Musings on CS Lewis

The Chronicles of Narnia is no doubt my favorite fiction series, without hesitation. I like it for it's easy to read style, it's ability to put forth an adventurous story within a limited frame, and it's deep symbolism.I like the characters and the world I fell in love with from my childhood. I have changed much since then, but my love of this series has not.

This post will be to talk a bit about the mind behind Narnia, CS Lewis, saint of Anglicanism, Christian apologeticist, and once Professor at Oxford University.

CS Lewis was a role model of mine from my earliest years when I was still a Christian. He was a man of intellect, virtue, and one who loved writing. He was expressive of his opinions, hence leading to his becoming an apologeticist. I am no longer a Christian in the Orthodox sense of the word, but my admiration for him has not changed.

One may ask how a heretic such as myself, one who mixes a variety of spiritual paths, could still have respect for such a seemingly Orthodox figure.

Lewis may not have been as Orthodox as he first appears. It is because people haven't read much into his writings that they believe him to be a champion of traditional Anglicanism. In reality that claim is highly debatable.

Lewis put forth several un-Orthodox ideas in his writings and fiction. Many of his admirers do not deny this, rather they choose to overlook it. Those who dislike Lewis within Christendom, usually criticize him for his unusual beliefs.

Narnia is a great example of this, and hence why I said I admire it's symbolism. One theme appears over and over again throughout the series- Lewis' idea that Christianity had been preceded by Paganism, an idea that was not quite so uncommon in his day.

Lewis seems to have had an admiration for Pagan beliefs, and he wrote that into Narnia. Yes true, he did depict Aslan (Jesus) as the highest deity, as most any Christian would, but he also depicted other deities. He depicted Bacchus and Silenus as being servants of Aslan, and spoke of a river god and a few others. In fact, the only deity he ever portrayed negatively was ironically the Islamic Allah, under the guise of "Tash".

What is truly ironic about this is that the Islamic Allah is the same god most Christians think of as "God the Father", and Jesus is another deity all his own, which they call "God the Son", making Lewis borderline Gnostic in this case.

Many will say I am reaching here. However, even if there was no Gnostic elements in the renderings of Aslan and Tash, that is far from true of some of the other aspects of Narnia. When Lewis put forth the Deep Magic as the law of Moses in the first book, and put forth the White Witch as the originator and overseer of the Deep Magic, he in fact put forth a Gnostic idea.

Let me touch on this a little further. Lewis then put Aslan into the role of a Gnostic idea of Christ, as an avatar of "the true Father" who freed his people (the Jews) from the curse of the Demiurge (Jehovah). Let me add here that most Gnostics do not believe this, but some do and have. The point being- Lewis, rather wittingly or unwittingly, put Aslan and the White Witch into a Gnostic scenario in his book.

There is more then just that though. In the Silver Chair he puts forth the Green Witch as the Queen of the Underland, a world beneath Narnia. The Green Witch hypnotizes Eustace and Jill and tries to convince them that there is no such world as Narnia, that there is only her world, the world under Narnia.

This can only allude to the Eastern/Gnostic idea of this world as illusionary, and the spirit world as "truly real". Lewis depicts the villain as trying to convince the hero that only her world is real, even though the hero knows this isn't really true. Eastern religions teach that most have the knowledge that this world is illusionary, and that the world above it is what is real, but they don't scratch the surface beyond this because worldly pleasures carry them away.

We can believe this is only coencidence if we wish, but we mustn't deny that Lewis was a Professor at Oxford. He wasn't nearly so dumb as to make such a mistake if it wasn't actually on purpose. I think he knew exactly what he was doing when he wrote some of the things he did.

Perhaps the most shocking belief Lewis expresses in his books, and even his most avid Orthodox supporters do not deny it, is his profession of Universalism found in The Last Battle. Many in Christendom who dislike Lewis, dislike him merely over this one passage.

In the last Narnia book Lewis puts forth a scenario in which a Calormene who has worshiped Tash all his life and hated the name Aslan is still permitted to enter Aslan's Country. Bear in mind here, this isn't just one who worshiped Tash, but one who detested the name of Aslan.

No one has ever attempted to deny what he meant by putting forth this scenario. Lewis believed in Universalism, the idea that all can be saved, regardless of belief. This was highly unusual and largely frowned upon of a Christian in Lewis' time. Even most Catholics back then did not ascribe to it. That Lewis did is saying something about some of his own heretical beliefs.

Then there is the disputes that Lewis and Tolkein had between one another, despite their being friends. Tolkein disputed with Lewis often about his liberal takes on issues such as divorce and other social issues. Again we see here that Lewis defied the image of the mainstream Christian in his era. Tolkein was much closer to this, while Lewis was shockingly liberal.

Lewis also seemed to deny Anselm of Canterbury's atonement idea, the idea that the purpose of Jesus' death was for sin. He did mention the idea in his books, but never credited it, and usually tried to encourage the reader to seek out another purpose to the crucifixion. This suggests to me that he himself didn't favor the idea much, otherwise he wouldn't speculate on alternative interpretations. Even most modern Christians accept the atonement with little question.

I know it sounds unseemly to some that a Christian might not believe in the atonement, but after all, it did start as merely the idea of one man, and was popularized until it was absorbed into mainstream thought. Like I said, Lewis being a professor would have known this. If he had suscribed to the idea without any doubt then he need not have raised any speculation at all.

In short, I myself being a Christian Gnostic as one of my spiritual paths, making me a somewhat heterodox Christian, still have a great deal of admiration for CS Lewis, who was quite Orthodox by comparison to myself, but nevertheless, not entirely so. This man who influenced and inspired me as a child continues to bring me some encouragement as an adult.

I think though that the gift I will always be grateful to him for above all others is Narnia.

Can a follower of the Dharma eat meat?

This is actually a pretty hot topic among those in eastern religions. Should a follower of the dharma eat meat? I would argue that in fact, yes, a dharmic can eat meat. There are a few reasons I would argue this. One is that it is part of nature, and nature itself is a huge part of the dharma. Living things consuming each other is a big part of the natural way.

Plants have to consume minerals from the earth to live. Animals have to consume plant life, and they also consume each other for certain things they need in their diet. Human beings are animals, and furthermore, we are part of nature. Science can tell us a lot about our bodies, including that when our bodies need certain things from food a sort of survival instinct kicks in.

We need some of the things found in meat to have good health and mind. However, some would argue that meat-eating goes against the concept of ahimsa (non-violence). Does it really? Surely if it had originally been felt that meat-eating went against ahimsa then Hindus would not have eaten and even sacrificed animals for centuries. Lord Buddha taught that one can eat meat and not acquire bad karma if they don't slaughter it themselves. Really the religions themselves are not enough to give us the idea that meat-eating is bad.

I will point out that part of the dharma is nature, and that in nature things flow into each other. Plants consume minerals, animals consume plants and other animals, and we also do this. This is part of things flowing into each other in nature. Does this destroy the other living thing? If you believe what dharmic religions say about the nature of this world, no it does not. It does not destroy the living being, it destroys the outward illusionary image. The atman can never be destroyed.

If one living thing consumes another it in a fact destroys nothing. Brahman is within all, flowing from place to place like water. If one sees the act of consumption as energy merging into energy there is no destruction taking place. To the mind fettered in Maya it appears a person is killing an animal and eating it. To the mind who sees beyond Maya one living thing is taking the energy of another living thing and merging it into their own energy. Brahman merging into Brahman, flowing into itself.

A Nation that Glories in War: The Path of Ruin

Look around at society today, turn on your TV, go into the schools, listen to parents teaching their children at home, you will hear one common theme repeated among the average American: war is how America stays strong and free, joining the military is an honor, a great career choice, America can only remain free if it stays on top of it's enemies, and many more. Sure this sounds all well and good on the surface, but when you examine it, it isn't.

War has never helped a nation stay strong and free, it has done the opposite. Look into your history books. Rome fought many wars for glory and strength, but that did not ensure their ultimate success, but rather led to their undoing. We all know that the Roman Empire, despite it's military might and great war campaigns did not last, it fell to invading barbarians.

As for the argument that war helps a nation stay free, this is also not true. Historically, the more a nation participates in war, the more oppressive it becomes. Rome is the perfect example of this yet again, in fact, ancient Rome was on virtually the same path of ruin America is today. Rome was once a Republic, a Democracy, but it was a conflict that allowed Octavian to seize control and make it into an empire.

When engaging in war one must walk a very fine line and decide when diplomacy would work best. The Middle East is such a case in which I believe diplomacy would work far better. The countries we are dealing with are poor, backwater countries, many of them without even the means to attack us. When we make shots at such weak and downtrodden targets it doesn't make us look glorious or strong in the eyes of the world, it makes us look like cowards and oppressors.

Humanity has many hurdles yet to work past if we want a better future for our descendants, and our violent instincts is one of them. We know that glorying in war is not good, and that giving into our base animal tendencies is destructive, but we always find ways to justify our doing it. We should not be teaching our children that war and violence are the answer, because they never are. War has never put an end to war, for it only leads to more.

War is an act of hatred, and hate has never yet conquered hate. Hate is conquered by love, to quote the Buddha. We should not be teaching our children that war and bloodshed are the keys to freedom and prosperity, when clearly we are not prospering today. Our love of war has gotten us nowhere, except into an economic slump. We continue to get worse, and it's very simple as to why. A nation that glories in war is on the path of ruin, and that path will end in a swift destruction.

We really must ask ourselves why we promote and uplift war in our society so much. Why we glory in destruction of other human beings and believe it is ever the answer. I am calling on my fellow Americans to wake up. We say that we are the beacon of freedom and liberty, well war certainly hasn't made us into that. One thing has been consistent with the last ten years of war, and that is the loss of our freedoms. The longer we fight, the more freedoms we will lose. History bears this out. The despot always uses war and fear tactics to get the people to yield their liberties.

This is not the path we should be taking. War is not something to glory in, rather it is terrible. We are killing our fellow human beings, and we should never rejoice and glory over such a thing. How can we justify war with a claim we are defending our liberty, when this war has done no such thing? Rather our politicians have used this war to harass us, invade our privacy, and gradually strip us of more and more rights.

I hope we will all pray and work toward peace friends.

Buddhist Prayer for Japan I wrote

I wrote this based sort of on the Pure Land style, but in English

Merciful and all-loving Gautama, Lord Buddha to your devotees, long have the people of Japan looked to you and immersed themselves in your dharma. Turn in favor with goodwill toward them, and bestow a merit that will assist them through this hard time

Om Mani Padme Hum!

The Mystic Consciousness Part 2- Christ Mind

Today I am preparing to explore a topic not often thought about, or that many wouldn't even dare contemplate, the idea of Christ Mind and how the teachings of Jesus relate to enlightenment.

I have heard it said time and again that Jesus' teachings cannot be compared to Buddha's, that Christianity is totally not compatible with eastern religions, and even that eastern religions are the religions of Satan to deceive humans into a false salvation by works. However, are these claims really true, or are they just the ravings of rabid fundamentalists?

Let us examine the teachings of Jesus a little more in-depth and find out. I will begin at my favorite place. The place in which Jesus clarifies what the kingdom of heaven is, and where to find it.

Luke 17:20 Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, 21 nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within you."

 From the words of Jesus himself we have it, a teaching against this idea of a literal kingdom that Christians often teach. The kingdom does not come with observation, that is to say, we should not wait for it as though it were something we could physically see or observe. The kingdom of God is within you, it's within, waiting to be discovered and drawn out.

In the last post I discussed Buddha-mind and immersing oneself in the immense ocean of the Buddha-consciousness as Brahman. I am suggesting what many will find shocking here. I am suggesting that there is no difference in this and what Jesus called "the kingdom within". Buddha-consciousness is found within if one really looks, and so is the kingdom of God, so we see no difference so far.

I will bring forth another teaching of Jesus though to elaborate my point even further. This time I will take a teaching from St. Paul, whose teachings are so obviously Mystic, and who was the champion of Gnosticism as so praised by Marcion and others.

1 Corinthians 10:15 You are reasonable people. Decide for yourselves if what I am saying is true. 16 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.

What is Paul here calling the true body of Christ, despite the usage of bread and the chalice of wine? He is calling it the body of humanity being one and partaking of one loaf, which is Christ! Is this not the most mystic thing one could say? We are one body, one with Christ, and we partake in Christ. Paul is here calling Christ the same thing as what Jesus called "the kingdom of God", something within all and above all.

Ephesians 4:6...one God and Father, who is over all and in all and living through all.

One God and Father, who is "in all". The kingdom of God is within us. Buddha-consciousness is within us. What so far is the difference? Why play semantics games to distort what is so obvious, and divide what is so obviously one and the same? Jesus and Buddha were teaching the same truth, the same mystic consciousness, the same one God-mind.

Truth is one, sages call it by many names, to quote a famous Hindu, and to quote another: "as many faiths, so many paths." There is so far from what I have demonstrated, no difference in the teachings of Jesus and Buddha.

Now having demonstrated and established this with the Christian scriptures themselves, so that there should be no debate, I return to the theme of the former thread to tie this off. Jesus, just like Buddha, also offered a way to attune oneself to the one-mind of Brahman. He also offered a mantra to assist one in their focus. What is this mantra? The Lord's Prayer, of course, which I will now demonstrate!

Matthew 6:9 "This, then, is how you should pray: "'Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, 10 your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

Let us now break down this portion of the prayer alone to prove it is indeed a mantra to be used for focus and attuning oneself to Christ-consciousness.

A. Our Father, in heaven

Question: What is heaven?

Answer: God's kingdom

Question: Where is God's kingdom?

Answer: Refer to Luke quote above- within us.

B. Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as in heaven.

Question: If the kingdom is within, how does the kingdom come?

Answer: It comes by us first discovering it within, and then drawing it out and putting it into our life practice. It is, after all, the Christ-consciousness, our true natures.

I hope this may open the minds of many to new perspectives on the teachings of Jesus, and may also assist some in attaining inner enlightenment.

-Peace all

The Mystic Consciousness Part 1- Buddha Mind

I am going to be doing a two part series of posts on the universal mystic consciousness, which many call Brahman, but which Kemetics may wish to call Netjer. Brahman, Netjer, God- there are many names for it. It is by definition the one, the complete, the whole, which is also many. Understanding this truth that all things are united and connected through Brahman, and that Brahman is the one eternal, never changing, still, unconditioned thing is vital for this exercise.

I will first be talking about a mystic consciousness through the avenue of the Buddha. The man Siddhartha Gautama was called "Buddha", because he was said to have woken up, that is, woken up to the true reality of the unity and oneness of all things. This oneness he called Buddha-nature, because if one as aligned to this truth, they will always act upon this truth, doing harm to none.

Buddhists have a well known mantra, the "Om Mani Padme Hum", which basically translates to "Om to the Jewel in the Lotus". Who is the Jewel in the Lotus? The Buddha of course! When one chants the Om Mani Padme Hum they should do so by first focusing on the Buddha seated in the lotus and slowing out their breaths. Then they should picture themselves becoming one with the Buddha, that is to say, with totally nothingness. Purge the mind of thought and submerge yourself in the ocean of bliss.

There are many ways to join yourself to Brahman- by devotion, by good deeds, by mantras, but in the case of Buddha-consciousness this is effective. The Buddha offered the means of entering a state of total stillness, submerged in an ocean of bliss, and this mantra can help one achieve it.

Another good part of the Buddha-mind alignment is that it stills the senses, extinguishing cravings and allowing one to act in goodwill and peace toward all things. Hence we have covered many of the precepts in the dharma: right thoughts, right words, right deeds, etc.

The Buddha-mind is an effective means by which one can still themselves and open their consciousness to Brahman, to feel the one reality, to become the one reality. The Om Mani Padme Hum will always assist one in this exercise.

Namaste

Brief Outline of my Beliefs for the Curious

I know that at times my beliefs confuse the heck out of people, not only because I ascribe myself to quite a few systems, but because I then turn around and say things not found within those systems. I have written this particular entry to clarify some things, on my part.

I believe foremost in Kemetic Orthodoxy, since it is first necessary to lay out my beliefs before I proceed to anything else. Kemetic Orthodoxy appears to me one of the highest forms of religion, allowing for a personal relationship and experience between a person and their god, and also allowing for questioning and skepticism.

I consider myself, in addition to Kemeticism, to be a Gnostic and a follower of dharma. What I mean when I say follower of dharma is that I am something between a Buddhist and a Hindu. I am not sure which one I am closer to. When I say Gnostic, I mean I am a follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ, as put forth in the Gnostic gospels.

Now that I have put forth my religious preferences, it is important to make a few more notes. I do not ascribe myself with entirety to any religious system. I am of the opinion that anyone who ascribes to any outside system with their entire mind sets themselves up in a dangerous position. In order for a person to be mentally faithful to themselves there must be some room in their mind for questioning and formulating new ideas.

One who never questions what they believe put themselves into a position of subservience, in which they become a complete subordinate to another person's way of thinking and ideas. To me this is not only extremely dangerous, but against the very deity one professes belief in, if they believe in one.

Surely no deity worthy of worship could respect blind faith. Faith is by necessity a choice, made consciously by the critical thinking mind, and when one becomes a complete mind slave to a person or system faith ceases to be faith. True faith can only be brought forth by questioning, observation, and testing, for surely if faith were true it could stand up to scrutiny.

Not only can the unthinking mind not produce true and pleasing faith, but it also sets one up to lend their support to any evil. Many who call themselves "Christians" place themselves completely under the watch of a Priest or Pastor, who then tells them that homosexuality is objectively wrong. Often, they believe him, without really asking themselves why they believe this, or if this belief even makes any sense.

I have seen many a person who has left this narrow-minded form of fundamentalist belief who later say they do not consider homosexuality immoral, nor do they understand why they ever did to begin with.

Do not misunderstand me friends, for I am not saying that believing what another person tells you is wrong, but to not question what they say before accepting it is wrong. Not only is it wrong, it is mental infidelity. Mental infidelity does not consist in belief and having faith in something, it consists of claiming to believe what you do not really believe.

I believe in Sekhmet, Ganesha, and the rest because I have had personal experiences with them. A person believing in a deity they have never experienced has no reason to believe in it, except maybe a person or a book telling them it is so. It may be fine for them to believe such, but I do not choose to rest my faith on such evidence. A person who really says they believe in something should first verify that what they believe in actually exists by experience.

This is why Kemetic Orthodoxy in such a high form of religion in my view. In Kemetic belief we are not required to believe something that cannot be experienced. We are not required to forfeit our critical thinking mindlessly to dogma and doctrine. If this were so I would not be Kemetic Orthodox, for I am immediately suspicious of any belief system that tells me I cannot question something.

Now maybe I have given some an idea of my beliefs and why I believe what I do. I believe what I have questioned, examined, and found to be true in my life.

I hope everyone will be happy and at peace.

Self and No Self

The examination of the concepts of self and no-self are interesting ones, especially in the context of eastern religions like Buddhism. I have been asked more then once how I can ascribe to a religious path that affirms the existence of a personal soul, while also ascribing to one that doesn't.

The truth about this is that Buddhism does not teach no soul. If it did, there would not be so much ancestor and Bodhisattva veneration in east Asia. The truth of the matter is, Buddhism has never taught no soul, rather it is a western pop version of Buddhism that is starting to espouse this idea.

The Buddha did teach "anatta", which means "no-self", but it's not possible to know if he was making a statement about the soul or not, since he usually refused to speak about the soul at all, even when asked. I am of the opinion that he was either speaking of the nature of reality, or the nature of the Atman, which in Hinduism is the highest type of soul and has no self.

The fact is Buddhism says nothing about the existence of any soul or not, it leaves it open like it does many things. Traditional Buddhist thought, however, has tended toward the existence of a soul. Buddhism does teach about the self certainly. It teaches just like Hinduism does, that the self/ego is illusionary. Remember, illusionary doesn't mean not real, it means less real.

The mindset that generates the self is a mindset of selfishness. It makes self the focus, as though life exists especially for oneself, and revolves around oneself. This says nothing about the existence of a soul or not.

What Kemeticism teaches about the self and the soul is that one's personality is tied to a fleeting soul called the ka, which by the way is not an immortal soul. The ka can die, it can be destroyed at judgment. I am not sure how literally I take this, but there it is.

I do not see the self as an unreal thing, since one will always have some notion of a self in this existence of things. I see it as illusionary and temporary, especially if it is tied to a soul that can die. Striving for the self is ultimately pointless, though it may be pleasurable. It is pointless, because if the self does not survive death then your striving has been in vain.

Striving for others is the highest expression of acting, because it is in this that the true reality is expressed. Love is most real emotion there is, because it is most in sync with what is true.

Nationalism: The Downfall of Nations

America, said to be the land of the free, and the home of the brave. A land where we claim to be the beacon of liberty, yet corporations constantly impede the small business at every turn. We claim to be the land of the free, yet gay people have their freedoms trampled at every opportunity.

No doubt America is not perfect, and it falls far short of the ideals it so loudly proclaims. Yet I did not write this to talk about that. There is a trend developing in this nation, and quite a disturbing one at that. Nationalism, the downfall of nations, is promoted and pushed under the label of being a "Patriot". I call Nationalism the downfall of nations, for that is exactly what it is, if one looks back into the history books.

Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, Imperial Rome, all of them with one thing in common- Nationalism.

Now America has it's own brand of this dangerous political dogma. To be a Patriot, they say, one must be a Republican. To be a Patriot one must pledge loyalty to the flag, to the government, to the President, to the Congress men and women, to all it seems except those an American should pledge loyalty to- the American people.

You see, that is what Nationalism is truly about, control of the people. You pledge allegiance to the government, because that is what Nationalism is designed for, to make the people into obedient followers. That is what it has always been for.

Italian Dictator Benito Mussolini preached a form of Nationalism that became a political doctrine we today know as Fascism. Oh yes, Mussolini was popular with the people, funding an entire campaign of terror on the money of his loyal nationalists, for you see, the people were willing to give him anything, so long as he preached a message of Italian Nationalism.

He started a program in which any Italian willing to donate a large amount of gold watches, jewelry, etc. to the government received a bracelet to show they were "good Patriots". The people jumped at the chance to feel this special feeling of being a good Patriot, loyal to country and government, not realizing what their leader was using the funds for. Mussolini used the money he got from this loyalty campaign to build concentration camps in North Africa.

His people did virtually nothing to oppose him. Why? Because they were indoctrinated with his Nationalism. The Italians stood by and watched while Mussolini sided with one of the greatest madmen in history, Adolf Hitler, and this because he kept them loyal with the feel good message of "Patriotism".

In Germany Hitler's rise to power was much the same. He preached a message of German Nationalism and greatness. He envisioned a world in which Germany took it's rightful place as ruler of Europe. How wonderful is the message of Nationalism to the ears that it causes the people to stand by whilst their government commits any atrocity!

We have a horrible example of Nationalism in our own history as Kemetics, and it is a history many are familiar with. Octavian, who later became known as Caesar Augustus, preached a message of Nationalism to unite the Romans in taking down Egypt. The horrid Octavian then captured his own brother Caesarion, rightful heir of Julius Caesar, and murdered him in cold blood. All this enabled by the people who believed his doctrine of Nationalism.

Today in America the effects of Nationalism are no different. Our government preaches us a message of Patriotism, of how great America is, of how America's way is the best way, of how they wish to protect our greatness, while they use our military to play the very kind of dictators our country's founders fought against. They preach us a feel good message of Patriotism and we believe them, all the while they glory in war and destruction and take our country down the path of ruin.

That is what history bears out the horrid doctrine of Nationalism is, the path of ruin, the downfall of nations. Americans it is time we wake up from the notions our government brainwashes us with, that we're somehow better then our fellow human beings, and that anything our government does under the banner of defending us is fine and dandy. This is not acceptable. This kind of thinking can justify any evil, as it always has.

History teaches us to be wary of any political entity preaching Nationalism and love of country as it's party line. You don't have to take my word for it. Just look back at the history of nations like Germany, Rome, Japan and others and tell me, is it worth it? Is Nationalism worth the price we have to pay? Not only is it destructive to our nation's future, but to our freedoms and liberties.

Benjamin Franklin one of our founders has said that the man who trades his liberty for security deserves neither and will lose both. Is this not what is happening now? Have the majority of Americans not bought into the destructive doctrine of Nationalism? Has our government not given us promises of a safer America at the cost of many of our most dear freedoms? America, it is time to wake up!

The Power of Thought

I have somewhat been influenced to write this from something I was discussing on Religious Forums, and I feel it's important to write it now whilst it's in my mind. I begin with this quote from the Buddha to start this discussion on the power of thought.

"We are as we have thought. All that we are stems from our thoughts. Think happy thoughts and happiness will follow you, like a cart follows a horse. Think sorrowful thoughts and sorrow will follow you, like a cart that follows a horse. 'He struck me, he cheated me, he robbed me.' Those who harbor such thoughts never find peace. 'He struck me, he cheated me, he robbed me.' Those who give up such thoughts find peace."- Buddha

We see then that we are driven by our thoughts. Often the only thing we need to do to be happy is to think happy and not allow negative thoughts to overcome our mind. One asks how the Mystic can say all is well, when the world is in dire straights. This is how the Mystic remains happy, by maintaining a positive state of mind.

The Buddha taught that if one wants to maintain positive mind one must be in the world like a rock in the ocean, so that just as the waves storm against the rock, but cannot bring it down, so the things of the world cannot bring us down. Again, we should be as water, for people throw all kinds of disgusting things into water, and the water is not repulsed. Hence the key to be happy is to just allow yourself to be.

When negative thoughts come and the world gets you down, don't allow these thoughts to reign in your mind. Drive these thoughts out with happy and good thoughts. Then you will know peace. All one has to do to know peace, is to be peace.

Then one asks me how to be "aware". There is no such thing as "becoming aware". You are already aware, you just have to realize it. You have to give up conditioned thought forms and ways of thinking that bog down the mind and be what you already are.

Happiness, joy, awareness, if you think on these things, so you are. You ask how to be happy and think all is well in this troubled world today. Do not think on the troubles, maintain happiness, and you will be happy.

Spiritual Resurrection in the Bible?

Yep, you better believe it! The concept of spiritual resurrection is all over the New Testament. I as a Gnostic have often encountered Christians claiming that the idea of spiritual resurrection is false, heretical, and never appears in the New Testament at all. People who take this view usually use the following verse as proof:

1 Corinthians 15:14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.

While that is all well and good, it doesn't tell us much on it's own, except that Christ has been raised. It doesn't go into details about what Christ being raised is, and people usually assume it must mean bodily resurrection, because that's what they are taught to believe. However, that verse can tell us nothing more then that Christ has been raised.

However, I can prove that spiritual resurrection is all over the Bible. Let's examine some verses shall we?

Colossians 2:12  For you were buried with Christ when you were baptized. And with him you were raised to new life because you trusted the mighty power of God, who raised Christ from the dead.

Romans 6:4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. 5 If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection.

John 5:24 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

We see through these few verses that the concept of spiritual resurrection is certainly supported in the Bible. Colossians says you are buried with Christ when you are baptized, and raised to new life. The one from Romans says something similar, and Jesus says in John that anyone who hears his words 'has already' passed from death unto life. 

Now I have effectively demonstrated that spiritual resurrection, what many call un-biblical and a Gnostic heresy, is indeed not so. This idea is found in the scriptures, and it was believed by the earliest church, including St. Paul, the champion of Gnosticism as Marcion of Sinope the Gnostic father so spoke. 

Spiritual resurrection is in the New Testament, and it is the true resurrection, so if anyone believes they haven't yet attained the resurrection then they've missed out on what the scriptures say.

Personal Understanding of Maya

"Maya", a term those of us in dharmic religions know well. This is the term we use to describe this world, the world of material things and sensations, the realm of this life. Often the word Maya is used to somehow infer that this world is not real, when in fact, all it means is illusionary.

We've all seen those Hollywood movies where the hero becomes trapped in some sort of illusion cast over him by the villain, in which though the illusion isn't real, what he experiences in it is. He still feels pain, pleasure, thrill, sadness, and the like inside the illusion. In some way, the illusion cast by the villain, though not real, is based on what is real.

I would put forth that this world is just like that. When I say "Maya", I don't mean to infer that this world is entirely unreal, or that nothing experienced in it is real. On the contrary, we experience real things inside this realm, because this realm to some degree shares elements of the true reality.


However, just like the villain casting the illusion over the hero in a Hollywood film, so that he still experiences sensations, but doesn't see the truth behind them, so is this world. We experience sensations, but we don't see the truth behind the sensation.

One of the more unreal, or shall I say not lasting things about life in this realm is materialism. People see material goods, but they don't see the true reality behind the material. They spend a lifetime wanting and going after things because they only see the outward. If they knew the true reality that all is connected they would see that they are in fact grasping at "nothing".

Going after material goods is like going after nothing, quite literally. There is something within all things that connects all things, and if you see that what is within you, is also within the material object, and that just as the material object can perish, so you too will one day perish, then you will stop wanting to grasp constantly for material goods. What is within you and within the material object, the unchanging, unconditioned, all-prevading, is the true reality.

What you experience when you feel pleasure from obtaining material goods is only a temporary pleasure. Yet, if you understood the true reality, you could be content. Hence, contentment is the real emotion, grounded in the true reality, and pleasure is only a carnal sense emotion, grounded in Maya. Carnal sense emotion is not unreal, rather it is a cheapened version of what is real, contentment.

What one sees in the true reality is always more real and lasting just as when the hero in a movie sees the illusion the villain has tricked him with overcomes it. Maya is not what is not real, for it has it's grounding in what is real. Denying Maya is a sure way for one to never move beyond it, for one must acknowledge there is a higher state then sense emotions before they can attain to that higher thing.

Namaste friends