Review and Commentary on "We Will be Landing Shortly", by Mike Hamel

This book was a good and easy read. Not easy in the sense of its topic matter being 'light and fluffy', but easy in the sense of it being broken down into easily managed chapters, each being somewhere between 3-5 pages long.

What I also enjoyed was that - although there is an overarching theme - each chapter felt like Mike Hamel's mental meanderings; his thoughts, musings, and experiences of life. Ultimately, his wisdom.

"In the end I would be content if what was said of Solomon... could be said of me:

"Not only was the Teacher wise, but he also imparted knowledge to the people... The Teacher searched to find just the right words, and what he wrote was upright and true. (Ecclesiastes 12:9-10)", pg 143

I believe - at least to this humble reader - he accomplished this goal.

As for the subject matter itself, it is anything but light or fluffy.

Mike Hamel approaches difficult, challenging, and potentially faith-breaking issues humbly, openly, honestly, and unassumingly. There is no agenda to sell. There is no argument to win, nor position to defend.
A man after my own heart, he is simply seeking out answers, and possibly even to learn to ask the correct questions!

He ponders upon horrifically difficult and unpleasant issues such as our own interpretations of God's handiwork, and an All Powerful and Loving God that will fail in His attempts at universal salvation, or a God who is self-serving and vindictive enough to need eternal conscious torment.



He ponders fundamentalists and the fundamentalist mindset.
He believes theology reveals more about its authors then its subject.
He struggles with whether we each have a specific and detailed purpose.
What Christianity would look like and function without a Heaven of the Afterlife (an issue I've referred to as Christian Spiritual Hedonism), and questions why the God of the Old Testament and New Testament don't look alike. (Yet another issue I've struggled with and come to terms with) - again, what if these stories tell us more about the people writing them rather than God himself - progressive revelation - and why evangelicals are so challenged by this answer.

He is bothered by the genocide of Canaan (and correctly labels it as such) and the unspoken implication of Abraham so dedicately willing to murder his son, Isaac, for God's approval.

He identifies the strength and value, as well as the limitations of metaphor and anthropomorphism in Scripture.
These are only some of the topics questioned and pondered about.

I think - for the majority - there are only two responses or reactions to the brutally difficult issues and challenges brought to light in this book.

To some, they choose to remain comfortable in their denial; refusing to accept these numerous inconsistencies and contradictions even exist.



To many others, they feel they must abandon their faith altogether, resorting to Agnosticism or Atheism.

But woven throughout this book is a 'way', a method, a worldview - if I were to be so bold - that refuses either of these extremes.

Cleverly woven throughout this book, his wisdom paints a picture - not of what we should or should not believe, but about a good, healthy, and reliable methodology we might employ on this journey.

Understanding that metaphors are culture-centric and flexible.

"Only the minting of new metaphors can keep theology from being reduced to archaeology" pg. 160

Understanding and accepting that imagination and make-believe are two different things.

"God is the ultimate imaginary friend. This doesn't mean he is unreal, only that we have to use our imaginations to picture him since he is immaterial". pg. 188

There are also a few great lessons regarding better understanding our own beliefs - regardless of what they are.

"Are [star] constellations real?" Stars are real; constellations are simply the names we assign to patterns of celestial luminaries. Constellations have "implied" not "intrinsic" reality. They are not native to the universe but exist only in the human mind. However, when enough people see the same shapes in the night sky, the constellations enter the collective consciousness and become as established as the stars themselves."The same thing happens in the firmament of divine revelations. Individual verses are linked in connect-the-dot fashion to form doctrines, which are then coerced into systematic theologies. A way of seeing truth becomes the truth itself." pg. 161

"Arranging information into comprehensible form is what the human mind does. The essence of intelligence is to discern patterns and to extrapolate their effects upon us. The error comes in assuming our mental picture is the truth rather than a metaphor for what lies beyond our reach" pg 162

"Remember doing connect-the-dots pictures as a kid? Think of facts as the dots, faith as the lines drawn to connect them and the completed image as a worldview.

What happens when human knowledge explodes and new facts come to light?  You can ignore them because they don't fit into your current picture or you can expand your paradigm accordingly. You don't necessarily have to give up your core to increase your circumference.
Of course if you're convinced all truth is square you will reject the facts that are beyond your boxs regardless of whether they're real or not. But what is real? "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away". pg 194-195

I think there is a simple yet profound wisdom here. Not just for biblical interpretation and not just for Christians, but for all people.
We all have a Belief-System we follow and adhere to (Regardless whether you can name or label it).
Atheists, Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, Scientists. Our choices, our beliefs are the lines that connect-the-dots. The dots might be facts, but the lines we choose to connect them with are not necessarily, and we would do wise to remember that.

Many practicing Anglo-Catholics, Evangelicals, and Christian Fundamentalists might balk at Mike Hamel and relegate him into the inconsequential realms of the fallen faith or a spiritual seeker.
So who does this book speak to?

He answers this question early on in his book by saying:

"Some of my experiences and observations may help you with your journey. On the other hand, my queries and quibbling have been known to trip people up, so be careful. My aim isn't to confuse but to face confusion and grapple with things that don't make sense... 

""In the act of tearing something apart, you lose its meaning". But deconstruction life can also lead to a clearer perspective of it. The slippery slope of questioning assumptions and dogmas doesn't only run downwards.

"To a cautious hiker, the thrill of getting close to the cliff may not seem worth the peril. To a compulsive climber like me, the challenge is irresistible" pg. 2

I believe our society is in a spiritual flux, a segue of sorts; in the middle of a transition. With the numbers in traditional institutional religions dropping; with the decline of institutional religion, you can't believe what the pessimists say.

Yes, it may mean the death of religion (is that really such a bad thing?), but I believe there is a rise in non-institutional spirituality; not a shift towards Scientism/Atheism. A move away from what ultimately must be man-made religiosity, and towards the more all-encompassing and compassionate solace of spirituality.

By its very nature it is difficult to define and clearly categorize, but it is alive and well. I think it is to these  people - and to those who are transitioning away from the more ridged institutional religions - that this book reaches out and speaks to.

I think "We Will be Landing Shortly" inadvertently sends a message:
"You are not alone".

He is a voice for a large number of people (and growing larger). He does not struggle and questions alone. He has a great amount of company "out there", in what many institutional religions might call a 'spiritual wilderness'.

Mike Hamel has rekindled my faith in faith, and my belief in a God without boundaries!







Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the author and/or publisher through the Speakeasy blogging book review network  I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission's 16 CFR, Part 255.

The Meditation and Clear Mind of Jung-Joong-Dong

Seiza, in Japanese, literally means "proper sitting".

To sit seiza-style, one must first be kneeling on the floor, folding their legs underneath their thighs, while resting the buttocks on the heels. The ankles are turned outwards as the tops of the feet are lowered so that, in a slight "V" shape, the tops of the feet are flat on the floor and big toes sometimes are overlapped, and the buttocks are finally lowered all the way down.

Stepping into and out of seiza is mindfully performed.

A seiza-bench allows one to sit in the seiza position but slightly elevated so as not to have your weight rest upon your lower legs or calfs.

Many seiza benches will be on a slight incline. This allows your hips to rotate forward allowing abdomen to be more "open" to allow for better and fuller breathing.

Often a pillow can be used beneath your knees.

Sit with your back straight, preferably with no back support to lean against. Your spine is straight like a young bamboo shoot reaching towards the blue sky, and your arms fall from the shoulders like leaves heavy with rain.

You can imagine a string or chain connected to the crown of your head and your spine hanging straight down from you head as well.

Do not slouch for it affects and inhibits your breathing.


If comfortable, cup one hand and lay it in the palm of your other hand so that the ends of your thumbs meet. In Japanese this is called mokuto, or reflection; looking inwards.


In the mokuto position the hands embrace the unseen vase. This vase represents your body; the vase's emptiness represents the emptiness of mushin.





If your hands cannot sit in this position comfortably, open palms, face-up on the knees is preferable. 




~ ~ ~

Mushin in Japanese means "no mind". In Chinese it is We Xin.

When you do something, you have to concentrate to do it the first time, and maybe even the fourth or tenth time, but eventually you can perform the activity without thought; the same way you would dial a telephone number you've used hundreds of times. The ultimate goal is not to have to concentrate to be able to perform the task with "no mind". This is how the mind is cleared and readied for Clear Mind. This is mushin.
The difference between mushin and mindlessness is that in mindlessness the mind is active and wandering - it is not clear, quiet, and still.

The unseen vase (and thus your body and mind) is empty but full of potential, like the central hub of a wheel and emptiness of a vase, as Lao Tzu speaks of in the Tao Teh Ching, verse 11.

~ ~ ~

The tip of your tongue is lightly pressed against the front roof of your mouth This will avoid drooling.

Once sitting you should stay still. Do not indulge small irritants or itches. you can use small itches to practice and remind yourself of impermanence. All things pass. All states change.


You will remember that you have forgotten the last itch. You only remember it now because of the itch you currently suffer. Do not itch it. Do not move. Remain sitting and calm, knowing it not only will pass, but it is no inconsequential that it will pass from you memory.
Impermanence.


~ ~ ~

Breath through you nose and exhale through you nose. Remember to inhale and breath with your belly, like a baby, not through your chest.

Focus on your breath. This will be your anchor. There are numerous ways to do this. You will have to find what's easiest and most comfortable for yourself.

When I inhale (remember, breath like a baby) I pay attention to the dry air passing through my nostrils. you can say it to yourself: "Dry".

When I exhale, I pay attention to the warm moist air sensation in my nostrils and say "moist".

Your breathing becomes a pattern. Dry - moist - dry - moist.

If your mind begins to wander you can return to your breath; dry - moist - dry - moist.

When, over time, you become comfortable with this anchor, you may use it to become increasingly more aware of the instantaneous and perpetual nature of the Now. The Now is eternal yet fleeting.

When breathing there are not only two steps - dry (inhale) and moist (exhale). There is an instantaneous moment when you've stopped inhaling yet haven't begun to exhale yet. This is the Peak.

There is also an instant when you've emptied your lungs but haven't began to inhale yet. (Don't confuse this with holding your breath). This is the Valley.

As much as I'd like to tell you to say in you mind,
Dry Peak, Moist Valley, you really shouldn't.

Although it is true that the Peak falls between the Dry and the Moist, and that the Valley separates the Moist from the Dry, if you say them, their instant moment has already pasted. At best saying "peak" and "valley" are only an echo of the memory.
So too is the nature of the Perpetual Now.

Breathe.
Dry - (peak) - Moist - (valley)
This becomes your wandering mind's anchor.

~ ~ ~

The eventual 'goal' is to 'achieve' Clear Mind (the first fruits).
It should not be strived for. This should not be the mental focus of your practice. Discipline is needed but it is simply the discipline of your practice.

There will be no teacher to remind you. There will be no disciplinarian or authority figure to punish or reward you. There should be no punishment or reward, just as there shouldn't be a goal strived for. Just the discipline of your continued practice.

Slowly, in time, Clear Mind will manifest. Although there is no formula and each individual experience will be different, it could be expected to begin in short lucid moments. Often not while meditating.

In time, these occurrences may become more frequent or may be longer lived; stretching into hours or possibly days.

(Although I do believe we all have the potential to 'achieve' a state of being perpetually lucid - always in Clear Mind - I'm not sure how easily this is achieved).

Once this state becomes more and more within our grasps, we reap their benefits.

~ ~ ~

Most believe that in order to make a decision we need to pass through three steps. We need to contemplate (think about or process) the issue or problem at hand. Then we make a decision one way or the other. And finally we put that decision into action.

This is incorrect. This is inherently flawed right from the start. To contemplate successfully requires Clear Mind. Without Clear Mind we cannot truly contemplate.

The first step in this procedure is meditation. We do not meditate on the issue or problem at hand. We simply already have the practice of meditation in place; hopefully having lucid moment of Clear Mind and during these isolated moments, only then do we begin practicing contemplate.

At this point it should become clear what course of action (or inaction) we need. The final step becomes appropriate resolution.

Now, it's fine to say these things and hope to achieve them, but in practical day-to-day life we must make numerous decisions all the time. We will often not have the luxury to wait for Clear Mind.
I am not advocating indecision or procrastination. But we must be aware that our decision-making ability is compromised and inherently flawed without Clear Mind.
We must still make decisions - big or small - but with intent and hope.

This is why I meditate. This is what I believe Jung-Joong-Dong of Jungshin Sooyang is and this is why I practice it.

~ ~ ~

What I find more interesting and encouraging is that Jung-Joong-Dong of Jungshin Sooyang finds its origins in the Martial Arts of Traditional Taekwon-do, as taught by General Choi.

However, to 'practice' Jung-Joong-Dong of Jungshin Sooyang one does not need to practice the Martial Art itself. It is simply a way of life; a way of viewing the world. It is the lens in which we choose to see through.
With this in mind, the symbolism of the colours of the Taekwon-do belts still maintain their values and symbolism.

The mokuto position of the hands and significance of the unseen vase is an emptying and readiness to move forward; a willingness to learn and grow; and abandonment of the ego. (White)

Sitting on the ground, we rest our knees and feet upon the fertile earth (Yellow), with your back straight - yet flexible like a young bamboo shoot (Green) we reach up for the blue sky (Blue).

The eventual and lucid moments of Clear Mind are the first fruits (Red), and eventually and finally, a fullness, a fearlessness (Solace) and immunity to darkness (Black).

Comfortable in your Misery?

People hate me.
They hate me because I see the truth.
I know.
I've broken the rule.
I'm not supposed to say that.
You may have already said it out loud and if you haven't yet, you're thinking it:
How deluded I must be. How arrogant.

I've seen the animosity towards me at my work.
I've seen it at home.
I can't say I've seen it in my friends, because, let's be honest here, I really don't have many.
I have seen it and been ostracized from spiritual and church groups.
I've seen things in myself I wish I hadn't.

The vast majority of people I see and know don't really want to solve problems.
They simply want them to go away. The simple truth of the matter is, problems won't just go away. They need to be resolved and more often than not, a change is needed on one's own behalf; and that involves seeing the undeniable truth.

Many people are happy in their misery.
I know, it seems silly.
People are comfortable and secure in the misery they know rather than in the uncertainty of change; and that is what truth brings.

The truth - in the beginning - is usually an ugly thing. It doesn't need to be defended. It's difficult or impossible to attack. The best and worst somebody can do is clearly see it, or outright deny it. And which of these are 'best' and 'worst' can be debated.

If we deny it, we need to perform a sort of voluntary delusion upon ourselves. (And if we can lie to ourselves, there's no end to the possibilities).
If we clearly see it, we can never unsee it. I can never be unlearned.

Ugly.

A convenient 'out' is when a third party is involved in our seeing of the truth; when somebody reveals it to us.
Then that third party - that person can be blamed, held responsible, discredited, debated, or denied... rather than the truth they're carrying.

People hate me...
...they don't really... They hate what they see.They are frightened by what they see.
...but the end result is the same.
I'm no longer sure I'm comfortable in my misery.

Why Create?

I've asked and pondered this question numerous times before.
Why does God create?
Why does God need to create or want to create? This leads to the more pointed question of why does God need or want to create flawed (or even fallen!) beings?

If, as the major monotheistic religions claim, God is utter perfection and nothing can add or is needed to add to it, why is there this need or desire?

Search as you will, I do not believe you'll find any legitimate or logical answer within the big three monotheistic religions' theologies. You can't because it's simply not there.

I believe you need to more beyond them to even begin to get a glimmer of an answer.

Evolution.

Cosmic evolution - which ultimately leads to all other forms of evolution - chemical, biological, social - is a real and omni-active force in the universe.
We are God's manifest expression of it.

If Evolution was not a real and ever active force of nature within our universe, then Entropy would have to reign and rule supreme (as states the second law of thermodynamics)... yet it doesn't. (Schrödinger states that life feeds on negative entropy, or negentropy).

The Kabbalah answers this.

"We perceive there to be two types of Perfection in absolute divine Perfection: one type of Perfection is so great and complete that no additional evolution is relevant to it.

"If, however, thee were no possibility of additional evolving whatsoever, this in and of itself would be an imperfection. For Perfection that is constantly waxing greater has great advantage and is pleasurable, and is uplifting.

"For we yearn for it exceedingly, proceeding from strength to strength. Diving Perfection can therefore not be lacking the dimension of perfection, which is the evolving process of perfecting and unfolding power.

"This is why divinity has the ability to be creative, to instigate limitless kosmic being and Becoming, proceeding through all its levels and stages and growing.

"It therefore follows that the essential divine soul of Being, that which gives it life, is its constant ascending. That is its divine foundation, which calls it to be and to evolve..." Abraham Kook

Most monotheistic theology acknowledges and recognizes this first type of Perfection, but either fails to recognize the second or outright denies it.

Atheism and/or Scientism fails in this same regard, with its insistence of evolution being an absolute chaotic and random thing. There is no reason to believe this. This is nothing more than a favoured chosen belief - a statement of fundamentalism.

Evolution does not contradict the nature of the universe or "God".
("We do not need to subscribe to the old biblical worldview of a God separate from reality, guiding it from without, in order to recognize the radical intelligence that animates reality. 
The idea that evolution is a random, chance unfolding, which is not internally animated... is and absurdity. Statistically, it is billions of times less likely than a monkey typing out War and Peace." Marc Gafni, "Your Unique Self", pg. 119)

To preempt this entire question both atheist and non-atheist alike will have to revisit and re-explore their definitions of "God". In fact, maybe the term "God", in any positive or negative context, should be abandoned. It's a loaded word. Too much baggage.

The issue of Entropy vs. Evolution (Life) seriously needs to be addressed and explored (not debated. This shouldn't become an issue of who's right).

Our understanding of the universe, both scientific and theologic, is clearly missing pieces and/or flawed.

Of Patterns and Paths

"Most people live haphazard lives subject to the varying winds of fortune. Many are forced by the situation in which they were born and the necessity of earning a living to keep to a straight and narrow road in which there is o possibility of turning to the right or to the left. Upon these the pattern is imposed. Life itself has forced it on them. But the artist is in a privileged position. The artist can within certain limits make what he likes of his life. In other callings, in medicine for instance or the law, you are free to choose whether you will adopt them or not, but having chosen, you are free no longer. You are bound by the rules of your profession; a standard of conduct is imposed upon you. The pattern is predetermined. It is only the artist, and maybe the criminal, who can make his own." W. Somerset Maugham, "The Summing Up"

I came across this quote recently and it both struck me and stuck with me.
...partially because it's true, partially because it's somewhat sad.

Returning to the Torn Veil

What does returning to the Torn Veil look like?

Modern day Western religions all have 2 sacred cows in common.

Membership (or proselyting) and tithing. (It's ironic that Jesus – through the Torn Veil – attempted to break or do away with these things).

We face a few difficult challenges and obstacles here.

Firstly we (collectively) must admit that part of the human condition includes Spirituality. No, not necessarily Religion. (There's a difference). Atheism is a knee-jerk reaction (and rightfully so) to Religiosity, but never-the-less just as unhealthy as Religiosity.

Atheists too have their Spiritual aspects or facets, although many are unwilling to admit it, or will choose not to label it “Spiritual”.

This is the first challenge and obstacle. Collectively admitting that Spirituality is a Human Condition.

This 'knee-jerk reaction' is to what we understand religion to be; namely, Western Modern day religion with their 2 (primary) Sacred Cows.

What are its obsession with Membership and Tithing all about?

Well, look at it like this: You want people to either desire or need what you're selling in order to create a revenue-stream.

That's a business model. That's a good Business Model.

But it's a lousy Spiritual one.

Interestingly, if we look at some large Eastern religions, we see something very different. I'll could Buddhism and Taoism. (I won't use Hinduism because, although its population or numbers are very high, it's extremely concentrated in specific geographic locals).

Now, to be fair - especially for those naysayers and those who simply love to be right and refute others - if you want to throw stones at Buddhism and Taoism there is plenty of ammo. Both are very old religions. Taoism has really two facets. What I'll call Folk Taoism and Modern Taoism. Fold Taoism is where you'll see the stories of gods and Divine people and the like. Mythology to be sure. Same goes with Buddhism. What further complicates matters is that Taoism (for example) is not structured like Western Religions and often doesn't make sharp distinctions between these two aspects. My point being, if you want to throw stones, there's plenty to throw.

But, a few points worth noting are that these two religions do not focus on proselyting, evangelizing, or membership. They are not built upon the Business Model. There's build upon a Spiritual one. (I believe that in our Western worldview and values, we have left Capitalism run amok).

In fact, the Dalai Lama says to “Stay in your own religion and mediate”, not to convert to Buddhism. Not only is this not proselyting, it is its very opposite.

Taoism promotes simply finding truth. 

Because things in the world change, there is no reason to hold tightly on to any reaching or establishment that began tow or three thousand years ago. Only the helpful principles that were taught should be followed, because principles do not change. All good principles can merge together as one good unified principle that exists prior to any of the momentary teachings that were developed." Master Hua-Ching Ni

These are not about building Empire, the growth of membership, or the amassment of wealth.

Two other (lesson) sacred cows Modern Western Religion hold onto are Doctrine and Self-identity.

The 'big' Western Religions (among others) focus on self-identity. If you are a Christian, then you are a Christian. You must self-identity as such. As with Muslim, as with Jews.

Not so with the Eastern.

“Both Confucianism and Taoism complement each other, however incompatible they seem at first to be. The former places a man in his proper relation to his fellow men, the latter in proper relation to nature. A third philosophy, Buddhism, though introduced from India, deals with the problem of human suffering and with man's ultimate destiny. These three inheritances... have moulded the thinking not only of the Chinese people but of all Eastern Asian. There is truth, then, in the common saying that every Chinese wears a Confucian cap, a Taoist robe, and Buddhist sandals.” Arthur W. Hummel, Former Head, Division of Orientalia Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., 1962, Forward to the Tao Teh Ching.

There isn't this obsession with self-identity as there is in the West.

(Ask yourself, could a Westerner readily claim to hold Christian, Muslim, Jewish values; a sort of Freelance Monotheist? Well, few do, but they aren't openly accepted. They're always accused of sitting on the fence).

The secondary minor Sacred Cow Modern Western Religion holds onto is that of Doctrine.

Although Doctrine is often held to be the glue that maintains truth, order, tradition, and structure, it sadly is not the case. It also includes inflexibility, stagnate growth, control, and simply being right; defending one's position at the expense of the truth.

“Doctrine” begins in a position of having a truth and then defending it, rather than legitimately discovering and exploring the truth.

One starts at the end hypothesis and moves to defend it, while the other begins without the hypothesis and move to discover and explore it.

There's a drastic difference between these two actions. 

The "Doctrine-paradigm" sees truth backwards. It doesn't really allow for its exploration. 

The Buddha provided examples and a framework to test his teachings. Nothing was expected to be taken at face-value or carte-blanche. 

Taoism holds onto what I call Zero-Doctrine. Again, a focus on mental flexibility. 

My point in all this isn't to sell Eastern Religions, but to provide a contrast. A measuring stick to hold up against Modern Western Religions. A mirror of sorts.

What does exploring The Torn Veil really look like? I think we need to begin by looking far to the East.

Zero-Doctrine

Contrary to what many claim, Doctrine is not about truth, structure and order. It is about control and being right.
For those of you that know me, know that I am not a fan of Doctrine. I absolutely do not subscribe to Doctrine. But neither do I hold to chaos or anarchy. I hold value in traditions, structure and order.
Many believe you cannot hold on to tradition, structure or order without Doctrine.
You most certainly can.

I hold onto the concept of Zero-Doctrine.
The general meaning of the word zero is "nothing", so from the words "zero doctrine" you might think it means no doctrine, as in a lack of doctrine or discipline. (That is close to some Taoist teaching of the Tao, because it doesn't focus on any point of view).

Zero-Doctrine is neutral, like zero, being neither a positive nor a negative. It doesn't hold any particular point of view or worldview. It doesn't carry any prejudice. It rejects extremes.

However, if we continue along this path of understanding, we could mistakenly believe there is nothing to Zero-Doctrine; and that couldn't be further from the truth.

Ultimately, the truth is something that cannot be defined by words.

What is definable is an individual's point of view, culture, (subculture), worldview, temperament, quality of mind, education level, and emotions. All these things came together to create that individual's understanding of truth. But that's still not the truth; only an expression of it.

If you are going to define the truth, your definition does not define the truth.
Pause for a moment, reread the sentence and think about it.... It defines your point of view of the truth.

"Because things in the world change, there is no reason to hold tightly on to any reaching or establishment that began tow or three thousand years ago. Only the helpful principles that were taught should be followed, because principles do not change. All good principles can merge together as one good unified principle that exists prior to any of the momentary teachings that were developed." Master Hua-Ching Ni, Entering the Tao, pg 9

Subscribing to Doctrine - like subscribing or following most religions - is like a bus that says it'll take you to this awesome summer camp! But in reality, what it ultimately does it deliver you to a concentration camp. You need to choose where to exit this bus before it arrives at its destination.

Integral truth is not uniting all religions.
It is doing away with all religions.
It is the end of religion.

What is Zero-Doctrine?

In a school classroom there is a blackboard.
When something is taught, often the teacher will draw pictures or a diagram on the blackboard to help the students better understand... but once the blackboard is full, what does the teacher do? She wipes it clean and makes ready for the next lesson. The board - or whatever's on it - is not the truth.

The is Zero-Doctrine.

It is the empty balance point at which a clear decision can be made.
Zero-Doctrine is to return to the point of clarity and keep your mind flexible.
If you have already placed a doctrine in your mind (most religions and definitely religiosity), it means your flexibility of mind is already lost.
You are fixed (and fixated!) to that doctrine at the expense of progress and growth. That is where a person's spirit dies.

If you have Clear Mind - flexible mind - you can develop your mind, renew you mind, find a solution, or a new replacement idea... and even upgrade and interchange Doctrine(s).

Unfettered Through Demise

If, when, or once a Christian follows the idea; the concept; the path of Repairing the TornVeil, where will it lead them?

Is this a jumping point to a Mu Portal? I believe it is; it has to be, because the most common type of Christianity today (Churchianity) is, by its very nature, entrapping. The most common 'brand' of Christianity today (well intended or not) is some form or variation of having had attempted to repair the torn veil. It is reestablishing a system that Yeshua broke – and more importantly – left broken.

From what I've seen, experienced and witnessed, all churches are delivery systems. 

They are supposed to deliver you to God - and many legitimately intend to - but they all ultimately have small print at the bottom of the contract. They all - in some form or another - have themselves and their own interests, as part of the deal. They will all delivery you into their church as well.

I don't think a church's job is to deliver you to God; maybe to Solace or Compassion... but not God. It suggests that God can't be found outside a church, or that any alien encounter with the divine outside of church is in need of proper interpretation. 

In my personal experiences with God, the vast majority and by far and away most powerful encounters, have been anywhere but associated with a church. They have always been in the wild (figuratively). They have been raw, untamed, and unorthodox. They have always been impossible to conveniently fit into a box or neat category. If anything, they defy categorization.

I think - at some point - Christians and Christianity, need to realize and admit and embrace the facts of the Torn Veil. Christianity needs to abandon its obsession with membership and attendance. It needs to abandon its ambitions of Empire. It needs to give up its addiction of the ancient and obsolete tithing system. It needs to understand any system resembling a Leviticus one is long since done.  If anything at all, possibly a Melchizedekian one. (Whatever that looks like, if anything).

Yeshua broke religion as a system itself.

He attempted to free us from the fetters of religion. He failed so far. Sadly, in their ignorance, most Christians follow a God who failed... and his failure is on them.

Christianity is one of the few world religions that is pregnant with potential. It has a potential that few or no other religions do.

It has the potential to realize its full fruition and evolve past religiosity. To my limited knowledge, no other religion contains within itself that seed.

But it's only a potential at this moment in history. It necessitates a drastic paradigm shift. To those few within this confined entrapment that may see, will only see it as a potential for self-destruction. They will put their energy towards hiding or preventing this paradigm shift, hoping to arrest what they perceive as their only hope for emancipation.

Christianity's only hope and salvation lies in its abandonment and demise. It can lead the way. It can set the example. How ironic that teaching comes directly from its founder.

The Burden Machination

(A continuation from The Cleansing)

I had thought that my mother's death 27 years ago was the catalyst for my searching; my seeking out theological answers; the beginning of my spiritual journey.

I'd realized that answers weren't very difficult to find. Truth was a bit more tricky. But where the real challenge lay, was finding the right questions.
This became an ever morphing, shape-shifting sojourney.

But in the end - I realize only now - what I had been doing all along was mapping out a path to my solace; an exploration of the machinery that would unburden and free me.

~

I've always believed and knew there is truth in fiction.
My wife and I have just finished watching a new NetFlix Original series called Happy Valley.

(Spoiler alert)
Two characters in the series are raped. One takes her own life; the other doesn't. There's a point where the surviving rape victim decides that her mother- who is dying of cancer - never needs to know; that she never need carry that burden of knowledge.
What a difficult and heroic act.

I remember my father telling me years ago that my mother had once been beaten up and raped; that the attacker had never been found or brought to justice.
He told me after we returned from Germany in 1979 but before I started High School in 1983. That would have made me between 12 and 14 years ago.

Why would he share this with me?

To what purpose? To what end?
Why would you allow your own child to carry such a burden?

There wasn't a question of paternity.
I cannot say that it is something that I ever took lightly or I have ever forgotten. But it is something that I did forget. Maybe buried; maybe forced outside my sphere of awareness might be more accurate.

It was something that could never be resolved. Nothing good could ever come from it.

Although I think I know why, there really isn't any point or answer... it's a rhetorical question.
It's a role a very close, or best friend, should fulfill. Not your child. Some truths are best taken to your grave.

But it made me see something so clearly. The past 27 years were a very long progress of purgation.
It was never a spiritual journey. I was never going "anywhere". It was a spiritual sojourn. It was returning to myself as I had been, or should have been. It was a spiritual emancipation; a spiritual healing, or regeneration, or rejuvenation.

Watching Netflix's Happy Valley triggered the memory; brought it to the fore.
It was the first time I shared it with my wife of 25 years.
Needless to say, she was surprised. Surprised by the nature of it itself, and surprised that I had never shared it before.

I had always thought that sharing it was doing the same injustice onto others that had been inflicted onto me. Throw in a Christian concept of Total/Partial Depravity, and the hopelessness and isolation is complete. So I kept it to myself. ... what horrible, vicious, entrapping circles... I was afraid sharing it would make me into whatever my father was guilty of. I even question the integrity of posting this online; wondering if it is little more than "airing my dirty laundry".

It doesn't.
It didn't.
And it hasn't.
It isn't, and never was, my burden.

Piece, by piece, burden by burden, I refuse to carry someone else's guild, shortcomings, regret... I don't have a simple catchall word for it.
...I have spend decades buried. Trapped.
These horrible, vicious circles now lay broken.

I'm not sure if I am free yet or not.
I'm not sure I can readily identify all of these demons. But now I'm aware.
I can clearly see the way forward.

Misconceptions

A friend, and significant spiritual influence, of mine recently began asking questions of some old posts/ideas of mine.

The final question asked in The Christian Criterion: Lines of Division was, what exactly was the core teachings of Jesus.
I think this links itself to a much older question I once posed in Repairing the Torn Veil.

You really cannot make the claim of being an adherent to the teaching of Jesus without having a clear definition - and understanding - of exactly what it was that he taught. (And as the lesson of Matt Mikalatos' Imaginary Jesus hopefully has taught us, we are extremely subjective when it comes to this issue).

If we look at the four gospels exclusively (I want to keep this simple) what we see is a man performing miracles, and miracles occurring around this same man. (This is an important distinction).
I hope we can agree that - at the least - he was a great wisdom teacher.

I don't want to get bogged down into the arguments of whether he was divine or an incarnation of God, or the unique Son of God. I think this is missing the point, and if this becomes the main point, I believe we've totally lost our way.

I want to strip this down to the bare bones. I think we can agree, as a lowest common denominator, that he was at least a great wisdom teacher.

He taught through parables (and let's remember, the parables were a teaching tool, not the teaching itself). He taught (sometimes) through example, and he taught (or the recorders of these events) taught through symbolism.
But what did he teach?

From the context of Old Testament Judaism - he was Jewish and he was a rabbi - maybe a heretical one - but a rabbi never-the-less.
This cannot be ignored and this cannot be viewed through the modern day Christian lens.

~

I think some very common and fundamental terms need to be reviewed here.
The concept of "Holy", "Sin", "Sheol" (Hades?), Hell's prototype Gehenna, and even the afterlife to name a few.

"In the Hebrew Bible there is no eternal afterlife, only the survial of your name/culture/nephesh (meaning breath, life-force, spirit) through children. This is why we have the commandment to honor your mother and father; because by ignoring or forsaking them you effectively put a permanent end to their identity and heritage. Barrenness, the inability to conceive a child, meant a couple's total extinction, eradication from history." J. Snodgrass, "Genesis and the Rise of Civilization", pg. 135

The Old Testament held little to no concept of an Afterlife. Certainly nothing like modern day Christianity does.

It was an unclear, fuzzy idea at best. They held the idea of Sheol, an abode of the dead. Not a Hell of Eternal Conscious Torment, or even of suffering. Both the righteous and the morally corrupt went to Sheol. There was no moral judgement.
In fact, the concept of Sheol was very similar to the Greek concept of Hades. These were not Hell.
In Edward W. Fudge's "The Fire That Consumes", chapter 6, section "Sheol in the Old Testament" (pg. 81-82) we see this fleshed out in detail.

Even Hell's prototype, Gehenna, wasn't the Hell of Eternal Conscious Torment either.

"It is fair to say... Gehenna would convey a sense of total horror and disgust. Beyond that, however, one must speak with extreme caution.

"It is commonly said that Gehenna served as Jerusalem's garbage dump, "a necessary hygienic incinerator outside the walls"... Here the fires burned day and night, destroying garbage and purifying the atmosphere... In times of war the carcasses of vanquished enemies might mingle with the refuse... they were destined to be destroyed in the fires that were never quenched". Edward W. Fudge's "The Fire That Consumes", pg. 161-162

What we see is a reference to a very real geographical location anyone listening to the story would readily know of. No different to the local dump just outside my city. I know where it is. I know what it is. I could even go there and see it if I wanted to.
It was a parable and teaching tool that took on a life of its own and seems to have became something it was never intended to be.

Again, viewed through the lens and context of Old Testament Judaism, we do not find any sort of Hell of Fire and Brimstone and judgement.

...and what of the Holy and the Sinful?

"...we must be very cautious about assuming we know what "Sin" means in this context, or in any." J. Snodgrass, "Genesis and the Rise of Civilization", pg. 157

 Too often, we have been told/taught that Sin is somehow linked or associated with sex or desire or the like.

"The Sodom story is sometimes read as a "proof text" against homosexuality. But what these men are proposing is not consensual gay sex, it's gang-rape: forcefully and deliberately tearing away someone's dignity. Sex is not the crime they're punished for - the crime is abusing a guest

"The "sin" of Sodom is not sodomy, it's inhospitality." J. Snodgrass, "Genesis and the Rise of Civilization", pg. 158

But I think it's Marc Gafni who puts its clearest and best,

"In the original, "to sin" does not mean to be bad. It means literally to miss the mark... To sin is to miss the mark, to not properly understand the nature of reality. Sin is a form of ignorance, a false or partial relationship to reality." Marc Gafni, "Your Unique Self: The Radical Path to Personal Enlightenment", pg. 24-25

And this comes from somewhere and leads to something.

"We shape our God, and then our God shapes us... [if] that God is angry, demanding, a slave driver, and so that God's religion becomes a system of sin management" Rob Bell, "Love Wins" pg. 183

"Sin", from its original context, meant to miss the mark. Not to be morally corrupt or 'bad'.

It is interesting to note that what we today define as “holy” is absolutely not as the Hebrews defined it. The Hebrew word of holy is kaddosh, which does not mean a state of moral perfection nor has anything to do with morality. It means “otherness”, not natural, but supernatural, not of this world, but alien.
Not in the tribal sense of not of our tribe (an outsider), but something so unlike us as to be near incomprehensible.

When we see "Holy", "Sin", "Hell" through this lens, we seriously need to question what Jesus' teaching(s) were. Heaven, Hell, Salvation, all change meanings or become moot.

"Jesus is bigger than any one religion.

"He didn't come to start a new religion, and he continually disrupted whatever conventions or systems or establishments that existed in his day. He will always transcend whatever cages and labels are created to contain and name him, especially the one called "Christianity"

"Jesus is supracultural.He is present within all cultures and yet outside of all cultures.He is for all people,and yet he refuses to be con-opted or owned by any one culture.That includes any Christian culture. Any denomination. Any church. Any theological system." Rob Bell, "Love Wins", pg. 150-151

The symbolism - whether enacted by Jesus himself or whomever recorded/penned the story - of the tearing of the veil is, in all likelihood, the singular most important lesson in his entire teachings - maybe even superseding the crucifixion and resurrection.

What, I believe, we are seeing in his teaching, is, ultimately, the end of religion. All of religion.
But what does that mean, and what does that look like?
I think a good play to start is the following:

"Everyone agrees: we need to wake up... In what way are we asleep, and consequently, in what way do we need to wake up? Each stream of culture, including psychology, spirituality, evolutionary theory and more, answers this question differently... no major stream of knowing is smart enough to be entirely wrong...each claim... is true, but partial... The problem starts when a partial claim to truth claims to be the whole story. When parts pretend to be wholes... the result is cancer in the body or body politic." Marc Gafni, "Your Unique Self", pg. 44 

(This final pic is a link well worth following and checking out)