point an accusatory finger and say "This is wrong" or "That is right" simply because you dis/agree with what s/he teaches.
If it works for Cohen's followers, or it works for Xenu acolytes, or it works for initiated Pagans, or it works for devout Catholics, who are we -- as Human Beings -- to deny anyone the right to follow their own Path to the top of the Mountain, and respect it as such?

The exception I take (and it is conditional, that is to say, it only exists if I know for a fact that it is true, and see it with my own eyes) is not with Cohen's beliefs (which, on their face, are pretty amazing), but rather the statement of "fact" that "he believes he is God."
Has anyone, objectively (that is, non-acolyte, non-detractor, neutral ground and reporting FACTS), gone into his speeches and listened, and subsequently heard him say as much? No? Then who are you to say as much? It's a big leap to say "he thinks he's God" from "I don't agree with what he says."
It's that kind of thinking that leads to persecutions, Salem Witch Trials, Inquisitions, Slavery, Subjugation, The Crusades, and -- of course -- The Burning Times.

As Oliver Wendell Holmes said in an oft-quoted and very sage opinion, the notion of free speech brings with it a very solemn responsibility, and the right to absolute free speech does NOT and will NEVER give someone the right to yell "Fire!!" in a crowded theater.
So, before you yell "Fire!," make sure Babylon (or Waco, or whatever) is burning.

As Humans, we often forget that within each of us shines a Light -- a Light that leads us to the Path of Divinity as we see it -- a Light that leads us to the top of the Mountain -- a Light that should always guide us, help us seek Truth and Enlightenment, show Compassion, feel Love for all sentient Beings, and seek Human Understanding beyond Ego.
In so doing, we forget that God (in whatever form you see Him/Her/It) is within us all.

Someone forwarded this to me today -- it was originally posted in Energy Grid magazine, and I found it to be very helpful. Here's hoping you all do, as well!

(For the record -- nearly all of my teachers have passed the test with flying colors. But, I realize, I'm one of the lucky ones...)

---

TAKE THE FALSE TEACHER TEST. If seven or more of the following describes your guru or spiritual teacher, then unfortunately he or she may not be be as enlightened or good for your soul as you would like to believe:

1. States his or her own enlightenment: The wisest masters tend not to state their own enlightenment or perfection for they know that it is both unhelpful to themselves and to their students. The false teachers often make this claim because they have little else on offer to attract followers.     2. Is unable to take criticism: False teachers strongly dislike either personal criticism or criticism of their teaching; they do not take kindly to ordinary unenlightened individuals questioning them. They or their organizations will even undertake multi-million dollar lawsuits to stop ex-members from spilling the beans (sort of reminds me of what Scientology's been doing lately...).     3. Acts omnipotently with no accountability: Some spiritual communities are run like concentration camps, with guru and his chosen ones acting like Gestapo officers. Unjust or outrageous behaviour by the guru is passed off as what is needed to help the followers grow (how kind). These are the dangerous gurus who have often severely damaged their students. A real master respects your will even if he or she understands that your particular decisions may not be in your interest, and he or she will act accountably to an ethical code of conduct (hey folks...this is why REAL Priestesses won't do Love Spells...because any spell that messes with Free Will is not worth the Karmic risk).     4. Focuses on enlightenment itself rather than teaching the path leading to it: It is amazing how much false gurus have to say about enlightenment. They argue their points in the same way that the scholars in the middle ages argued how many angels could sit on the head of a pin. Any fool can talk about the end goal because what is said is irrefutable to most of your listeners. What is skillful is guiding those listeners to having awakening within themselves. The real teacher focuses on the path and strictly avoids any talk on enlightenment.     5. Does not practice what is preached: Contrary to spiritual myth, you don't reach a point of realization whereby you can then start acting mindlessly. If a teacher preaches love and forgiveness, then he should act that way, at least most of the time, showing suitable regret for any lapses. If he teaches meditation, he should meditate. If he insists that his followers live in austere conditions, so should he (amen!).     6. Takes the credit for a particular meditative or healing technique: The fact is that meditation and guided visualisation work. Anyone doing them will experience major changes, benefits and realizations. The false guru will try to own or trademark particular methods and techniques so that she has something unique to attract followers. And she will hijack the effects of meditation as the guru's blessing rather than each individuals natural potential. Often the students or followers are forbidden from divulging the techniques to maintain a sort of intellectual property right, usually under the guise of needing the technique to be taught correctly.   7. Specifically gives satsang or darshan when it is not part of his culture: Darshan is when the disciples or students of a master line up and to pass their master, who is usually seated, with either a bow or traditionally kissing their feet (yes it does happen). In the East, this is part of their culture and a normal thing to do to show respect and reverence (even children will kiss the feet of their fathers). However, here in the West, such copycat behaviour is a strong indication that the guru is acting a role. Satsang, on the other hand, means literally "the company of the Truth". In a deeper sense it is an affirmation of the Guru-Disciple relationship in Eastern traditions. But some Western gurus will use this terminology because they are playing a role (it's like if a swami, say, asked his followers to tithe).     8. Lives in total opulence: There is nothing wrong with living in luxury or being wealthy. But when that luxury turns to unnecessary opulence using funds that were not explicity donated for that purpose then you are probably dealing with a false guru. Money is collected from followers usually in the form of donations, and those donations are given as an act of love, appreciation and to help spread the influence of the master. However, a genuine master is more likely to use such wealth to lessen the suffering in this world, not to buy another yacht, private jet or Rolls Royce (folks, even Bill Gates gives away his money to charity...and when he dies, he's made it clear that ALL of his earnings are going to charity. Not a dime to his kids. If Bill Gates can do it, surely, your Teacher/Guru/Priestess/Maharaj/etc. can do so...and if s/he can't, or won't, there's a problem...).     9. Encourages or permits adoration from his followers: Avoid any group that focuses on the "master" themselves rather than the teachings or spiritual practices. This will be a hindrance to your self-realisation for your focus will be drawn outside of yourself, and usually indicates that there is not a lot more on offer than guru worship.     10. Presents himself or herself overly fashionably and glamorously: Beware of masters who present glamour photographs of themselves and dress overly fashionably (whilst proclaiming that they have no ego and leading ego-death retreats). Yes it does happen!   11. Demands love and devotion from their students: Keep clear of any master who demands love and devotion. One very well known Western guru stated, "Anyone who loves me is guaranteed enlightenment"! Real love and devotion is earned over time when we begin to really know the whole person and not their public image.     12. Speaks with an Indian accent or vernacular when he is in fact a Westerner: Not sure how much this happens now but there are some high profile Western gurus who have (or had) Indian accents, mannerisms and vernacular. Unless they have genuinely spent considerable time in other cultures, they are probably playing out a role (sort of like Madonna with the British accent, eh? :-] ).     13. Runs expensive miracle workshops and courses: You are unlikely to reach enlightenment after a few weekend workshops with cheesy titles. In our society of "must have now", we want to be able to purchase spiritual development with minimal fuss. Also, avoid meaningless accreditation - it is often used merely to encourage followers to do more courses (I'm reminded of the Middle Ages, when indulgences were bought, in order to grant "salvation." Dress it up a little and this is what you get...).     14. Takes sexual advantage of his or her followers: This happens much more than many believe. It is not being prudish to include this one because when a follower falls under the spell of a guru he or she is likely to do anything for the Chosen One. It is only afterwards that it may dawn on the follower that his or her openness has been used and abused. This can be very psychologically scarring.     15. Flatters you and treats you as very special: Sure we are all special in some ways, but this is one of the things that a false guru may do to hook a potential follower or to get a current follower to do a particular task. Nothing can be more intoxicating to the ego than to be selected by the master or leader (or any high profile person). A real master will stand back and allow you to make your decision whether to accept his or her teachings without trying to influence the process.   16. Talks trash: It is surprising what a person will listen to when he or she is devoted to the speaker. It is always a good idea to get hold of a written transcript of what has been said and really read the message. Then tell an open-minded friend who is not a follower what their opinion is purely on the strength of the words. You will soon find out whether there is any real substance to the teacher's message, or whether you are merely being drawn in by the charisma of the messenger.     17. Overly relies on slick presentation: Slick presentation can often mask poor content, and so it is important for you to look past the lovely music and video shows at the actual message. The slicker the presentation, the harder it is to see what exactly the teaching is.     18. Gives him or herself outrageous titles: Not satisfied by being "merely" an enlightened being, many false gurus give themselves titles (or allow their followers to do so) to indicate that they are literally God-Incarnate, the reincarnation of the Buddha or Christ, or THE chosen one. Some continually change their names, to keep pace with their burgeoning egos.     19. Runs abundance workshops: A guru or master is there to help us find an authentic life. This is nothing to do with becoming more successful at work or making more money, although this may or may not follow from being more authentic. There is nothing wrong with abundance weekends, but if we mistake spirituality for increased business success, then we are guilty of spiritual materialism and we find ourselves deeper in the illusion. (The Japanese say that the Gods laugh at those who pray for money.)     20. Is not interested in you personally: If a teacher or guru does not have time to interact with you personally, then you may as well read his teaching from a book, because merely being in his presence doesn't help you find realization inside you. You may model some of his spiritual characteristics, but that often only places you deeper in illusion.     21. Allows his followers to set up a hierarchy of access: A guru must be accessible. If he is not, or if he allows his followers to block your access, then he is playing the role of a king and not a spiritual guide. A guru is only useful to the process of awakening if you can directly interact with him.   22. Makes false claims of lineage: Many mistakenly believe that realisation can only happen under the guidance of a realized master. In this belief system, gurus are only authentic when they come from a line or lineage of realized gurus. Desperate not to be left out, some gurus claim a false lineage of enlightened masters to bolster their authority to teach. Another pseudo form of "lineage" is to recount a miracle that once happened to them (maybe they cured themselves of some disease or God spoke to them personally) which infers that they are "chosen" and therefore have the authority to set themselves up as teachers and gurus.     23. Presents themselves as non-profit whilst raking in the millions: Often, the false prophet will present her teachings for free, whilst strongly encouraging her devotees to make large donations. In this way she can appear above money considerations, whilst maintaining her greed and opulence.     24. Collects a large band of angry ex-followers: This is an indication that something is seriously wrong. If she has used kindness and love in her interactions with her students, and has discouraged them from projecting denied spiritual characteristics onto the guru (rather than encouraging their integration into the self), then it is extremely unlikely that there would be more than a few disheartened ex's. Many might drift away and feel they have wasted their time, but they are only likely to have the great anger if they have put their teacher on a pedestal, given him their power, and later realized that he was never worthy of such adoration. Contrary to what some believe, it is actually the teacher's responsibility to strongly discourage students from putting them on pedestals, for this is counterproductive to finding realization inside (His Holiness again: "Real teachers do not go looking for students. Real students go looking for teachers." I can tell you THAT much is true, because I didn't get "recruited" into paganism -- I walked into an esoteric store, searching and seeking, and this little woman named Lady Auset popped her head up and said, "Were you looking for me?" I wasn't, and yet I was -- does that make sense? His Holiness also says, "Be wary of the self-styled master who makes himself the focus of all activity, building a cult of personality that becomes the object of all activity.").     25. Uses pseudo-technology: Many false prophets and organisations base themselves around pseudo-technology in the effort to appear scientific - special meters, communication devices (do you really expect the aliens to use a mobile?) and energy clearing instruments and pendants that involve crystals and copper wire. Once again, this is to distract the unwary from the poor quality of the actual teaching.     26. Acts like a complete paranoid mad person: If your Precious One acts like a complete paranoid schizophrenic or psychotic then he or she probably is. Run! Remember that there is no such thing as "crazy wisdom"-wisdom is the art of being balanced. However charismatic they may be, and sane between moments of madness, you WILL be damaged by them.

I'm so tired of so-called "teachers" proclaiming that it is they, and they alone, who give you the power to have "Free Will."

Understand, I'm not talking about the genuine Teachers (note the capitalization), the Maharajas and the Gurus and the Priestesses and the Priests and the Rabbis and the Whatevers who serve as a vehicle of the Divinity to their students (NOT as the Divinity Him/Herself, for no one can do that -- and anyone who proclaims to be is a total bullshit artist).

I'm talking about these self-proclaimed sole arbiters of truth -- so-called Alpha-Omegas -- self-stylized wannabe reincarnations of Buddha and Isis and Vishnu and Yeshua ben-Yusef.

A very wise man -- my father, actually, a Catholic of the strictest order -- once told me that the most powerful, most spiritual people don't have to tell people how powerful and spiritual they are -- they simply ARE, and they don't need anyone to tell them so.

Time has proven him right -- perfect example is the Dalai Lama. Regardless of spiritual path, NO ONE (to my knowledge) has ever come away from satsang -- or even a simple audience -- with His Holiness NOT believing he was reincarnation of the Buddha (the TRUE reincarnation, not some self-stylized bullshit wrapped in egomania and sexism). Simply hearing his voice makes one realize how suffused with love and compassion the man is -- how much he embodies the Divinity and makes it accessible to us, and in turn, makes us realize the Divinity within ourselves and within all beings.

Hell, my father -- the same Catholic of the strictest order -- even said that he believes the Dalai Lama to be more powerful, spiritually, than the current Pope! (Though not moreso than PJPII...maybe on the same rank, though...Catholics, eh?)

Anyway...free will.
Folks, whether you believe this or not -- and regardless of your religion and/or spirituality (or lack thereof) -- COMMON SENSE (which seems to be less and less common) tells you that you are born with Free Will.

You read that right: YOU ARE BORN WITH FREE WILL, YOU WILL LIVE THE REST OF YOUR LIFE WITH FREE WILL, AND UNTIL THE DAY YOU DRAW YOUR LAST BREATH ON THIS EARTH YOU WILL HAVE FREE WILL.
This is REALLY not that difficult.

The question is, WHAT is the consequence of that free will?
Newton's Third Law -- The Law of Reciprocal Motion -- solves that for us: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Whether you choose to call it Karma, an Impediment to Enlightenment (yes, because like spoiled children, if we can't do exactly what we want when we want then we're being denied something we SO have the right to AT THAT VERY MOMENT *eye roll*), God Working in Mysterious Ways, or even Just a Total Bummer, the law still remains the same: Do something, and that will cause something else to happen with equal or opposite force.

In a spiritual sense, it may not be right then and there...but it does happen.
You know why?
Scientifically, no one lives in a vacuum. Spiritually, there is no vacuum.
Vacuums only exist in theory and in controlled laboratory environments (you can include "cults" in the latter if you're so inclined).

To use an extreme example: do you have the FREE WILL to kill someone? Yes, you do. But if you kill someone (action), you run the risk of being plagued with guilt and sorrow and death of soul (equal reaction), to say nothing of what the law will do when it catches up with you (depending on where you live, EXTREMELY opposite reaction).

Such is an extreme example of the price of Free Will -- a price you pay every day of your life. It can either pay you well (do good things, good things happen to you) or it can cost you severely (do bad things, pay the consequences).

And, please, no more of this "I can free you from Karma" crap that the False Prophets shove down your throat. That line is rife with STUPIDITY -- not to mention DANGER.

*pause for the "Enlightened Ones" to start typing their nasty e-mails and comments to me, saying how I, too, can be Enlightened JUST LIKE THEM if I send them enough money and am willing to sit idly by as they rip all but the very life out from underneath the weaker would-be congregants. And while you're at it, Jim Baker, tell me how much of a "sinner" or "loser" I am if I don't believe you to be anything more than the charlatan that you truly are. Don't forget to close the e-mail with something like "love and light," mmkay? *burp* Oh, sorry, did you mistake me for someone who gives a shit?*

Right...now let's analyze why the "I can free you from Karma" line (or any of its variants) is stupid and dangerous.

1. Not even the Dalai Lama promises to free you from Karma, and none of us here (or anywhere) will deny the notion that if ANYONE knows how to be released from Karma, it's the one man who is truly free from samsara. He shows you *A* Way (and emphasizes that it's not *THE* Way, but *A* Way) and leaves the rest up to you. Sure, he'll help you up the Mountain if you ask him, but the Path you take up the Mountain is ultimately YOURS, and YOURS ALONE.

In other words, His Holiness allows you to have FREE WILL.
(So did Jesus, Moses, Muhammed, and other true Teachers throughout history...)
By consequence, Free Will begets Karma; conversely, Karma is a direct result of Free Will. Take one away, and the other ceases to exist. (Hence, the danger of "teachers" promising to free you from Karma -- what they really mean is, "follow me, and only me, and if I have to crush you to make you listen, by Gods, I will.")

2. Because "karma" has been thrown around so freely, people have lost the sense of what it really means. So let me, uh, Enlighten you.

Free of charge, folks. I don't ask for donations, and never will -- but if you're in a giving mood, might I suggest going HERE (http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-fO3VjXUydLP0M0DlGtAJj4CB1Ei5FA--?cq=1&p=19)  to learn about some simple ways to help some wonderful creatures who cannot help themselves?
Or, if you have some extra change collecting in a piggy bank/Mason jar/old shoe box (I have it in a washed-out Purina One tin), might I suggest going HERE( http://www.charitywatch.org/toprated.html ) and picking a REPUTABLE charity to help alleve the suffering of even ONE of your fellow Humans so that they, too, can be "enlightened"?

Karma is NOT "what goes around, comes around." "What goes around, comes around" REALLY means "status is restored after completing a cycle," like when the sun "rises" in the East and "sets" in the West, and the completion of a cycle is not bound by Karma (the Sun is not subject to samsara).

So, if your boyfriend cheats on you with a known prostitute, and he gets crabs in doing so, what happened to him is not Karma (it's The Law of Reciprocal Motion -- again, not the same thing), nor is it "what goes around, comes around" (that happens when you take his cheating ass back and continue the relationship as though it never happened, thereby restoring the status after completing a cycle).
Nor is it Karma if you take delight in his sudden increased propensity to scratch himself and tell him something to the effect of "that's what you get for cheating on me!" (that's schadenfreude, which literally means "the joy in someone else's pain" and is the opposite of the Buddhist mudita, which is "the joy in someone else's joy.")

Karma is NOT "created" when you, say, cheat on your wife, beat your kids, or chain-smoke cigarettes (what some may argue is acting out of pride and/or ego) -- it EXISTS because you ACT, EVERY DAY, be it out of biology or force of habit or conscious choice or WTF-ever, and IN SO EXISTING -- wait for it now -- MAKES YOU RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR OWN LIFE.

You see, creation implies that -- intrinsically -- it can be subject to destruction. Because Karma, by definition, is an Energy, it can neither be created nor destroyed -- it can only be changed into a different form.

So now that we know what Karma is NOT, we can best describe what Karma IS.
And Karma is, quite simply, the effects of ALL deeds which actively create past, present and future experiences, thus making one responsible for one's own life, and the pain and joy it brings to you and others.

(And no more of this "when you take responsibility, you free yourself from Karma" crap. PLEASE. Quite the opposite: when you take responsibility, you become more aware of YOURSELF and YOUR PLACE IN THIS WORLD, and how you relate to other beings, and how your existence can either bring them joy and/or pain. That is, of course, if you're on the path to Enlightenment, which leads me to...

3. Enlightenment cannot, will not, and never will be achieved by simply following someone's definition thereof. You cannot achieve Enlightenment by kneeling, sitting, and standing on command, out of rote memory, in Church or Temple or Mosque. You cannot achieve Enlightenment by blinding following the teachings of a Guru (real or fake, self-stylized or bestowed-upon), a Teacher, a Priestess, or a Whatever, without ability to question the teachings (even if only to have it make sense in your mind) and with total devotion to the Teacher at hand (remember what I said about Apotheosis?). Hell, you cannot achieve Enlightenment by simply sitting slacker-jawed at MTV or the Internet.

How can you achieve it?
Work and query.
Ever the watch-words: work and query.
Serve the Grail (and there are many grails), NOT THE SERVANTS.

Recognize that there is Divinity within, and Divinity without. And sometimes, our Teachers come from the strangest places, and teach us the strangest lessons. (They may not even call themselves "Teachers"...)

For a better explanation of this, might I suggest the following article:
http://www.geocities.com/the_wanderling/Recognize.html

Pay extra special attention to the following line (emphases mine):

4. No need to talk about it: This feeling is extremely pronounced in the first several weeks following the Enlightenment. Talking, even thinking about it is felt to be as superfluous as asking a fellow passenger on a train: "Are you, too, traveling in this train?" It's meaningless. Since everybody else is also Enlightened, what's there to talk about? You just live.

(Yet another reason why you should avoid self-styled "teachers" who blather on about Enlightenment and use fancy words that they CLEARLY don't understand to mask their ignorance, megalomania, and God-complexes.)

Ultimately, the price of Free Will has to be a price we're willing to pay. And it's never more -- or less -- than any of us, either individually or as a collective, are ever willing to do.

So, last night, I was hanging out with my brother-from-another-mother Chuck and his wonderfully witchy lady, my good friend/future business partner Michelle Witchipoo (the artist of my "spiritual self" icon in this profile -- trust me when I tell you that this is just the beginning -- and that is all I will say at this point) when Chuck whipped out a DVD that his mom's "Bible study" class (I know, I know...keep an open mind, though...the story has a payoff) watched at their last meeting.

The title of the DVD was "Luggage" by a Christian preacher named Rob Bell.

You can see a preview of it here:

http://myspacetv.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=28803479

Now, certainly, the video had its flaws (not the least of which being the obvious metaphors -- "baggage" vs. "luggage," get it? -- the preacher who was trying oh-so-hard to be oh-so-hip to appeal to the faux-hipster kids in the Midwest, and the ending which just was way too friggin' obvious), but the message certainly wasn't one of them.

As someone who is nothing if not a VERY lapsed and cynical Catholic, I have to say that I enjoyed this video, and I encourage all folks of all denominations and spiritual paths to check it out.

For someone like me, that's saying A LOT.

Why do I recommend this video?

(1) Unlike some (OK, nearly ALL) "Christian" videos out there, this one does not distort the teachings of Yeshua ben-Yusef (Jesus). However you view Jesus -- avatar, bodhisattva, Deity, Son of God, the Light of the World, Rabbi, Teacher, philosopher, figment of imagination -- you have to agree on one thing: his message was one of peace, love, and forgiveness. (Too bad his followers didn't get the memo, but that's another story...)

Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, "Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?" Jesus answered, "I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times. (Matthew 18:21-22)

(Mind you, this didn't mean "kick his ass on the 78th time" -- Jesus, like many rabbis of his time, was versed in numerology; seven was thought of as the number that symbolized "infinity." So what He's saying here is, "not infinity, but double infinity." Or, simply, always forgive your enemy.)

The message was just that in "Luggage" -- Jesus tells us to forgive. Maybe we should listen?

(Would it be that all potential Teachers, Rabbis, Gurus, and so forth would learn than true Divinity isn't found in speaking in complicated words that they clearly don't understand, but in listening and learning the simple message...)

(2) "Luggage" didn't assume that every person watching it was an insecure idiot, waiting with mouths agape to be indoctrinated with some twisted and erroneous view of the Teachings of one of the world's greatest Teachers. Instead, it simply stated the message, and allowed the viewer to take with him/her what s/he wished, exclusive of belief (or lack thereof).

While I know full well that there are plenty of Christian sects and evangelicals who DO practice that sort of "indoctrination" (whom I have no tolerance for), I have to give credit to Rob Bell for his respect for all people of all beliefs...something that, say, Jesus would have done, c'est non? (Imagine that...)

As an aside, I went to Rob Bell's website in my research -- turns out he's just a simple man, leading a simple life in middle America, as a preacher, with his wife and two boys. And wouldn't you know it -- no long, rambling blogs on his website with pompous "declarations" and cyber-dick-stroking (sorry, but there's no nice way of putting that); no proclamations that HIS Way is THE Way -- or even that JESUS's Way is THE Way; no judgement or discrimination or venom or railing out against people who disagree with him.
Imagine that.
How refreshing to see in a world full of self-stylized hatemongers passing off as "messengers of God" and narcissistic megalomaniacs who are one breakdown away from Charlie Manson passing themselves off as "living Deities."
Imagine -- someone simply teaching a message, and living the life his Teacher taught him to lead. 

I nearly cried. No, really, I did.
I've had to bear witness, lately, to some of the most disturbing videos and testimonials from former cult members of all types of denominations -- and regardless of the denomination, the one thing each cult survivor had in common was they were subjugated to the most base, depraved actions from a so-called "teacher" -- a wo/man whom they TRUSTED with their very spirits, their money, their mind, even their way of life -- whose trust was rewarded with everything from physical/mental/sexual abuse to bankruptcy to, in some cases, the suggestion that they "kill themselves." 

What was it His Holiness said about this sort of thing? 
Oh yeah...I remember: "We must therefore develop a sense of responsibility for each others condition, we must see that hurting someone else, or inflicting pain on other people, cannot bring happiness or peace of mind."

More simply: "If you can't help people, at least don't hurt them."
I'll take his word over the words of a wolf in sheep's clothing, thanks.

But, kudos to Rob Bell, for his ability to teach without judgment, to exhibit kindness and strength at the same time, and to hold firm to his beliefs without condemning others in the process. Whether he knows it or not, he is truly one of the enlightened ones.

Coming from a cynical, lapsed Catholic/practicing Pagan with Buddhist tendencies, that's saying a lot.

---

So let's go over what "Luggage" taught us (while using obvious metaphors and formulaic acting -- facts we will ignore for this blog, because he wasn't submitting the video for Cannes -- he was trying to reach some people he felt needed to be reached).

Some people have small hurts; some have big ones.
It's the difference between a spiritual paper cut versus a spiritual Buck-knife-inflicted gash.

(Trust me -- you're talking to a woman who's had more than her share of the latter -- more often than not inflicted by those whom she trusted and loved most. But I guess that's the only way for that to happen, isn't it? We can only hurt the ones we love, or the ones who love us most...)

But here's the thing: all cuts, all wounds -- regardless of how deep -- heal.
The question is, do they heal properly?
Well, sure...and there's been countless debates on the proper way to deal with those wounds so that they "heal" properly. A spiritual cut isn't quite like a flesh cut -- which can be solved with anything ranging from Band-aides to stitches, even staples depending on the length, depth, and location of the cut -- in that there's no one set way to deal with it.

Sometimes, when gashes heal, they leave a permanent scar -- leaving us unable to trust again, love again, and a hodgepodge of other "issues."
Sometimes, when gashes heal, they leave stronger tissue in their place -- turning us into warriors, fighting for those who were/are as vulnerable as we once were.

Bell, for his part, says that the way to achieve the latter is through forgiveness, like his Teacher Jesus taught His followers. "Don't insist on getting even," said Bell, citing Romans as proof that "God will take care of it."

But here's my question: how does God "take care of it"? We have examples of the Christian God being everything from vengeful to kind and fatherly. Which side of Himself does He show against the sinner? And if He shows the former side, why is it OK for Him to do, but not for us?

After all, there are men currently sitting in prison who have raped, tortured, and murdered children. Why are they still allowed to breathe while these innocent lives ended -- at their hands, no less? How is that "justice" or "God taking care of it"? What -- the kids that got killed get wings in Heaven? Yeah...makes me feel better. And I'm sure it makes their grieving parents feel just dandy. [/sarcasm]

But I think, too, that this is where Christianity falls short: Christianity -- TRUE Christianity -- is based on the concept of living a life of forgiveness, but their forgiveness implies that karma does not exist.

(As proof, I offer you a seemingly silly example: when, in my senior year of all-girls-Catholic high school, we were told to put together a ballot wherein we had to put five choices of "senior songs," I was told that my choice of Instant Karma by John Lennon would not be eligible for selection because, "Catholics don't believe in Karma." At the time, I just liked the idea of all of us shining on like the Moon, the Stars, and the Sun ("Pagan concepts," as I was informed by Sister Mary Pain-in-the-Ass)...and we ultimately went with the less inocuous, more-encompassing These are Days by The 10,000 Maniacs. Given some of our other choices, I suppose it could have been worse...and Natalie Merchant-era Maniacs was pretty good...)

So, if Karma -- which we learned yesterday is the net sum of all actions -- doesn't exist, how, then, are we held accountable for our actions...good or bad? How, then, do we learn our place in the Universe -- how, then, do we realize that our existence can either cause great joy or great pain, depending on the net sum of our actions?
That's the problem -- Catholics/Christians can't -- and that's why so many of them think revenge is the best option.

Bell posed the question, "When you take revenge, aren't you saying to God, 'I think I can handle this better than you'?" I say, yes, as a matter of fact, I am -- and I can, because if you think the threat of "eternal damnation" is going to work on someone (say, a cult leader) who performs horrific acts on a daily basis (say, swindles money out of his devotees and forces them to live a life of poverty while he lives the life of Riley) and reaps the benefits on this Earth, you are sadly mistaken, Reverend.

Besides, he doesn't even believe in your God -- why would your AntiGod scare him? Please! Like some construct of a red man with horns and a pitchfork is going to work on someone clinically diagnosed with Narcissistic Personality Disorder -- he'd probably get to Hell and tell the Devil to get off "his!" throne!

That said, Bell does raise the issue of what carrying a grudge -- and executing revenge -- does to the person holding the grudge and plotting the revenge. And it ain't pretty.
And on this point that he makes, I do applaud him.

Because, he argues, forgiveness isn't about setting the person who wronged you free -- it's about setting yourself free.

---
If you can indulge me a personal story...
About three years ago, I was working with a band (local, NYC-based; chances are the vast majority of you haven't heard of them, and given what they sound like these days, you're much better off), helping them out with bookings and promotion and the like.

In so doing, I met one of their "fans" (okay, GROUPIES) who deemed me a threat from the minute she met me. She tried to pass herself off as one of my "friends" (I saw right through her from the get-go, though I didn't let her know it at the time -- I just gave her enough rope to hang herself) while acting like the paranoid, pathetic, psychotic loser that she truly was.

Without going into extensive detail (becase she's not the point of this story, much as she'd like to believe that -- despite Galileo's findings -- the Earth revolves around her), at first, she started doing inocuous, childish things (i.e., MySpace hatemail, tantrums at shows, Evil Death Stares to innocent girls who hit on "her Boo" -- the lead singer of this band), which I just dismissed as Typical Groupie Bullshit (when you've been in the music business for as long as I have, you become cynical about these sorts of things).

When that didn't work -- when that didn't get my attention -- she started upping the ante.

She physically assaulted girls at shows (never me, mind you -- I'm not a violent person by nature, but I DO have a black belt in Kenpo and have been trained in other martial arts -- DO NOT THINK, for even a moment, that you can physically attack me and not expect me to defend myself -- I DARE those self-appointed "teachers" who assault their students to try to pick their hands up to me. Call your lawyer now, bitch!).

She hacked into the band's MySpace page (I know, I know) and deleted/blocked girls she saw as a threat (and usually sent them off with nasty, venom-filled e-mails purportedly from "the band" -- THAT, I WAS at the receiving end of -- which, looking back on, perfectly demonstrated her weakness, her failure to reason, and her utter lack of intelligence). 

At one show -- most embarrassingly -- which was the band's showcase for several major labels (even their lawyer showed up), she literally bawled her eyes out the entire show, flailing and wailing as though she were at her mother's funeral,  all because "her Boo" told her not to take photos that night (yeah, because Gods forbid he should look professional...).

But there was one thing she did do to me that ended up costing her a LOT more than she bargained for -- and I know, full well, that if she could go back in time and change that action she did to me, she'd do it in a heartbeat -- and that was, after she tried to steal a photo of mine (i.e., claim credit for an award-winning photo that appeared in an NYC Fashion Week exhibit), she sent me a nasty, venom-filled e-mail wherein she attacked my two-year-old (at the time -- he's nearly 5 now) nephew and my dead grandmother.

Reagrdless of their relationship to me, both are defenseless, unable to defend themselves, and undeserving of any of her wrath (or anyone else's, for that matter).
 
And if there's one thing you NEVER do in my presence, it's attack a defenseless being -- because I will call upon every Astral enforcer to make you wish you'd never even heard my name. Samsara is the least of your problems if you hurt a defenseless being and I find out about it.
 
To make a long story short, because our Rhodes scholar sent this diatribe in an e-mail, I was able to isolate and trace her headers. Aggravated harassment over the Internet, especially at the level she was doing it at (trust me, it was a lot more than attacking a baby and a dead woman -- she was e-mailing other girls in other states, putting it in Federal jurisdiction), was a pretty hefty charge. Not to mention, her deliberate copyright infringement of my work was going to cost her a very hefty $150K if I chose to pursue it in court (when I threatened the suit, through lawyers and Internet vigilante groups, she responded by immediately filing for Chapter 13 bankruptcy -- which was all the proof of guilt that I needed).

All that, though, was just the latest in a series of decisions, actions, thoughts, and words this "woman" put forth in an effort to cater to her obsession.

What ended up happening to her -- and trust me, if ever you wanted to see a living example of a pathetic life, this woman is it -- was tragic in and of itself: all I asked of the Universe was that she be given only what she deserved -- no more, no less.
Apparantly, the net sum of her actions -- her collective Karma -- was tragic indeed: her life is a virtual wasteland, without purpose or meaning, without true friends or people who love her, without respect from the very people she wanted so desperately to be accepted by.

And the upshot/moral to the story?
Despite all she'd done to me -- and everyone else -- I couldn't find it in me to seek revenge. I couldn't find it in me to display hatred towards her (if only because she was unworthy of my contempt). I couldn't find it in me, through countless blogs and talks trying to make sense of it all, to do to her what she'd done to me (and countless others), even though it could be argued that it was exactly what she deserved.
 
Through a third party, she sent a message of apology to me -- to which I responded that there was nothing to apologize for, because there was nothing to forgive. I responded that there was nothing to forgive, because what she did wasn't sinful (even though that was her intention) -- what she did was pathetic, and worthy of pity, which is infinitely worse because it turns the aggressor into the victim and forces them into the prison of their own warped conscience.

And with that response, I was free from all she'd done -- and she was placed in the prison known as her wasteland of a life for as long as she draws breath on this Earth (and, who knows, maybe even in her next life, too -- though I do pray that she doesn't go through that. I do pray that, at the very least, she thinks about the net sum of Karma before she does something out of obsession or ego...). 

---
There have been plenty of times, along this path that I call my Life, that I have made mistakes (be they deliberate or unintentional). And in those mistakes, I did hurt people (though THAT was unintentional -- but it doesn't make it right). 

And there have been times that I have had to ask for forgiveness, and I've done so with tears in my eyes and a huge, sticky lump in my throat -- not out of wounded pride, but out of genuine regret for doing something that hurt another person in the process (and this was even BEFORE I became Pagan with Buddhist tendencies, and "aware" of my place in the world and how my life affects all things...).  

And there have been times that I feared I'd never get forgiveness -- I didn't deserve it -- and got it anyway, with no conditions except open arms and truth of heart.

I'm sure that's happened, in different capacities, to everyone here.

If that's the case -- if you've been forgiven, even once, for doing something wrong, especially when you felt you didn't deserve to be forgiven -- what gives you the right to not repay the favor in kind? To not set the balance of the Universe in order? Who are you to judge anyone -- who are you to decide who deserves forgiveness, and who doesn't?

These are all point Rob Bell raises effectively...and though I am not a Catholic, or a Christian, I have to say he is right.
And you don't have to be Catholic, or Christian, to know he is right -- you just have to be aware. You just have to be Human.

***WARNING: SPOILER ALERT*** At the end of the film, the woman who was carrying the "Luggage" -- the big, heavy, unwieldy bag -- around ends up dying. For me, what I got out of that was, she died with hatred in her heart -- bound by the chains she placed around herself because of wrongs committed against her -- wrongs she could have been released from had she simply realized that, in releasing the hurts to the Universe and allowing the "sinner's" (for lack of a better word) net sum Karma to reap its rewards (or sow the consequences) and take what happened to her as a mere Learning Experience.

Instead of growing from it, she shrunk from it.
And that's the tragedy.
That's what we need to avoid.
That's what prevents us from truly being Free (Enlightened, Aware, Unbound by Samsara, whatever you want to call it).

"May you forgive, as you've been forgiven. May you give to others what's been given to you. May you set someone free and find out it was you. And may you do it today, because you might not have the chance tomorrow." -- Rob Bell

Don't you hate it when you're so tired that you fall asleep halfway to the pillow...but you can't fall asleep because you're wide awake, staring at the ceiling, listening to your dog chew on his marrow bone and envying his simple life because you're ruminating on Life, The Universe, and Everything (with apologies to Douglas Adams)?

And then you realize that you don't WANT to go to sleep until you answer that One Last Question for yourself, and the next thing you know, you wake up in a pool of your own spit over a dog-eared copy of your latest thought-provoking book (in my case, "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism: A Bishop Rethinks Scripture" by John Shelby Spong -- I said I was a lapsed and cynical Catholic, I didn't say their beliefs had no validity -- ALL beliefs have some element of validity -- it's just that MY belief system ISN'T the one I was raised with), which only means you KNOW you're going to stay up even LONGER than before, and no about of chamomile tea or cascara sagrada or counting sheep is going to put you to sleep?

Not that you want to, of course...or so you think...

You hate that?

Yeah, me too...

OK, so it's not my normal "enlightened" fare.
But I did want to share, in part because the latter (especially) is a new creative kick I'm on.
You know, because I wasn't busy enough with the acting, modeling, writing, photography, PhD candidacy, and so on. (I must've been the laziest of lazy sods in a former life, because on this spin of the wheel, I just feel the need to do everything and anything...no worries, I'll sleep when I'm dead...)

On the latter topic...know that my great-aunt, Olga Burgani (mom's side), was a seamstress. Nothing along the lines of Vivienne Westwood or Betsey Johnson, mind you, but known in her town (Avellino, just outside of Naples) as the go-to person for lovely dresses and the like. She made my mother's wedding dress using one stitch/seam (don't ask me how, because I swear I couldn't explain it to you if I tried).
Because I grew up working-class in Queens, my parents couldn't afford to buy me all the nice clothes that they may have liked to, so my mom took it upon herself to purchase Butterick (sp?) patterns and would make me all sorts of nice dresses and play-clothes. (My aunt had a knack for knitting, so I got nice sweaters out of the deal, too...) Because I was in Catholic school, we all wore uniforms most of the time, so it didn't matter anyway (couldn't get away with that on Lawn Guy Land, but that's neither here nor there...).

Would it be that I would learn such a talent...well, the other day, I was doing laundry, and I pulled out what was left of a Finespun (www.finespunmusic.com) band shirt. After I got over my aggravation -- Oren, the lead singer of Finespun, is a dear and long-time friend; why, oh why, could my washing machine not eat my Twisted Sister shirt? -- I realized that I needed a few things in the wardrobe department. Having just taken some clothes to Beacon's Closet (www.beaconscloset.com -- for all your designer-wares on a budget) and being short a few essentials, I figured now was as good of a time as any to update some much needed punk-rock wares. (I'm a rocker at heart...) 

Unfortch, I'm not (and never have been) the kind of girl to drop thousands of dollars on dresses when there are hungry children in Africa (and here, and elsewhere). All those designer dresses in my closet? Never more than $25 at Beacon's Closet. I'm sure there are people that think I spent $10K on my wardrobe, what with all the "names" on the labels, but really...do I look like someone who cares what people think? Think whatever you want. You have the right to, you know...

More to the point...as I'm sure some of you may have been hearing, I'm currently working with my business partner and dear friend (the one who drew my "Spiritual Self" icon) on a new project involving her drawings and clothing. (Another hint...but that's about it for now...)

So...in an effort to conserve funds, get some ideas, and try my hand at something new...out of one Finespun shirt, I got a Finespun halter top (SEXY!), a pair of fingerless punk-rock gloves (embellished with a $1 gold notions chain I got at a crafts store today), and some remnant fabric whose use is TBD on my next project: a much-needed tote/gym bag made out of an old, stained sweatshirt (I'm currently carrying my gym clothes in a brown Trader Joe's bag. Not good.).

I'm finding sewing to be quite relaxing...after that, I'm looking to make a few nice dresses for summer. I was in my aunt's basement today and found some AWESOME red velvet ("you can have it, what the hell am I gonna do with it?" "Really? THANKS!"). Maybe I'll put my creations on eBay and get a second (twentieth?) career as a Sew Subversive clothing designer, and in turn create a buzz for the new line w/Mitch. Who knows. I'll certainly post pics of my creations as they're coming along. I'm sure you could all use a good laugh. ;-)

---

Today, too, I had a discussion with a friend -- gay, male, ridiculously gorgeous and smart and would be oh-so-damn-perfect as a mate if he liked chicks or if I was a dude -- about straight women such as myself patronizing gay bars.
 
He didn't like the idea.
I told him he didn't know what it was like in straight bars.

Folks, I'm 30 years old. I know that these days, 30 is the new 18, or whatever...but I'm too old to go goofing around in bars to pick up guys. And I have no interest in doing so. (Come to think of it, I never was the type to do so...in my whole dating life, I dated only ONE guy I met at a bar...and that was such a disaster I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. He's the only ex I have that I'm not friends with...)
That also means that when I go out for a drink, I don't want to be propositioned by every over-'roided frat boy whose last girlfriend was inflatable. I'm sorry, but at the end of the day, I don't care how good you look -- if you look like Brad Pitt but act like Michael Vick, I won't find you attractive. Consequently, you could look like Buddy Hackett (okay, maybe not Buddy Hackett -- Albert Brooks, okay?), and if you act like a prince amongst men, I will be more likely to return your call after the three-day rule.

So, sometimes, when I want a drink (and in case you see me in a bar, know that my drink of choice is Guiness Extra Stout -- one Guiness, nursed for about an hour, followed by club soda for the rest of the night. It tastes like coffee -- what can I tell ya?), I will stop in a bar that's known to be a gay male hangout/pick-up joint. Because unless they're stone-cold blind-drunk, they're not about to hit on me. They will, however, be more than happy to talk to me, and I'm always up for interesting conversation.

OTOH, I see where he's coming from, too -- sometimes, you get a group of drunk sorority chicks who get together and go to gay bars just to shriek, giggle, and point at men on the pull.
Not cool.

That's where we left the convo off...more on this in a later post...

If anyone -- ANYONE AT ALL -- can arrange for me to satsang with this wonderful man (or, if anyone even knows if he'll be speaking in my area -- NYC/Tri-state), I will be most indebted to you. My kingdom for ya...

---

The following quotes are from the article "Toward A New Spiritual Ethic," by Kate Wheeler; March/April 1994 edition of Nexus. [His Holiness' words are in quotes]

---

At a symposium with 22 Western Buddhist teachers, the Dalai Lama had strong words for teachers who abuse their power—and students who give theirs away.


"A teacher who behaves unethically or asks students to do so can be judged as lacking in ultimate insight," His Holiness said. "As far as my own understanding goes, the two claims—that you are not subject to precepts and you are free—these are the result of incorrect understanding. No behavior is free from consequences. For this reason, true wisdom always includes compassion, the understanding that all things and beings are interconnected with (and vulnerable to) each other.


"Even though one’s realization may be higher than the high beings," His Holiness said, "one’s behavior should conform to the human way of life.


"When teachers break the precepts, behaving in ways that are clearly damaging to themselves and others, students must face the situation, even though this can be challenging. Criticize openly," His Holiness declared. "That’s the only way. If there is incontrovertible evidence of wrongdoing, teachers should be confronted with it. They should be allowed to admit their wrongs, make amends, and undergo a rehabilitation process. If a teacher won’t respond, students should publish the situation in a newspaper, not omitting the teacher’s name," His Holiness said. "The fact that the teacher may have done many other good things should not keep us silent."

This is from the Herald, which I write for. Reprinted with permission. (FYI, I got my master's degree @ Hofstra...)


---


The 14th Dalai Lama, Tanzin Gyatso, was recently selected as the first recipient of Hofstra University's international Guru Nanak Interfaith Prize, said Hofstra president Stuart Rabinowitz last week.



The $50,000 prize, which recognizes efforts at interfaith dialogue, will be presented to the Dalai Lama on Nov. 18 in India. A delegation will present the award, including Hofstra officials, the family of Sardar Ishar Singh Bindra -- who established the prize at Hofstra -- and former Indian prime minister I.K. Gujral, a member of the Guru Nanak Interfaith Prize honorary committee. The Dalai Lama has agreed to visit Hofstra in the near future.



[BG's comment: I. Am. So. There.]



"There are few mission as important for a university as the advancement of understanding among all peoples," said Rabinowitz. "Awarding this prize allows us to recognize those who bring together people of all faiths, which now, more than ever, is important for the peace and prosperity of our world. We are pleased to bestow Hofstra's inaugural Guru Nanak Interfaith Prize on a person as worth and renowned as His Holiness the Dalai Lama."



Tashi Wangdi, the Dalai Lama's U.S. representative, accepted the prize last week on behalf of the Dalai Lama during a news conference at Hofstra. "We are very happy that this award has been given to His Holiness in recognition of his many years of promoting interfaith dialogue and understanding," he said.



There were 75 individuals and groups nominated for the first prize, representing interfaithh efforts in Africa, Asia, Europe and the Middle East, as well as throughout the United States and Canada.

Well worth reading...

---

Warning Signs of Dysfunctional Cults

Based on the insightful work of Deikman and other researchers, [2] as well as my own longtime investigation of spiritual movements old and new, here is a lengthy list of warning signs about cults, interspersed with remarks about signs of healthy spiritual groups. An absence of these warning signs characterizes healthy spiritual groups.

It's hard to keep this list of warning signs short; all points covered are crucial. They constitute a useful set of criteria as our traditional religions and new religions unfold in this new millennium. Unbelievably, some cults (like Scientology) have violated almost all these warning signs! I will have more to say at the end of this essay, but let us here examine the list of...

* Craving for followers; seductive recruiting strategies or heavy-handed tactics of proselytizing or conversion (including "love bombing," that is, showering prospective recruits with friendly, but strategic, attention). If the spiritual movement is pure and its members are radiant with virtuous qualities and deep spiritual realization, new people will be attracted to the movement intuitively, spontaneously, and naturally. The movement won't need to pursue anyone with a hyped sales pitch that exploits people's desires, fears, or insecurities in their quest for meaning and fulfillment.

* Intimidating indoctrination procedures that psychologically break a person down (suppressing old behaviors, attitudes, and relationships) so that s/he can be rebuilt according to the group's ideal of a docile, unquestioning, compliant member.

* Expensive entry fees or initiations. In fact, the less the group has to do with money, the better. The greatest spiritual masters charge no money whatsoever for sharing their love and guidance. Their work is supported via voluntary donations from those who can easily afford it or are inspired to give without being asked. Beware groups that demand from members much or all of their assets. (Presently some 500 cults in the United States, most of them Christian, demand all assets from members.) A small tithe isn't necessarily exploitative if all monies serve reasonable purposes and can be accounted for upon request.

* A hidden agenda that becomes known to a group member only after s/he is heavily invested in the cult membership. In a healthy spiritual group, completely informed consent is standard policy. Hence, there should be no use of front names masking the group's real affiliation.

* Excessive demands on the time and energy of the group members. Slave labor, overwork, or sleep/food deprivation demanded on behalf of the group as proof of loyalty. Obsessive scheduling, such that every moment of one's waking life is controlled by the group. In a healthy group, members' donation of their time and energy are a voluntary gift, not compelled.

* Trapping or holding onto members. People should be able to leave the group at any time for any reason without fear of damnation, reprisal, scorn, or being pursued or shunned by cult members.

* Theological thought control. Members should be free to worship Divinity under whatever Name and Form they so choose (God the Father, Goddess Mother, formless YHVH/Allah/Godhead, Christ, Krishna, Siva, Brahman, Amida, Tao, Buddhata), short of harming or grossly offending others.

* Cultivation in members any attitude of childish dependency upon exploitative, authoritarian leaders who require absolute, exclusive devotion. Jesus enjoined us to be "child-like," not childish. Surrender to God is fine, and even some forms of hierarchical relationship are healthy and empowering (e.g., student-teacher, apprentice-master, and disciple-guru). But let us beware any disempowerment strategies that leave members feeling inadequate, without autonomy or inner locus of control, and no real hope of ever reaching the same (or nearly the same) spiritual level as the leader. A leader may teach that we need to lose egocentricity and selfish desires, but s/he will always articulate an empowering view that Divine Spirit is as much within our hearts as within the leader. This immanent Divinity is accessible via our own direct, interior connection with the God-Self, without mediation by the leader and any delegates or cronies.

* Chronic group feeling of righteous anger, revenge, turmoil, anxiety, shame, guilt, self-pity, fear, despair, mindless euphoria, ego-excitement, adrenaline rushes, self-inflated fervor or futuristic anticipation. Authentic spiritual movements are permeated by a deep feeling of genuine love, kindness, peace, freedom, bliss, ease of being, spontaneity, focus on the present situation and trust in Spirit or God.

* Flat affect (zombie-like absence of emotions). Excessively automatic, robot-like behavior. Radically de-automatized behavior (produced via sleep deprivation or sensory overload) that breaks down normal, responsible functioning.

* Crusading agenda to save the world or convert all souls to "the true way." A healthy spirituality emphasizes becoming individually transformed so that one is better aligned with the God-Self and involved in a simple, non-grandiose form of service to one's fellow beings. For a healthy spiritual group, service and giving are defined primarily as charitable assistance and generosity toward one's community, family, friends, and the world at large, not slavish service toward the narrow, voracious cult.

* Proud feeling of being the chosen people, of possessing the exclusive truth or means of salvation, or being superior to those outside the group. Heavily polarized "us-them," adversarial thinking, projection of one's own shadow qualities onto others, seeing outsiders as homogeneously negative, devoid of positive qualities ("they" are "bad" and "we" are "good"). Rigid boundaries and isolation between insiders and outsiders. Petty criticism, stereotyping or devaluing of outsiders. (Deikman: "Devaluing the outsider is... preliminary to harming others.... Whether the conflict is between nations or individuals, the attacker devalues the victim prior to the violent act.... The person you devalue becomes easier to kill." [4] ) Dysfunctional groups chronically emphasize the differences between group members and outsiders, at the expense of seeing the essential oneness we all share on human and spiritual levels.

* A chronic need to find and persistently maintain enemies inside or outside the group. Targeting or isolating of anyone inside or outside the group as a source of evil or contamination or "bad energy." Negative thought-forms aimed at others. By contrast, in healthy spirituality, the leader and group promote empathy, compassion, respect, and seeing the Divine in all beings: "Love thy neighbor" and "love thy enemy" (who is therefore no longer "the enemy").

* Paranoia-either delusions of grandeur by the leader or group, or self-pitying feelings of being persecuted and misunderstood by outsiders. Healthy, continuing contact and discussion with people and institutions outside the group will usually prevent or obviate any persecution and misunderstanding that might arise.
 

* Turning cult members into watched objects who have no privacy in their solitary behavior or relationships with others. Manipulative system of rewards and punishments. Totalitarian structure of permission and non-permission regarding basic behaviors including personal hygiene, interpersonal communication, etc. Orwellian system of informers who convey information to leaders about persons behind their back. Machiavellian techniques of setting members against each other or against outsiders. Ganging up on individual members to criticize or humiliate or coerce them; "working on them" to violate their own sense of conscience or autonomy. Brainwashing or mind-control techniques or high-pressure group dynamics coercing members to conform to a worldview, agenda, or code of conduct. Physical or psychological violence. Giving and withholding of love or praise as a manipulation technique. Frequent testing of members for loyalty, commitment, or obedience.

* Preventing contact with outsiders, ex-members, and even certain fellow members of the dysfunctional cult. Breaking up couples and families to gain power over individuals and prevent coalitions that could more effectively criticize unsound, corrupt leadership. Rigid isolating of cult members in an exclusive "family" away from their relatives and friends outside the cult so that the cult becomes the sole source for support, self-esteem and interpersonal connection. Isolating cult members from other members, even for short periods, in solitary confinement or quarantine to break them down and manipulate their views/behaviors.

* Blind obedience to harmful or unwise directives from on high. Abusive, domineering top-dog leadership. In healthy groups, the leader(s) functions more as an advisor and inspirer rather than as "control freak" dictating how members should think and act. Members are never threatened or subordinated in ruthless, bullying manner. There may be a period of time where an authentic spiritual director/guru needs to test the disciple, but this is done within the overall context of genuine love, trust, and emotional safety, not as a power-trip by the leader. Any tests must be for the sole purpose of strengthening the student's own skills and virtues, not demanding obedience and loyalty.

* Hoarding of money, power or prestige by anyone- corruption and intrigue are not far behind. Beware lavish accommodations and lifestyle for leader and close assistants, while everyone else is reduced to inferior living standards. Beware the presence of sycophantic subordinates who inauthentically emulate and slavishly propitiate the leader and act as the leader's agents of control and punishment of cult members.

* Double standard of behavior for leader(s) and members. Spiritual leaders should maintain high moral standards and exemplary virtuous behavior. Beware any rationalizations given to excuse the leader's unvirtuous behavior as well as self-aggrandizing, vanity and excessive self-referencing by the leader (e.g., "I am the World Teacher," "I am the greatest incarnation of God to appear on this planet," "think always and only of me," etc.). A genuine spiritual leader is humble, giving, self-sacrificing, loving, blissful and serene -consistent with an authentic, trans-egoic realization of Divine Spirit (God, Tao, Buddhata, Brahman). Any claims by the leader of being divine should be balanced with declarations that the followers have divinity within them as well, as part of an overall theology of immanence (best balanced with a teaching of divine transcendence-see below). Important, too, is how the leader came to be the leader. Grandiose promotional claims (either by the teacher or by his/her followers) or one-upsmanship and huckster techniques are not acceptable. Beware fallen yogis and their flashy charisma and psychic powers, which can seem quite impressive. If other respected spiritual masters recognize the leader as a spiritual master, this is a promising sign, but still does not insure anything. Bottom-line criterion: "By their fruits you shall know them." If the leader doesn't have an inspiring, healthy, positively transforming effect on students, promoting qualities of mature and balanced spirituality, the students would do best to leave.

* Reinforcing or excusing unethical behaviors (killing, injuring, lying, stealing, plagiarism, bribing, gossiping, sexual misconduct). Also: Inflexible ethical rules that keep people stuck on lower levels of moral development. For example, watch out for moral codes based on "an eye-for-an-eye" mentality or "the ends justify the means."

* Suppression of dissent, doubt, critical thinking, sincere questions, discussion or independent judgment. Regarding of leader's or sacred text's teachings as infallible. Attachment to doctrinal certainty. Members should be free to follow their own informed reason and moral conscience in preference to the directives of the leader, group or text. Yet healthy spirituality also challenges one to develop the conscience to its utmost through ongoing learning and maturation.

* Irrational thinking or magical thinking. Among healthy, empowering groups, supra-rational thinking and use of paradox is fine, in accordance with the mature mystical traditions as found within circles of Christianity, Judaism (Hasidism), Islam (Sufism), Vedanta, Buddhism and Taoism. These authentic mystical traditions are based in rationality and proceed from that into the "trans-mental" realm. By contrast, in unhealthy groups, there appears to be very little rationality anywhere in their attitudes and behavior, and the group dynamics are rife with dysfunctional thinking.

* Anti-scientific thinking. Healthy persons and groups can constructively express criticism of reductionist scientism and limitations in the current scientific paradigm. But the danger with dysfunctional cults is their frequent emphasis on pre-scientific, mythical thinking and on bizarre, unverifiable claims that can't be consensually validated by rational persons.

* A "uni-level" obsession with health and wealth on the material plane (Richard Anthony). Healthy groups promote authentic ("multi-level") spiritual growth[5] and "adaptation to transpersonal structural stages" (Ken Wilber).

* Emphasis on quirky, flaky, untested ideas. Obsession with fantasy or mythic thinking. Obsession with "the Evil One" (though an understanding of evil and the psyche's shadow side is important for mature spiritual persons). Scary apocalypse-thinking, battleground mentality, or construing of events or souls in excessively dualistic categories of "Good" vs. "Evil." In a healthy spiritual group, the human being is viewed neither as totally evil nor totally perfect but seen realistically as a fallible human whose source and true identity is Infinite Spirit, and whose potential is profound peace, bliss, freedom and love in authentic realization of God/Spirit. Beware excessive talk of heaven and hell, which promotes egocentric, authoritarian thinking about reward and punishment. A healthy group adheres to a time-tested worldview with a balanced theology, emphasizing complete transcendence of the Divine as well as the complete immanence of the Divine: God is beyond all yet within all. That is to say, there is neither imbalance toward an otherworldly, biophobic "ascender" orientation, nor a this-worldly, non-mystical, "descended" position.[6]

* Intellectual parochialism or isolation from other worldviews; censorship or control of what people read; prevention of studying sacred texts from other traditions or visiting other genuine spiritual masters. A healthy spiritual group is open to spiritual truth from whatever source, and knows how to distinguish wise from unwise teachings (for example, see my criteria for genuine spiritual realization in another handout).

* Orwellian double-speak (Deikman: "manipulating language to suggest a meaning and value opposite to the real situation"). Codewords or buzzwords. Excessive use of slogans to bypass critical thinking. Manipulative rhetoric based on cunning or emotionalism. Reinvention of language-e.g., excessive amount of jargon-to widen gulf between insiders and outsiders and exert mind-control. Adopting new names and titles for members can also be suspect, especially when it is done to create insider group-dynamics. However, we must be aware that, in a positive vein, changing members' names can facilitate a new sense of identity, less conditioned by former ego tendencies; monastics in major religions, for instance, undergo name changes to help effect a psychological "death" to the old ego-persona.

* Beware enforcement of conformity in apparel and external behavior. These are not, in themselves, negative things, but, like new names for members, can be part of an overall unhealthy cult strategy to amplify insider/outsider dichotomies, destroy autonomy and insure compliance.

* Fascination with secrets or occult teachings and practices that promote an insider-outsider split. Beware any series of initiations that create intrigue and stratify group into levels with higher, elite superiors outranking inferior, lower members. Beware obsessions with magical rituals for empowering egoic aims.

* Excessive fascination with altered states of consciousness. For instance, chronically being in a mindless trance state ("navel-gazing") can preclude deeper levels of spiritual realization as well as community service and enacting justice on behalf of fellow living beings who are subject to various forms of economic, social, political, racial/ethnic, gender or environmental injustice.

* Over-use of junk food or adherence to unhealthy diets. Beware any use of mind-altering drugs (unless they are part of one's ancient tradition, as among the Huichol and other tribal people).

* Beware exploitation of sex in any form. Sometimes this may be rationalized as "good" for the group member. But every person has the right to refrain from sexual activity as s/he sees fit, without any kind of pressure.

* Legalistic obsession with myriad rules. Enslavement to authoritarian, military-style organization and procedure. Every group needs guidelines and rules, but when the form of the religion becomes more important than authentic spiritual experience, the group is in trouble and idolatry is a danger. The group needs to be flexible, adaptable, and open to new developments that would involve changes in guidelines and policies to better serve the members and society.

* Obsession with invisible or other-worldly entities or forces other than God. The issue is not whether these entities/forces exist-the subtle planes of energy and hyper-dimensional realms are evidently filled with all sorts of unusual beings and processes (including the souls of ancestors, saints and spirit guides, troubled souls, et al.). The relevant issue here is that obsession with demons, angels, aliens, ascended masters, ghosts, etc., undermines authentic realization of the transcendent/immanent Spirit, the one Divine Self of us all.

---

All our religious groups, old and new, large and small, need to be subjected to an evaluation according to something like the above list of warning signs. My own explorations and experiences in spiritual movements indicate that many groups can pass with flying colors an evaluation based on these criteria. Other groups, including some very large, well-known religious denominations, cannot pass muster.

Therefore, if you (or anyone you know) are presently participating in a group that does not fare well according to these standards, then you might want to get out as soon as possible and look for a healthier, more genuinely supportive, egalitarian and empowering spiritual community.

By boycotting unhealthy cults, they will eventually whither and fade away.

As a society, we would do well to actively counter destructive cult behavior, primarily via public education and classes in school, starting at the high school level or earlier-for, as we know, young people are often targeted by predatory cults. This education can include lesson plans fostering knowledge of authentic spiritual development, based on guidelines from the well-known Perennial Wisdom circles within our sacred traditions. Such education can promote empathy; anti-authoritarian behavior; autonomy; divergent thinking; multiple viewpoints; and what Deikman terms the "eye level view"-adult to adult relationships, instead of situations wherein parent-figures intimidate submissive, disempowered "children."

Hopefully our new millennium can be a time for outgrowing the sundry unhealthy and insipid activities that usurp the name of religion, so that we discover a mature, abundantly fruitful spirituality. It's time for all of us to grow up, to genuinely lead lives of integrity, goodness, kindness and other virtues of excellence.

No more excuses.